Sitting of 13 January 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATHS OF MEMBERS
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the deaths of Capt. Henry Kerby, Member for Arundel and Shoreham, and of George Jeger, esquire, Member for Goole, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Members.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Primary School Building
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now list the additional allocations to each education authority for primary school building.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): My right hon. Friend has asked education authorities for their proposals by 1st March. He will allocate the extra £4 million which is being made available for primary school building starting in 1972–73 when he has considered the projects that are proposed.
    Mr. Eadie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the Answer, but would he not agree that the amount of the financial allocation which local education authorities in Scotland have been led to believe they are likely to receive only tinkers with the problem? What response has he had from education authorities about this matter?
    Mr. Taylor: I think that most education authorities are very glad indeed to have the extra finance made available to them. Although the hon. Gentleman says that the financial allocation tinkers with the problem, I remind him that it is additional to the allocations made only about a year ago by the previous Government.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will all the schools built prior to and in 1903 be replaced from the extra money being made available to local authorities?
    Mr. Taylor: It is impossible to say because the condition of schools varies, apart from the date when they were built. Some old schools are in a very sound condition and have been modernised and improved. I cannot give any assurance, but the extra money will certainly make things easier for local authorities in Scotland.

    Housing Subsidies
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to make a statement giving details of his discussions with local authorities on housing subsidies.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Discussions started on 8th January, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development met the local authority associations. At this stage I have no further statement to make.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great concern in Scotland about the lack of information on the Government's financial policy for housing? We learn more from the Press than we learn in the House. When is the Working Party likely to report and what are its precise terms of reference? The right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to give this information.
    Mr. Campbell: I learned from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development that the meeting on 8th January covered a wide range of subjects. The Working Party will report as soon as it can. On the question of information, I can only say that hon. Members opposite must be either illiterate or deaf because I have given replies on this subject on at least three occasions in the last two months.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Secretary of State intend to consult the new town development corporations? Does he not recognise that if there is a decrease in housing subsidies it will hit very hard the tenants of houses in new towns where they have not the rates to fall back on?
    Mr. Campbell: That confirms what I have just said. In three replies in the last two months to Questions in the House I have categorically stated that the present subsidies are to be not reduced but redirected. The aim is not to reduce the present amount. I shall be having consultations with the new town corporations.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that local authorities in Scotland are alarmed that £10 or £20 million is to be cut from the general subsidy? That is the import of the last statement on the matter. Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is very important that a White Paper on this subject should be published at once or as soon as possible? Approvals and submissions to the Department are falling at a catastrophic rate because local authorities are alarmed by the right hon. Gentleman's proposals.
    Mr. Campbell: The proceedings and the discussions are, of course, confidential, but the information which the hon. Gentleman has given is wrong, for there is no proposal to cut the present amount of housing subsidies. That is the savings which it is intended will be obtained by the mid-seventies. If the previous system had continued the amount would have escalated, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should know, and they would, undoubtedly, have changed it. As regards—
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: What about a White Paper?
    Mr. Campbell: As for the suggestion about a White Paper, I will consider it when the present negotiations, which are confidential, are completed. They will be carried out as soon as possible. There was no sign, when my hon. Friend had those discussions last week, of any alarm among local authorities.

    Rossend Castle
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gourlay—Question No. 3.
    Mr. Gourlay: Before I ask my Question, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed to extend to you my warmest congratulations on your election to the Chair. As a former Deputy Speaker, I think I can appreciate better than most Members the onerous task you have now undertaken, and I wish you good health in performing your duties in the future.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Burntisland Town Council regarding the future of Rossend Castle; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): My right hon. Friend has received no formal representations from the Town Council. Rossend Castle is listed as a building of special architectural or historic interest, and any proposals for demolishing it or altering its character will be subject to the procedures laid down in Part V of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1969.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that Rossend Castle was technically demolished, and would have been actually demolished but for an engineering fault in the equipment, before the Minister was given the power by Parliament to invoke these powers which he has now been given in practice? Is he not ashamed to have allowed himself to be pressurised by his political friends and other oddities in Scotland to preserve everything Mary Queen of Scots looked at or Bonnie Prince Charlie sat on, and will he now respect the wishes of the majority of the people of Burntisland and withdraw this Order from this crumbling ruin?
    Mr. Younger: I do not think that either Mary Queen of Scots or Bonnie Prince Charlie was involved in this building, but I would say to the hon. Gentleman that the only purpose of the action which my right hon. Friend has taken with regard to this building is to ensure its protection for such time as is

    39
    necessary to establish whether there is the possibility of a viable scheme to preserve it. That is the sole purpose of the action taken.

    Probation Service
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Brewis—Question No. 4.
    Mr. Brewis: Before I ask my Question, Mr. Speaker, may I reciprocate from this side the good wishes to you expressed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay)?
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many probation officers are in service in Scotland; and how this compares with 1968.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Since local authorities in Scotland assumed responsibility for probation in November, 1969, as part of their responsibility for social work, no social workers have been designated as probation officers. In December, 1968, there were 279 probation officers.
    Mr. Brewis: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the working of the Social Work Act, and that there are sufficient properly qualified people to do the work of the courts now that the Act is in operation?
    Mr. Taylor: There have been difficulties in some areas due to staff shortages, but these are being gradually overcome by measures which have been taken to increase the number of trained social workers. Over 1,000 full-time social workers are now employed by local authorities, but no central record is kept of how many actually undertake probation as part of their duties.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Would the Under-Secretary please give us some indication of when he will activate that Section of the Act which will bring into operation children's hearings?
    Mr. Taylor: I indicated previously that it was our intention that the new arrangements would start at about the beginning of April, and it is my hope and intention to adhere to this programme.
    Mr. Carmichael: The Minister has mentioned recruiting. Will he keep this point before him, because one of the problems just now is that so many of the social workers, particularly probation
    40
    officers, have such very heavy case loads that it does not allow them to use their talents and training to the best? We need a great increase in the number of trained social workers, and I should like to hear from him that he will in future take steps to increase the number of trained people in this field.
    Mr. Taylor: I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman said, but I think he knows that the Government have indicated their concern for expanding social work by the fact that it is the fastest growing social service in Scotland at present so far as finance is concerned.

    Electricity Supplies
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to secure adequate electricity supplies during the winter months.
    Mr. Younger: I understand from the Electricity Boards that supplies should be adequate to meet the estimated maximum demand in Scotland, assuming normal winter weather and normal working in the industry.
    Mr. Brewis: I am very glad to hear that reply. Would my hon. Friend consider publishing the rules to which people work when they are working to rule, so that the public can judge whether men are working to rule or are on strike?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend that a certain amount of puzzlement was to be noticed among the public as to what were those rules, in particular. I can tell him that, due to the results of the work-to-rule which took place last month, we are, with the Electricity Boards concerned, looking into emergency arrangements necessary for maintaining supplies at times like that.

    New Factories
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the number of new factories he has been invited to open in Scotland in 1971.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have so far received four invitations to ceremonies concerned with the opening of new factories in 1971, three of which I have been able to accept.
    Mr. Hunter: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that had it not been for the effective regional policies of the last Administration he would not be performing at those functions? Would he, in addition, while looking forward to carrying out those pleasant duties, not give more attention to the present series of closures and partial closures of factories in Scotland and try to reverse this trend?
    Mr. Campbell: I would not necessarily accept the first point which the hon. Gentleman made—
    Mr. Ross: Why not?
    Mr. Campbell: —because the policies of the last four years have led to extremely high unemployment in Scotland this winter, starting with a figure of 93,000 a few days after we took office—in July, in midsummer. It is for this reason that we are changing the policies in order to get the longer-term prospects better.
    Mr. John Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that in my constituency there is an advance factory which was completed by the last Government and which was ready for occupation in July, although there are very few signs that there will be any incoming tenant for it? Will he give me some assurance that it will not remain a mock of the good endeavours of the last Government, or an indication of the failure of this Government to attract industry to Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: Is the hon. Member aware of another factory sitting idle in my constituency—and sitting idle for three years—and that I was busy trying to get the last Government to do something about it? Already, in the last six months, we have announced new policies which we are bringing into effect as soon as we can, with the assistance of this House where legislation is required, in order to get the growth and improvement which, I hope, both sides of the House wish to see.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that we gave him a legacy of about 55,000 new jobs through I.D.C.s which had been approved, and which it is too late for him now to refuse, when unemployment is rising, and rising seriously, in Scotland, and that none of those
    42
    policies he has announced is doing anything but worsen the situation?
    Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman gave us a legacy of 93,000 unemployed in Scotland in midsummer. As regards I.D.C.s, the I.D.C.s in Scotland within 12 months from June, 1969, to June, 1970, before we came into office, reflected a reduction of 34 per cent. in jobs against the previous 12 months.

    New Roads (Opening Ceremonies)
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland for how many new roads in Scotland he has been invited to perform the opening ceremony in 1971; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: Completion of four new trunk road or bridge schemes of sufficient importance to justify opening ceremonies of this kind are envisaged this year and my right hon. Friend is likely to be available to open two of them. In addition, he has so far been invited to open one new local authority scheme.
    Mr. Hunter: Does not the Minister agree that this is another highlight in the progressive road-building programme followed by the Labour Government? Will he assure the House that this progress will be maintained?
    Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman looks into this, he will find that virtually all these programmes were set out originally in the White Paper produced by the last Conservative Government in 1963. The only thing that makes me slightly sorry is that the previous Government were not able to get on with the programme faster than they did.
    Mr. Sillars: Will the Minister tell us whether one of the new roads to be opened in 1971 will be the Ayr bypass? If either the Secretary of State or the Minister performs the opening ceremony, will a promise be given to the people in that area that the bypass will become a dual carriageway road within 12 months?
    Mr. Younger: I very much hope that the road mentioned by the hon. Member will be one of those to be opened this year. The type of road that is being built was laid down by his right hon. Friend before I came to office and it is quite impossible for me to alter it at this stage.
    Mr. MacArthur: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether it is his intention to organise an opening ceremony for the Edinburgh—Perth motorway when it is completed one year sooner than planned by the Labour Government'?
    Mr. Younger: I certainly hope that it will now be possible to achieve the completion of the M90 motorway to Perth in 1975 instead of 1976 as was proposed by the previous Administration, and I also hope that there will be an opening ceremony appropriate to the occasion.

    Industrial and Military Sports Facilities
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what study he is making for the use of industrial and military sports facilities by the whole community.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: The use by the general public of industrial sports facilities in Scotland is being considered by the Sports Council for Scotland, and the Government have been examining the possibility of extending the public use of Service sports facilities in Great Britain as a whole. The extent to which such sports facilities are made available to the general public has been increasing and I hope to see a continued improvement.
    Mr. Dalyell: When will the examination be complete?
    Mr. Taylor: This matter is being constantly considered. It is not a question of a particular report coming forward. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that facilities are made available to as wide a section of the public as possible.

    Drug-taking
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what study he is making of drug-taking among school pupils.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: The subcommittee of the Consultative Committee of Medical Officers of Health, whose report on drug misuse in Scotland was issued last May, has been reconvened and will keep this matter under review.
    Mr. Dalyell: I should like to thank the Secretary of State for allowing me to discuss this subject in depth with his
    44
    senior medical advisers and civil servants, but what is meant by "under constant review"?
    Mr. Taylor: What is meant is that we have decided to reconvene this committee so that advice will be made available to us on which action can be taken whenever appropriate.

    Housing
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has now received from local authorities in regard to his inquiry about outstanding housing needs in Scotland; and how many houses were completed in the last quarter of 1970.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: So far I have received replies from 141 local authorities in response to my request for information about their housing lists and housing needs, and these are being analysed. Provisionally, about 10,500 houses were completed in the last quarter of 1970.
    Mr. Rankin: Will the Secretary of State say how the figure for 1970 compares with that for 1969? Will he also say why the previous analyses which were made of Glasgow's housing needs, particularly those in my division of Govan, were not utilised in the inquiries which he has instituted? This would have helped to speed up the solution to the abominable housing conditions in Glasgow.
    Mr. Campbell: The figures for December can be only provisional, and there is another Question on the first point put by the hon. Gentleman. It looks as though in 1970 there is likely to have been a record for allocations of houses in Glasgow and also a record for improvements of older housing. We are aiming at the best combination of such programmes with house building, to provide housing where and in the form in which it is most needed.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Can we take it from what the Secretary of State has said about 1970 being another record year—thanks to the last Labour Government—that there will be the same devotion to the achievement of records as the Under-Secretary of State promised on the last day of the Session before Christmas, namely, a target of 50,000? Will he include that in his White Paper?
    Mr. Campbell: No such target was given in my hearing, and that will no doubt be looked up in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There was a considerable drop in approvals and starts in house building about a year before we took office. This may have been a positive policy by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. But we certainly regard as important the other parts of the housing programme, namely, slum clearance, improvements and allocation of houses, as well as house building.

    Scottish Office (Economic Advisory Section)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the functions of the Economic Advisory Section in the Scottish Office.
    Mr. Oswaldasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the names of his economic advisers.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I draw, for economic advice, upon a wide range of sources: economists employed in the various departments of the Scottish Office, including those in the recently formed Economic and Statistics Unit: my Economic Consultants, a panel of Professors of Economics from the Universities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Strathclyde who, together with my Consultant on industrial matters, meet monthly in St. Andrew's House; and, of course, the members of the Scottish Economic Council.
    Mr. Douglas: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply, but does he not concur that what is wrong with the Scottish economy is not the inadequacy or the quality of the economic advice offered to him but his insufficiency in carrying out the good advice? Will he do something about the malaise into which the Scottish economy is getting, and not present to the Scottish people a series of petty and spurious excuses?
    Mr. Campbell: I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are doing something about the malaise in which we found the Scottish economy on arrival in office. That is the reason for the changes, amongst others, announced at the end of October. We are continuing a review of the previous system so as to avoid the stagnation
    46
    and high unemployment which we found on arrival in office.
    Mr. MacArthur: When my right hon. Friend makes his economic studies, will he consider by what process of planning his predecessor was able to promise the people of Scotland 60,000 extra jobs by 1970 and succeed in losing 82,000?
    Mr. Campbell: I certainly am not above trying to learn from other people's mistakes, but I intend to concentrate on the future.
    Mr. Ross: Can the Secretary of State tell us when we shall see this improvement?
    Mr. Campbell: I hope during 1971.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Secretary of State agree that there are frequently occasions upon which the degree of squeeze which may be appropriate to England is wholly inappropriate to Scotland? Are his advisers considering proposing various economic and financial measures to suit the differences between the English and Scottish economies?
    Mr. Campbell: These matters and others are all considered by the advisers, and I receive their advice. There is no shortage of advice, but, as the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me probably found, it sometimes conflicts.

    Scottish Council, Development and Industry
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of the Government's financial support to the Scottish Council, Development and Industry.
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to set up a national body to co-ordinate approaches by the increasing number of Scottish organisations, to attract foreign industrialists to Scotland.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development is discussing with the Scottish Council and other bodies concerned how the arrangements for promoting Scotland as an industrial location can be extended and made more effective. I am considering what Government assistance might be given towards the cost of a satisfactory scheme for this purpose.
    Mr. Douglas: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply, but does he not agree that there are dangers in a body like the Scottish Council, which is independent and has acted as a valuable sounding board for policy, being brought too much into the governmental orbit? We do not want the situation to arise from this that the Government withdraw from their rightful rôle of attracting new industry to Scotland.
    Mr. Campbell: I believe that this is a partnership in which the Government have a rôle to play and in which a promotional body for Scotland also has a rôle, working in association with the Government, and it is with that in view that these discussions are taking place.
    Mr. Sproat: I welcome the plans mentioned by my right hon. Friend, but will he assure the House that the regional and local work which has supplied so much of the dynamic in the past will not be stifled by any new agency but will be more productively canalised?
    Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend has hit on another of the matters which must be resolved. We wish to make the best use of the regional efforts and at the same time to make sure that they are co-ordinated, do not compete with each other and do not conflict.

    Manufacturing Industry (Development)
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals the Highlands and Islands Development Board have made to him involving changes of policy towards the development of manufacturing industry; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Younger: The Board has not proposed any fundamental changes of policy towards manufacturing industry in the Highlands. However, it has proposed that it should build advance factories and my right hon. Friend has now authorised it to undertake a limited programme of this kind.
    Mr. Maclennan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Has his right hon. Friend authorised the building of the full programme which was recommended of some 16 advance factories in the Highlands? Could he say whether the lack of change in fundamental
    48
    approach means that the present Board and Government endorse the broad strategy of concentrating on large-scale industrial developments in the three areas of Lochaber, the Moray Firth and Wick and Thurso?
    Mr. Younger: In regard to the first part of the question, we are now urgently discussing with the Board the choice of locations for the first advance factories in the programme and also the number that it will be appropriate to authorise in the first place. On the second part of the question, the new Board and the present Government endorse the work of the previous Board, and although I have not yet had an opportunity of meeting the new Board, when I do so I hope to discuss with them the matters mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his statement will bring great pleasure to the Highlands of Scotland. Has he or the Board received any inquiries in connection with advance factories of this type?
    Mr. Younger: The Board has found from time to time that in its opinion it would be valuable if it had power to build advance factories, and although it has not had any inquiries with specific references to the announcement which I have just made, it no doubt will bear them in mind in the future.

    Highlands and Islands (Land Use)
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received from the Highlands and Islands Development Board relating to the improvement of land use in the Highlands and Islands; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend has received no formal proposals of this kind from the Board.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are conflicts between the interests in different land uses in the Highlands and that the exclusivity of the sporting estate is much resented? Has he any proposals for improving the land use, particularly to allow more people to use those facilities and to improve the agricultural use of the hills and uplands in that area?
    Mr. Younger: This is a matter on which it is primarily for the Board to produce proposals. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it has been conducting land use studies in the Strath of Kildonan and on the Isle of Mull. We are looking forward to receiving from the Board the results of those studies.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people hope that the Board will in fact use its powers in regard to land, since there is little point in having teeth if you keep them on the mantelpiece?
    Mr. Younger: No doubt the new Board will bear this matter in mind. I know that the new Board is determined to make a real and worthwhile contribution to develop the Highlands.

    Rate Rebates
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the total amount granted in rate rebates, and the number of rate rebates granted in the financial year ended 14th May, 1970 in the county of Fife and in Kirkcaldy, respectively.
    Mr. Younger: As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that there are many anomalies in administration, particularly in regard to the rate rebate scheme, as between different local authorities in Scotland? Would he consider issuing a standard

    Amount of rate rebate 1969–70

    Number of recipients 1969–70

    1st period

    2nd period

    Total

    1st period

    2nd period

    £

    £

    £

    Fife (all authorities)

    …

    …

    49,406

    49,504

    98,910

    6,380

    6,381

    Fife (landward area)

    …

    …

    9,902

    9,679

    19,581

    1,602

    1,542

    Kirkcaldy

    …

    …

    …

    …

    11,963

    11,695

    23,658

    1,252

    1,228

    Mr. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ratepayers claimed rebates during the past year on grounds of financial hardship; and what is the average amount granted to each.
    Mr. Younger: In 1969–70 rate rebate was granted to about 90,800 domestic
    application form for rate rebates? In view of the present rapid rate of inflation, would he now indicate when he proposes to raise the income level at which maximum rebates are payable?
    Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the income level for rate rebate was raised fairly recently by the previous Government. In regard to anomalies between areas, I have had no representations that this is so; but if the hon. Gentleman has any specific cases which he would like to raise with me, I shall be happy to look at them.
    Mr. John Smith: Would the Minister consider issuing a circular to local authorities asking them to deal with the matter of rate rebate and rent rebate at the same time when application for assistance is made, since many people find it difficult to distinguish between rents and rates? Is not the situation of the poor at present quite ridiculous when one considers the number of applications which they have to make to a myriad of authorities?
    Mr. Younger: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is necessary at present for these matters to be dealt with separately since rent rebate and rate rebate apply to different categories of people and tenants. I hope, however, that when the Government's new housing policy comes into effect, there will be less difference between the categories involved and that at that time it may be possible to amalgamate some of the administration.
    Following is the information:
    ratepayers for the first half-year and to about 91,600 for the second half-year. The average rebate for each half year was £9 14s.
    Mr. Galbraith: As the amount of the rebate is relatively small, though welcome, and in view of the acute hardship which rate increases cause old folk

    51
    living on small fixed incomes, would my hon. Friend consider making a general rebate to all pensioners?
    Mr. Younger: That would be quite a different question and would have to be considered in the course of a general review of social services. As for the effect on ratepayers generally of the increased costs of local authority work, this is one of the reasons, I think, why the previous Administration introduced the rate rebate scheme.

    Teachers, Lanark
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the shortage of teachers in technical subjects in the county of Lanark that will result from the raising of the school-leaving age in 1972.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: It is not possible for my right hon. Friend to make such estimates since he cannot predict the relative success of particular authorities in recruiting additional teachers. He is, however, asking the Education Authority to let the hon. Member have such information as it has about the demand for additional teachers of technical subjects.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the Under-Secretary of State not recognise that at present Lanarkshire is short of about 30 technical teachers? Is he aware that some of the pupils in some areas are not taking 0-level examinations and higher certificates because of the shortage of teachers? Will he also recognise that by 1972 there will be greater emphasis on technical education? Although it is partly a matter for the local authorities, does he not think that it is time that the Government made their own plans?
    Mr. Taylor: I was made fully aware by Lanarkshire authority during my recent visit of the severe problems in this respect. This is one of the reasons that we are making every endeavour to ensure a fairer distribution of teachers throughout Scotland.

    North-East of Scotland
    Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the continuing decline in the population of the North-East of Scotland
    52
    through migration; and what steps he proposes to reverse this trend.
    Mr. Younger: The rate of decline in the population of North-East Scotland has slackened since 1967 and over the last two years the population has been virtually stable. My right hon. Friend has told the local authorities that he will support them in pursuing the strategy and main objectives of the Gaskin Report.
    Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The statistics are extremely confusing. It would be a great help to the public discussion that goes on in the North-East on this subject if my right hon. Friend could publish the statistics on this matter and also his own long-term aims to stop rural depopulation.
    Mr. Younger: I will see what can be done to help my hon. Friend with his request for statistics; I agree that it is necessary for people to have them. In regard to the North-East in general, I wish to pay tribute to the most impressive work done by the North-East of Scotland Development Association and also to the work carried out by the local authorities in the area which have made a fine effort to pull together at this time.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give credit where it is due and confirm that the reason for the slacking off in migration from Scotland was the policies of the last Government? Will he not accept that bodies like the North-East of Scotland Development Association are very much concerned that the kind of economic policy being pursued by the present Government will reverse this trend and will lead us back to the old days of mass migration from the North-East of Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: I do not accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The question of migration generally is a wide one, but the picture over the last five years has been of a great decrease in migration within the United Kingdom because of the fact that under the previous Government's policy it was made less attractive to go to England.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the Minister aware that successive studies have shown that our problems of migration in the North-East are fairly standard, with similar trends throughout the rest of the

    53
    country, but that our difficulty has lain in succeeding in attracting new immigrants into the region? It is in that context that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell) is so welcome in his area.
    Mr. Younger: I agree with what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his question. This is why I am so encouraged at the efforts being made by people in the North-East to encourage others to come into the area and to help the situation.
    Mr. Ross: Would it not be only fair for the hon. Gentleman to take back all he said in 1966? He then said that the migration problem would become worse, instead of which it has become better. The fact is that we managed to halve the migration rate. Why does he not seek to get everybody's co-operation in Scotland to improve the situation? Has there been any worsening of the trend?
    Mr. Younger: I certainly hope, as would the right hon. Gentleman, that the migration figures could not conceivably have got worse than they were in 1967, which was the worst year for a very long time. I welcome very much the fact that they have now got better and I only wish that the unemployment position were better, too.
    Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the recommendation of the Gaskin Report that the location in the North East of some of the offices of Central Government should be given serious consideration; and what action he proposes.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am well aware of the facilities which the North East of Scotland, and other areas, can offer for additional public sector employment. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I will make sure these facilities are given full consideration whenever locations are being decided for new or transferred Government work.
    Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. It would appear that this is an opportunity for creating employment by direct Government initiative, as opposed to encouraging industrialists and others to bring their goods into our part of the world.
    54
    As it is very much in the gift of Government to take these measures, I hope that he will be extremely strong in pressing these points over the next few months.
    Mr. Campbell: The recent White Paper on the reorganisation of central Government stated that we intend to pursue a policy of dispersing Government offices from London. My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that I was a member of the Government who decided to move the National Savings Bank to Scotland, so I know what can be done.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: In view of this comparative success in the North-East, has the Secretary of State any intention, following the precedents of previous Conservative Governments, to de-schedule any part of the area and exempt it from the advantages of the development area grants, or whatever other benefits his Government may achieve?
    Mr. Campbell: I am considering it in the light of the Gaskin Report, which we are not sure that the previous Government accepted. It proposed two growth areas, and there was some doubt whether the previous Government acknowledged that as a method. I am studying the needs of the area and what can be done in future in the light of that Report and other advice.

    Motor Accidents (Impaired Vision)
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage of motor accidents where impaired vision was a contributory cause.
    Mr. Younger: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Galbraith: Would it not be possible for my hon. Friend to find this out? The increase in the number of accidents is a matter for concern. May it not well be that, as people grow older, their eyesight should be tested in the same way as the mechanical facilities of their cars are tested?
    Mr. Younger: I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says, but this is strictly a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is responsible for the conditions upon which driving licences are issued. On the particular point, I

    55
    think that my hon. Friend may agree that it would be difficult to expect anyone at the site of an accident to express an opinion whether the accident was due to defective eyesight in a driver concerned, as that is not assessable without a detailed medical opinion.

    Soil Structure (Research)
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that there are in Scotland adequate facilities for research into soil structure; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Yes, Sir. Different aspects of this research are covered by the Agricultural Colleges and Research Institutes in Scotland and there is also full and free access to information arising from research in England and Wales.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Would my hon. Friend say, in view of the Report published today affecting England and Wales, "Modern Farming and the Soil", which has shown a great need to increase drainage, whether an adequate survey has been made of drainage requirements in Scotland? Second, also in view of what this Report says—that soils cannot be expected to maintain the intensive farming systems imposed on them because of the squeeze on farmers' incomes—is he satisfied that he is right to acquiesce in the British Sugar Corporation's closure of the sugar beet factory at Cupar?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend about the question of drainage. On the second part of his question, about a break crop in Scotland, I would remind him that sugar beet is not the only break crop in Scotland; temporary grass is a major crop. Also the English Report says that there are problems of soil structure in beet-growing areas in England.
    Mr. Dalyell: What conclusions has the Scottish Office drawn from the parlous situation of soil over-use in Northamptonshire, North Oxfordshire and other English counties?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is what the question was about. The Report which
    56
    my hon. Friend mentioned has implications for Scotland. We shall be studying them in that light.

    Scottish Inshore Fishing Fleet
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what increase has taken place in the last three years in the amount of fish landed by the Scottish Inshore Fishing Fleet; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There has over the period been a 23 per cent. increase in landings by weight and 26 per cent. by value.
    Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the fact that we are now reaping the benefit of the extension of fishery limits which took place during the last Conservative Administration, would my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to publish the figures of landings in the countries of the European Economic Community during the same period, so that we can judge whether their catches, in their territorial waters, are going up or down?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Questions of statistics in the countries of Europe are for those countries, but in relation to the Common Market we have entirely reserved our position on fisheries and have made representations to the Common Market about its own policy.
    Mr. Maclennan: In view of these satisfactory figures which the Minister has reported, would he not agree that they show how right were the previous Government in increasing the grants available for the acquisition of new fishing vessels, and how wrong was the decision of the present Government, taken apparently for doctrinaire reasons, to align fishing with manufacturing industry in cutting those grants by 10 per cent.?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is another Question on this point on the Order Paper. In 1966, in dealing with the question of investment grants, the hon. Gentleman's Government also dealt with fishing questions at the same time. What we did was a similar thing in the other direction.
    Following is the information:
    The landings in Scotland by the Scottish inshore fleet were:
    in 1968—5,070,090 cwts., valued at £14,923,910;
    in 1969—5,913,949 cwts., valued at £16,688,784;
    in 1970—figures for December are not yet available, but including an estimated figure for this month, the landings for the whole year would be 6,236,784 cwts., valued at £18,760,902.

    Local Government Finance
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to lay before Parliament his proposals for the reform of local government finance in Scotland.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: It is proposed that a Green Paper extending to Great Britain as a whole will be presented later this year.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: May I take it, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's protestations in opposition, that this Green Paper will precede a paper on the Wheatley reforms of local government in Scotland and the Government's comments on them? Since the right hon. Gentleman promised that White Paper on local government reform in Scotland very soon—I believe this month—may I take it that the Green Paper will be published within the next few days?
    Mr. Campbell: Last February, in the debate on the Wheatley Report in the Scottish Grand Committee, the hon. Gentleman will remember, his right hon. Friend informed me, after I had pressed him two or three times, that this study on finance had begun, and that a Green Paper of this kind would be published. He then said that it would be published some time after the White Paper. When we came to office we found that the financial study had gone so far that it was right for us to allow it to be completed. My White Paper on the reform of local government should be available soon.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Very disappointing.
    Mr. Campbell: It is disappointing as a result of the programmes of the last Government.

    New Industry (West Central Scotland)
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional money he is providing for promotional campaigns in 1971 to attract new industry to West Central Scotland.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I welcome the initiatives being taken to establish a promotional organisation in West Central Scotland and the response which local authorities and other bodies have so far made to these initiatives. It is right that the finance and other resources for these regional efforts should come from the regions concerned, but I am considering what Government assistance might be given to measures for the promotion of Scotland as a whole which could be linked with these regional efforts.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is it not the case that neither of those Answers adds anything to the information which we already have and that it is important that we know how much money is involved in this—just as important as it is to know how the financial reforms in local government will affect the structural reforms?
    Mr. Campbell: I answered an earlier Question about the possibility of finance for the Scottish Council from the point of view of Scotland as a whole. From the point of view of Scotland West, I take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Robin MacLellan, President of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, and the Lord Provost, Sir Donald Liddle, on their initiative in this matter and on the success which they have already had.

    Primary School Classes (Lanarkshire)
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of primary school classes in Lanarkshire with more than 40 pupils.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: I am asking the education authority to send the latest available information to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Hamilton: In being told that the local authority concerned will send me the details, are we seeing a new trend on the part of Conservative Administrations? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities sometimes take as long as 11 weeks to reply to letters from hon.

    59
    Members? Does he not feel that when an hon. Member tables a Question in this House he should be given a reply by the Minister responsible?
    As for my Question, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the E.I.S., which is the main organisation representing the teaching profession, is making a strong plea for primary school classes not to exceed 30 pupils? May we be assured that the good work that was done by the Labour Government in this matter will be continued by the Conservatives and that more primary school teachers will be obtained?
    Mr. Taylor: The recruitment of teachers is the responsibility of the local authority concerned and that is why I am asking it to send the latest available information to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that there will be no undue delay.
    As for the general supply of teachers, the position is improving in primary schools. This year about 2,500 primary school teachers left colleges of education compared with only 1,400 five years ago. A further improvement is expected. I hope that the measures which we have taken to improve distribution will ensure that a good number of these teachers will go to Lanarkshire, where I agree they are needed.

    School-leaving Age
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will refuse applications made to him by education authorities for him to take steps to relieve them of their obligation to raise the school-leaving age to 16 years.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: The Secretary of State has no power under existing legislation to approve any such applications.
    Mr. Rankin: Has the hon. Genleman forgotten that in 1963 the then Conservative Government decided to raise the school-leaving age in Scotland to 16? Now that the Conservatives are back in power, when is that promise likely to be honoured? Now that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have a chance to honour it, what do they intend to do? Will he resist, when he starts doing something about it, any appeals that may be made by local authorities to get out of accepting the Government's will in this
    60
    matter? May we be assured that such authorities will be told that they must follow Government policy?
    Mr. Taylor: I indicated at a recent meeting in Glasgow that it was the Government's present intention to go ahead with arrangements for raising the school-leaving age by the due date. It is not fair, therefore, for hon. Gentlemen opposite to make accusations on this question of the school-leaving age when, as they know from previous Answers, that it is anticipated that there will be a shortage of more than 3,000 secondary school teachers by the planned date for raising the school-leaving age.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter of the school-leaving age on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received from the Scottish inshore fishing industry regarding current negotiations with the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster received a deputation from the Scottish inshore fishermen's associations on 15th December.
    Mr. Sproat: While my hon. Friend may not have received any further representations in the meantime, that does not mean that the inshore fishing industry is satisfied. On the contrary, it believes that the present E.E.C. plans would not merely cause the industry great difficulty but would mean its death within a couple of years. May we be given specific examples of the care that is being taken, rather than general assurances?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am entirely aware of the concern that is felt within the inshore fishing industry and I repeat my assurance that we have entirely reserved our position about fisheries. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to declare our negotiating position in advance while these difficult negotiations are going on.
    Hon. Members: Why not?
    Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is resentment growing in Scotland about the possible effects of our joining the E.E.C.? Will he seek to obtain Scottish opinion not only about the fishing industry but about, for example, the coal and steel industries in relation to the future of the people of Scotland should we join the Community?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Question relates to fishing. I trust that the hon. Gentleman heard me twice give an assurance about our negotiating position in relation to fisheries. I trust that he is not so naive as to think that we could declare the exact details of our negotiating position in advance.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does my hon. Friend realise that the best way to solve this difficulty and at the same time to give protection to our fishing industry would be to keep out of the Common Market altogether and to abandon the negotiations?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes. Another way is to negotiate.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Central Policy Review Staff
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a further statement on the Central Policy Review Staff.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshaw (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 17th December.—[Vol. 808, c. 446.]
    Mr. Sheldon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of constitutional matters arise as a result of the setting up of the Central Policy Review Staff? Will he at least undertake to keep the House fully informed and not to apply secrecy to this important new development? When shall we be told how many members of this staff will be dealing with matters concerning economic policy? May we be given information about further appointments that are being made?
    Mr. Howell: I accept that there are important implications arising from this development and I undertake to see that the House is fully informed at the appropriate time as developments take place. It is too early yet to give the hon. Gentleman the information which he seeks in the remainder of his supplementary question.

    Peterlee (Government Offices)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will transfer the offices of a Government Department to Peterlee.
    Mr. David Howell: We shall consider Peterlee, along with other places in development areas, as a possible location for a dispersed Government office both under the study announced in the White Paper on the Reorganisation of Central Government, Cmnd. 4506, and as cases arise apart from the study.
    Mr. Dormand: In giving a cautious welcome to that Answer, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that the substantial incentives which were offered in the policy of the Labour Government failed to achieve the level and type of employment that the area needs? Is he aware that the policies of the present Government are exacerbating the position? Does he agree that action of the kind I am suggesting is imperative when one has a rising unemployment level of 6·5 per cent., which is the position in the area now?
    Mr. Howell: I do not accept the second proposition and I assure the hon. Gentleman that areas of high unemployment will be given sympathetic consideration. I cannot, however, give a specific commitment in relation to Peterlee at this stage.

    Pay Increases
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will give either actual figures or an estimate of the cost to public funds of the pay increases to higher civil servants and chairmen of nationalised boards since October, 1964.
    Mr. David Howell: The estimated cost to the end of 1970, for the higher Civil Service and chairmen of the main nationalised industry boards, is about £3½ million.
    Mr. Lewis: May we be told why, when these civil servants and higher-paid State employees receive a 62 per cent. increase in two-and-a-half years, this appears to the Government not to be inflationary while a 10 per cent. increase for lower-paid workers appears to be inflationary? May we be given figures of the actual increases that have taken place during this period for these employees?
    Mr. Howell: I am not sure that I accept all of the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic. These increases, of course, flowed from the recommendations of the Plowden Committee, which were put forward when the Labour Party were in power, and represent increases covering a period of years. They must, therefore, be seen in that light.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend accept the relevance of my supplementary question, which is that it is excessively difficult to seek to limit an increase in pay for power workers to 10 per cent. when the heads of the industry in which these men are working receive increases in pay of seven or eight times that amount, utterly without justification?
    Mr. Howell: I see the relevance of my hon. Friend's supplementary question but not its validity, because these increases cover a number of years. When one sees the matter in that light, one sees a fairer and more sensible picture.

    Overtime
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister for the Civil Service to what extent industrial and other civil servants are engaged on overtime; and what action he is taking to reduce such overtime.
    Mr. David Howell: Overtime varies from Department to Department and according to the nature and volume of the work. Individual Departments and their local managements decide what overtime is necessary; they are under standing instructions to keep it to the minimum. A number of the productivity agreements now operating in the industrial Civil Service provide for a reduction in overtime.
    Mr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Has not a committee recently been looking into the subject of overtime generally both in
    64
    industry and in the Civil Service? That being so, will not the Government take action to see that overtime is cut in the services for which they are responsible?
    Mr. Howell: There has been the Prices and Incomes Board Report on overtime to which the hon. Gentleman, I think, is referring. We are watching very carefully the matter as it relates to the Civil Service. We are seeking to reduce overtime. In all Departments this is the view and the policy being followed.

MINISTER'S HOME (EXPLOSION)
Mr. Callaghan(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the explosion at the home of the Secretary of State for Employment.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I have received a preliminary report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. It appears that shortly after 10 p.m. yesterday an explosion occurred outside my right hon. Friend's home, doing serious damage. The police were summoned. Shortly after their arrival a second device exploded. My right hon. Friend and the police officers were able to take cover and I am happy to tell the House that no one was injured in either explosion. But this came about only through great good fortune. The extent of the damage done to the house indicates the power and lethal character of the devices employed.
The police are making widespread inquiries, but clearly I cannot yet express any views about the precise origin of the explosions or the motives of those who planted the devices. Arrangements made for the protection of members of the Government are being urgently reviewed.
I am confident that every Member of the House would wish to join in unreserved condemnation of this crime. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am also sure that I would be reflecting the feeling of the House as a whole in expressing our sympathy with my right hon. Friend and his family in this most

65
unpleasant experience and our relief that they were physically unharmed.
Mr. Callaghan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. May I express, as he knows, the fact that in the House there is no division at all in this matter? We are as delighted as anyone else, not only that the Home Secretary's right hon. Friend escaped, but that Mrs. Carr and the family were unharmed—because, as all of us know, it is our wives who have to take the brunt of this sort of outrage, which, fortunately, is almost unique in this country.
May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware—though this I am sure he already knows—that it is our profound hope that those who have committed this outrage will be brought to justice at the earliest possible moment; and that the whole of the country will know that there can be no success attending anyone who attempts to influence opinion in any way by means of this sort? That kind of approach is utterly discredited and will receive no support from anyone at all.
Mr. Maudling: I am very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Home Secretary aware that the whole House will wish to be associated with what he and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) have said? Indeed, I congratulate the Minister concerned and his family on the very calm and cool way in which they obviously faced this outrage. Surely the lesson to be learned by everyone is that the opportunity for persuasion lies not in the bomb but in the ballot box, and we await with confidence for the Home Secretary to look into these matters and very much hope that those responsible will be apprehended.
Mr. Maudling: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I can assure him and the House that every possible lesson will be learned from this occurrence and that every effort will be made to bring those responsible to book.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone inside and outside the House who has a true devotion to the democratic system will be
66
appalled by what has happened and will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on the extraordinary dignity and calm which he exercised on this occasion? May I express the hope that every possible effort will be made by the Home Secretary and the police to find out who is responsible for this outrage and to expose them for the gross traitors that they are?
Mr. Maudling: I believe that the entire House shares the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend.

CHANNEL SHIPPING ACCIDENTS
Mr. Costain(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the tanker explosion which occurred in the English Channel off Folkestone on Monday, 11th January.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): At 4.10 a.m. on 11th January the motor vessel "Texaco Caribbean", of 13,604 gross tons, registered in Panama, was in collision six miles off Folkestone with the motor vessel "Paracas", of 9,481 gross tons, registered in Peru. The "Texaco Caribbean" was proceeding down-Channel in ballast for Trinidad and the "Paracas" up-Channel. An explosion occurred in the "Texaco Caribbean" and the vessel was split into two parts, the bow section being submerged at once. Eight men, including the master, were lost. The stern section was abandoned by the remainder of the crew and drifted for some hours before sinking. Twenty men were picked up, and landed at Dover. The "Paracas" was towed to Hamburg. The explosion caused some damage to property in Folkestone and district. At 7.30 a.m. on 12th January the motor vessel "Brandenburg", of 2,695 gross tons, registered in the Federal Republic of Germany, sank in the vicinity of the earlier accident. The "Brandenburg" was bound for Curacao. Eleven of those on board were brought ashore, and 21 are feared dead or missing.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ordered a preliminary inquiry under Section 465 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, into both casualties in order to obtain as much information as

67
possible. I must emphasise to the House, however, that, since all the vessels concerned are foreign-registered and the casualties took place outside the United Kingdom territorial waters, it would not be appropriate to order a formal investigation. We have approached the Governments of the flag States concerned to seek permission for officials of my Department to attend any inquiries that they may hold.
I should like to express profound sympathy with the relatives of all who have lost their lives, and also express my appreciation of the rescues which were carried out by local fishermen and others.
Mr. Costain: In thanking my hon. Friend for making that statement, may I, on behalf of my constituents who took part in the rescue, say how much they appreciate his remarks; and express sympathy for the relatives of those who lost their lives?
As the inquiry must be limited in scope, will my hon. Friend make special note that those authorities in Folkestone who have expressed concern about the Channel route—a point I made on 27th November—are able and willing to give evidence?
The town clerks of Folkestone and Hythe very much appreciate the help they are being given by Government Departments in minimising oil pollution. May I have an assurance that this help will continue?
Will my hon. Friend's Department advise those of my constituents who have suffered damage on how they can get compensation for it?
Does my hon. Friend realise that the last Government withdrew the helicopter service at Manston which would have been extremely valuable in an accident of this sort? Can I have an assurance that this matter will also be considered?
Mr. Grant: My Department will be prepared to receive evidence and information from anyone who can assist in this inquiry.
As to oil pollution, three tugs fitted with spraying equipment are at present operating from Dover to disperse the fuel oil which is still seeping from the stern section of the "Texaco Caribbean". The work is under the professional control of
68
officers of my Department, and the spraying equipment is being operated by men of the Royal Corps of Transport.
Helicopters were employed from Thorney Island, and our view is that in this case there would have been very little difference had they come from Manston. The question of the use of helicopters is being considered, and I hope it will be possible to make a statement soon.
With reference to damage sustained by property owners at Folkestone, their first obvious course is to contact their insurers. I am advised that the likelihood is that the normal policy covers such a contingency. We do not know the full extent of the damage that these people have sustained, but if there is other damage of a serious nature which is not covered by insurance, it is not a matter for my Department but probably one for local authorities to discuss with the Department for the Environment.
Mr. Mason: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the Minister's expressions of sympathy for those who lost their lives and his expression of appreciation and praise for the rescues which were carried out by the local fishermen?
The Minister is aware that we are talking about the busiest straits in the world, a highly congested channel with 750 ships passing to and fro every day. Will he tell the House, first, what has happened to the proposal made to him by the pilots that they wish to board these highly lethal vessels—tankers, methane carriers, and so forth—long before they enter the straits so that they can give them better guidance?
Second, what has happened to the proposal made to the Minister by the master mariners and the Elder Brethren of Trinity House who, in the interests of safety, have decreed that it would be better to reverse the flow of traffic in the Channel?
Finally, will he take the initiative now with our Western European maritime neighbours to secure stricter anti-collision rules in the Channel, to establish a regional agreement, and to get the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation to endorse it?
Mr. Grant: There is a number of different views as to the merit or necessity

69
of having a pilot well outside coastal waters where a pilot's expertise is necessary. I remind the House that the "Pacific Glory" had a pilot on board whom she had taken on from Brixham to take her all the way to Rotterdam, if she had ever reached there. Nevertheless, there is no reason why a vessel cannot take on a pilot voluntarily. For there to be compulsory pilotage would require international agreement and would be difficult to ensure or enforce.
We are well aware that Trinity House has suggested that the traffic lanes should be reversed and that this suggestion has the support of the Honourable Company of Master Mariners and of some pilots, but it is opposed by the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping, the Institute of Navigation, which has investigated the suggestion carefully, and, indeed, by certain European institutes of navigation. I assure the House that the matter is not nearly so simple as has perhaps been posed. Our view is that to change the traffic lanes and put them in the reverse order could create a greater risk than there is at present. Nevertheless, we shall be endeavouring to pursue this matter through I.M.C.O. and we hope in March, after consultation with interests in Britain, to bring modifications of the present scheme before the International Committee.
In our view, a European scheme would not wholly satisfy the problem. We believe that it is best for a wholly international agreement to be made. There would be very great difficulties about enforcing a purely European scheme against countries which were using the straits and were not parties to such an agreement.
Mr. Pardoe: Is the Minister aware that the whole House will wish to join him in his expression of sympathy with those involved in the accident and in his congratulations to those who helped in the rescue operations?
Is the Minister aware also that a Select Committee warned more than two years ago in a published report that 1 in 10 of all sea accidents in the world took place in the Western Approaches and the English Channel? In the light of those accidents and that statistic, is he satisfied that the present traffic regulations are adequate? Does he agree that, if the
70
recommendation of Trinity House had been in operation, this accident could not have taken place?
Mr. Grant: I must make clear to the hon. Gentleman our view, after studying the question very carefully, that if the Trinity House proposal were in operation it could cause an overall greater danger to shipping and greater dangers of collision than is the present position. This view is reinforced by the views of other very authoritative bodies.
On the question of traffic regulations generally, we are never satisfied that anything is perfect. Indeed, it was the United Kingdom's initiative that caused the Straits of Dover to have the traffic separation scheme and we are again taking the initiative in I.M.C.O. to try to get improvements to this scheme in the meeting in March.
Mr. Murton: In view of the extreme danger which may arise through future collisions in these narrow waters by ships going up and down the Channel, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of proposing to the appropriate international body that there should be a minimum standard in seniority and qualifications for deck officers in navigating, particularly to foreign tanker owners?
Mr. Grant: I recognise that, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, very different standards of skill apply to those operating these vessels. However, as my hon. Friend doubtless realises, this is an international problem and it is important to get international agreement. This is another matter in which the United Kingdom is active and is taking the initiative in seeking agreement.
Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister aware that the number of deaths and accidents occurring in these waters is ever increasing and that United Kingdom seamen, whose union I represent here with my constituents, are increasingly concerned—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—at the number of deaths that is occurring? We do not find it satisfactory for the Minister to answer that the Ministry is convinced that the present regulations concerning navigation and standards of seamanship in this busiest waterway in the world are the best that could be operated. Should not the Minister consider applying Lord Rochdale's proposal to shipping and

71
setting up a marine authority to examine the very conflicting problems that exist in this very busy waterway?
Mr. Grant: I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, which I know are shared by everyone in the House, and which are certainly shared by me, about the dangers to the seamen who undertake this very hazardous task. I thought I had made it perfectly clear that we are not satisfied that the present arrangement is perfect. This is precisely why we hope to make further proposals to the international body, after consultation with all interested authorities. We are also giving urgent consideration to the question of a marine authority.
Mr. C. Pannell: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) declared his close interest with seamen and the union. I thought that it was proper for my hon. Friend to do so, by saying that he represented seamen, as he does in a real sense, as well as his constituents. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will indicate that this did not merit the derision of hon. Members opposite.
Mr. Speaker: I heard nothing improper in what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said.
Mr. Callaghan: May I ask a question as the Honorary President of the United Kingdom Pilots Association, a rôle in which I succeeded a Conservative Member?
Despite the Minister's painstaking replies, is he not putting action off until the Greek Kalends if he is aiming at full international agreement among about 40 seafaring nations on the question of traffic in the Channel? Is he aware that it would be possible, although I would not say that it would be finally the right answer, to get consultation on the question of pilotage amongst the nations which border the Channel and which have pilots? They might agree amongst themselves to extend the limits of compulsory pilotage so that fully qualified pilots board these vessels when they are within the ambit of any of the countries bounding the Channel? Will the Minister undertake to reconsider the Government's attitude and not wait for full international
72
agreement, which we all know is bound to take years, but call a conference of the nations immediately concerned?
Mr. Grant: We do not rule this out as a possibility. Should it prove to be impossible, which I do not accept, to secure international agreement, obviously we will consider a more regional one. I was stressing that this would obviously be less satisfactory than having an international agreement. A number of ships other than European ships use these crowded waterways and this is the whole purpose of securing international agreement. After all, the previous Government, of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member, succeeded in obtaining agreement on the traffic separation scheme in the Straits of Dover. This is voluntary, but it is observed by 95 per cent. of shipping. We hope that it will be possible to obtain agreement to make this compulsory.

IBROX FOOTBALL GROUND (ACCIDENT)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the tragic accident which occurred at Ibrox Football Ground, Glasgow, on 2nd January which all Members of the House will have heard of with deep shock. Sixty six people lost their lives and a further 145 required hospital treatment for their injuries. At present five people are still in hospital. Most of the other injured made a quick recovery after treatment.
I saw the site of the disaster on the following day when I also visited some of the injured in hospital. The accident occurred towards the end of the traditional New Year match between Rangers and Celtic, when spectators, who had been very well behaved, were leaving the ground. It took place on a stairway leading down from the terracing at the east end of the ground and there a considerable number of spectators fell.
The exact cause or causes of the accident have not yet been established, but the Lord Advocate has already set in motion the procedure for a fatal accident inquiry into the circumstances surrounding it. The inquiry will begin its hearings as soon as possible and they

73
will be held in public before a sheriff and a jury; it is intended that the Sheriff of Lanarkshire should preside.
In the meantime, Ministers have had discussions with representatives of the football authorities on both sides of the Border and have asked that clubs should make an urgent review of safety arrangements at their grounds, The public attending many matches in Scotland last week were asked to exercise care and patience when leaving grounds, as this is a simple way of helping to reduce crowd pressure, whatever kind of situation may develop. This advice is being conveyed to all football clubs and is to be repeated regularly through suitable media. Together with the Home Secretary and the Minister responsible for sport, I shall be giving consideration to measures which in the longer term may be necessary to improve safety arrangements at sports grounds generally. We shall take into account the information obtained from football clubs in England, Wales and Scotland. This was asked for by the Home Secretary and myself in November 1970, as we wished to take practical steps to implement the recommendations of the Lang Report; and we shall of course also take into consideration the results of this fatal accident inquiry when they become available.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life-saving work done by the various services involved and by members of the public. Despite difficulties of access due to the very large crowds leaving the area of the ground at the time, the emergency services acted with commendable promptness. Some doctors were in attendance almost at once; and the fire brigade turned out with resuscitation equipment. Ambulances carried out a constant shuttle service to the hospitals, whose staff were able to treat most of the patients by the early evening. The police rendered all possible assistance and organised a central information bureau to deal with the many enquiries received. I should like to thank also Glasgow Corporation Social Work Department, the mortuary staff and the Salvation Army who did so much to comfort and care for relatives of those who died.
I am sure that the House would wish to join me in conveying our deepest sympathy to the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives in this disaster.
Mr. Ross: This was indeed Scotland's blackest New Year holiday ever. Is the Secretary of State aware that we all wish to join him in his expressions of sympathy for the families who were so tragically bereaved and in his tribute to the police, doctors, nurses, fire services and other public services, as well as footballers, officials and members of the public, who worked so untiringly to minimise the disaster and to bring aid to the innocent victims?
May I express my thanks also to the Lord Advocate for so speedily invoking the procedures of the Fatal Accidents Inquiry Act? Is there any possibility of the right hon. Gentleman telling us now when the inquiry will open and how long it might last? The sad thing is that the disaster could probably have happened anywhere else in the country. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that all proposals to safeguard life where there are such crowds, whether at Ibrox or elsewhere, even proposals that might require legislation, will be competent at the inquiry and can be fully considered? Will the right hon. Gentleman take note and pass on to the relevant Minister that we shall want a debate on the whole question after we have the result of the inquiry?
Mr. Campbell: As soon as the Procurator Fiscal can complete the preliminary arrangements the hearing should start. In view of the public interest and the large numbers of witnesses likely to come forward, the preparations may require about a month. The hearing is expected to extend over several days, but the findings and the recommendations of the jury will be made available immediately the inquiry finishes. It is for the Procurator Fiscal to marshal the evidence and to consider its competence. As for a debate, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will no doubt have heard what the right hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Rankin: As the Member for the Glasgow, Govan Division, I support what the Secretary of State has said and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said. I was able to visit the ground almost immediately after the disaster, and one or two matters have worried me ever since that visit. I hope that the inquiry will be very searching indeed, because the disaster on 2nd January raises one or two

75
issues to which we must give our immediate and serious attention. The first is the presence of juveniles at football matches where the crowd is as big as 80,000. We must look at that problem, because if juveniles—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to put a question.
Mr. Rankin: I am putting a question, Mr. Speaker—with a little preface, I agree, but I must put it. If juveniles or young people are to be at such games, should not they be segregated from the general crowd for their own protection, and have their own entry and exit? There are many associated problems, and I am not exploring them or even raising them today, but they must be faced. We must remember that this was not the first such disaster.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I really must ask the hon. Gentleman to keep in order. These are all matters for a debate if one takes place.
Mr. Campbell: The point about juveniles is one which will have to be considered and recommendations made when the inquiry is undertaken. The Government are considering, in the light of the information given by the football clubs on the action they have taken to improve their safety arrangements, the question of a further investigation into the problems of crowd safety at football matches and other sporting events. Any such investigation would take into account the findings and recommendations of the fatal accident inquiry.
Mr. Money: As the risk of a potential tragedy of this sort is, unhappily, so very widespread, and there is a general need to improve spectator accommodation at grounds through the country, will my right hon. Friend make recommendations to my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make more funds available to clubs, either in the form of tax relief on improvements of a capital kind or by dealing with the anomaly that has arisen in the case of Singette v. Martin by legislation as quickly as possible?
Mr. Campbell: These are not questions for me, but my right hon. Friend will no doubt take note of what has been said.
76
Clearly the inquiries must be held first, and while those inquiries are going on the immediate action which I announced, which the Government thought necessary in order to reduce risks, is that advice should be given to crowds to leave slowly. If the individual wishes to make his contribution to safety, this is the one thing which can help to reduce crowd pressure, whatever kind of situation or obstruction may occur ahead. Beyond that, we must await the recommendations of the inquiries.
Dr. Miller: Having in mind the fact that a tragedy like this could happen in any ground where there is pressure of thousands of people leaving the area, does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind any proposals for the complete redesigning of football stadiums in order to obviate tragedies of this kind in future?
Mr. Campbell: Certain recommendations were contained in the Lang Report, upon which I and my right hon. Friends have been in discussion and in correspondence with the football authorities. Clearly, the results of the Fatal Accident Act inquiry must be awaited before actions as far-reaching as the hon. Gentleman suggests are taken.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on. No doubt the Leader of the House will take account of the fact that so many hon. Members wanted to ask questions.

BRITISH AMBASSADOR, URUGUAY (KIDNAPPING)
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a statement on the kidnapping of the British Ambassador to Uruguay.
Her Majesty's Ambassador in Montevideo was kidnapped on his way to his office on 8th January. I know the whole House will share my anger and dismay at this barbaric and senseless act and will join me in expressing the deepest sympathy for Mr. Jackson and his wife and family.
We have been in the closest touch with the Uruguayan Government from

77
the beginning. A Foreign and Commonwealth Office security expert flew to Montevideo on 10th January to help the Embassy. Last night, Mr. Oliver Wright, a Deputy Under-Secretary of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, left for Montevideo. He will review the position urgently with the Uruguayan Government and will also assess the needs of the Embassy.
A communiqué issued by the terrorists on the 11th January, which is thought to be authentic, stated that all the hostages they hold were in good health. There is no news of Mr. Jackson's whereabouts. As is usual in such cases, various conflicting anonymous messages have been received. We are examining these very carefully but have so far no evidence that any of them is authentic.
The Uruguayan Government are continuing an intensive search and have instituted emergency powers for a period of forty days.
The terms which the terrorists may demand for Mr. Jackson's release are as yet unknown. It would be wrong for me to attempt to disguise from the House the gravity of the situation. Her Majesty's Government will of course do everything they can to help secure Mr. Jackson's safe release.
Mr. Healey: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. Her Majesty's Opposition and, I am sure, the whole House share the anger he expressed at the kidnapping and his expressions of sympathy for Mr. Jackson, his wife and family. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the steps already taken by the Government to pursue the matter. Is it the Government's intention to pursue the same policy on this matter as in the case of the kidnapping of the British official in Canada?
Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The analogy he has drawn with the Canadian case is very much in our minds. We were very glad of the result of that case, through patience and perseverance, and we hope that this will happen on this occasion as well.
Mr. Temple: Does my right hon. Friend remember the conversation we had recently regarding my anxiety concerning the safety of the families of diplomats in Latin America? In view of the changed circumstances, in which almost no Government can guarantee the security of their own nationals, let alone foreign nationals, will he forthwith institute an inquiry within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to see in what way he can further ensure the security, safety and welfare of our diplomats in exposed conditions?
Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. I recall that conversation, and I also recall that last summer, when other diplomats of other nationalities were kidnapped in South America, I called for a full report in the Department about security arrangements in South America. The last Government instituted inquiries and sent security officers out there in April and May last year. I was satisfied that the steps that had been recommended then had been followed and that there was no more useful action which could be taken at that stage. However, we have sent a security officer out again and we shall await urgently any recommendations he may make, either for Uruguay or any other of these States where these dangers may exist.
Mr. Faulds: While sharing the House's abhorrence at this sort of activity, may I ask what additional pressure the right hon. Gentleman intends to bring to bear on the Uruguayan authorities—in view of the fact that they are particularly intransigent in matters of this nature in contrast with the attitude of the Canadian authorities—in trying to preserve the life of this most unfortunate gentleman?
Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I have to choose with great care any words I use because of any effect that they could have on Mr. Jackson's safety. We are in close touch with the Uruguayan Government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has sent a personal message to the President of Uruguay and Mr. Oliver Wright will be in touch with the Uruguayan Government. I prefer not to add to that at this stage.

BILLS PRESENTED
  RATING
  Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. James Prior, Mr. R. Graham Page, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, and Mr. Michael Heseltine, presented a Bill to extend the provisions relating to the exemption from rating of land and buildings used in connection with agriculture: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 83.]
  PREVENTION OF DISEASES DUE TO SMOKING
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt, supported by Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, Dr. Miller, Dr. Shirley Summerskill, Mr. David Steel, Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott, and Dr. Tom Stuttaford, presented a Bill to provide against the risks to health due to smoking: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th May and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

WELSH AFFAIRS
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the matter of Local Government Finance in Wales and Monmouthshire, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am astonished that the words "and Monmouthshire" have been added to the word "Wales" in this Motion. I had understood that this matter was resolved once and for all by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas). The Secretary of State is Secretary of State for Wales. In the absence of a Welsh Minister, may I have an assurance from the Leader of the House that there has been no change in that position?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): As far as I know, there has been no change in the position.
Question put and agreed o.
Ordered,
That the matter of Local Government Finance in Wales and Monmouthshire, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committtee for their consideration.

FINANCE OF COUNCIL HOUSE BUILDING
4.9 p.m.
Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable and encourage local authorities to finance the building of council houses out of their own revenue, in order to relieve tenants and ratepayers of interest charges on long-term borrowing for house building.
A strong case does not depend on the length of the presentation and I intend to be brief. It is my purpose to demonstrate the intolerable burden of interest charges and how it could be reduced by financing part of the future housing programme out of annual revenue rather than by long-term loans.
An average council house or fiat today, including land, is costing £5,000 to build. How much does that home cost by the time interest has been paid on it for 60 years, the usual period, at the current

81
rate of interest, which is 9⅞ per cent. at the Public Works Loans Board rate? What is the total cost of that house? It is no less than the truly staggering sum of £29,730. That is the ultimate cost of a single council house or flat. Of this total, £24,730 goes in interest to the investors. In other words, six times the original sum borrowed has to be repaid, with consequences which I intend to show.
These figures are amazing but accurate. They are not my figures. They have been provided for me by Mr. William Shaw, the highly expert, experienced and respected Salford City Treasurer. But, of course, they apply to any council in the country.
What does all this mean in terms of weekly rents? The interest charge alone amounts to £7 18s. 6d. a week on such a house plus £1 12s. 1d. weekly repayment of the original loan. Adding a typical repairs and management charge of 10s. a week, the total unsubsidised rent comes to £10 0s. 7d., plus rates, which may be £1 a week or more. This means that approximately 16s. out of every £1 rent goes to pay for not the bricks and mortar and timber and building workers' labour but interest to the investors. That is why the rents of new council houses are so high.
No doubt it can be pointed out that a good part of this colossal rent is reduced by a subsidy from the Government; thank goodness for that! Without the subsidised loans provided by the Labour Government's 1967 Act, council house building would have come almost to a stop in this country. But I wish to make the point as strongly as I can that if it were not for the onerous interest charges, the subsidy would not be necessary. It is not the council tenant who is being subsidised but the moneylender.
Even so, the subsidy does not by any means equal the interest charge. The tenant, even with his present subsidised loan at 4 per cent., may have to pay over 60 years £4 5s. a week interest plus £1 12s. 1d. repayment of the original capital plus 10s. for repairs and management. Thus the subsidised rent comes to £6 7s. 1d. a week, plus rates. This is utterly outside the capacity to pay of several million heads of families whose take-home pay is less than £18 a week.
82
Furthermore, it is generally believed to be the present Government's intention to end the 4 per cent. loans and remove subsidies entirely, except for certain sections such as the aged, the disabled and the slum clearance tenant. So shortly the thraldom of exorbitant interest charges will become still more apparent.
Who suffers this burden? Mainly it is the council house tenant. Second, to a lesser extent, it is the taxpayer who provides the £190 million a year in subsidies—taxpayers of course include millions of council house tenants—and to a smaller degree, ratepayers in those authorities where there is a contribution to council housing out of the rates. This imposition of fivefold interest charges is so heavy that it cannot be allowed to continue.
Let us consider in contrast what happens when we build a motorway or a battleship. It is paid for out of annual revenue by cash payment, cash on the nail. Not a single penny goes on interest, for the Government make the payment out of taxation. If we can pay for motorways and battleships in this way, why not for houses, too? Why should we have to pay five times as much in the long run for housing? We could build six houses for the price of one by avoiding interest charges by this method.
I realise that with a Private Member's Bill such as this the mover is not permitted to involve Government expenditure, and so I have not attempted to do so. I will say only that this principle of financing houses out of revenue rather than by long-term loans applies even more importantly to the Government than to the local authority. It would be a tremendous, though relatively cheap, contribution towards ending the desperate housing shortage if the Government provided the worst housed towns with a considerable sum out of taxation to build houses which would be entirely interest-free and, therefore, extraordinarily cheap.
Returning to local govenment finance, I readily concede that neither councils not the Government could finance the whole of the year's housing programme out of revenue. The sum involved would be too great to many people's minds, though not, I admit, to mine Last year's council houses started cost just under £800 million compared with arms expenditure of three times that sum. Instead of proposing that all council houses

83
be built out of annual revenue, I am proposing that part of the programme be financed in this way. The great saving involved on those houses could be spread over the whole pool of a council's houses.
In Leeds—and this is a small example—the City Council for a number of years put aside about £100,000 each year from revenue with which it bought houses on sale in the market which the council wanted to use for its own tenants. It would be possible to create, from rents obtained in this way, funds for further interest-free building.
There was the famous case of the L.C.C. which under Herbert Morrison wanted to build a bridge over the Thames but was refused loan sanction by the Government. Morrison then persuaded the L.C.C. to build the bridge out of revenue, and this was done. Admittedly, if inflation continues it will reduce the real cost of the repayment of instalments in the years ahead. Nevertheless, the gain to the borrower is surely more than offset by the loss incurred through having to repay interest five times the original sum as well as repaying the original loan.
It may be asked whether councils do not already possess the necessary powers. Unfortunately, they do not. They are limited to £1 for every existing house in their housing revenue account. For example, in an average sized city such as Salford, with 13,000 council dwellings, only £13,000 a year can be spent in this
84
way, and that is a trifle. There are further limitations restricting the use of this sum, so that it becomes even smaller. The original purpose of this general direction was to reduce the administrative work involved in seeking specific Ministerial directions for permission over small sums. If councils wish to spend more than is permitted on this basis, they have to seek the specific approval of the Minister.
I feel confident that, whatever action may be taken on this Bill, the ultimate outcome will be to reduce the burden of interest in some way along the lines outlined. The history of the next decade will, I believe, confirm this confidence.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Mr. Blenkinsop, Mr. Orme, Mr. Ashton, Mrs. Doris Fisher, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Stallard, Mr. Skinner, Mr. David Stoddart, Mr. Clinton Davis, and Mr. Booth.

FINANCE OF COUNCIL HOUSE BUILDING
  FINANCE OF COUNCIL HOUSE BUILDING
  Bill to enable and encourage local authorities to finance the building of council houses out of their own revenue, in order to relieve tenants and ratepayers of interest charges on long-term borrowing for house building; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th February, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

MR. SPEAKER KING'S RETIREMENT
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that she will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of her Royal Favour upon Dr. the Right Honourable Horace Maybray King for his eminent services during the important period in which he has with such distinguished ability and dignity presided in the Chair of this House, and assuring Her Majesty that whatever expense Her Majesty shall think fit to be incurred upon that account this House will make good the same.
I am happy to have the opportunity to move this Motion and I have no doubt that the House will unanimously endorse it. The House has already had an opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Speaker King before he left the Chair but surely this occasion should not pass without my saying again, and I am sure that I speak for the whole House, how much we owe to Dr. King for all he did during the five years in which he held this high office.
The traditions of Parliament and the good name of this House were always entirely safe in his hands. On 10th December my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister paid a tribute to Dr. King in which he stressed his outstanding qualities as Speaker and above all his fairness. He is a party man, as we all are, but as Speaker of this House he was always wholly impartial and known and recognised as such. He occupied a great office with a tremendous devotion to the tradition of this House and a tremendous sense of the qualities of this House. He showed during his term of office a special interest in the Commonwealth, not only by his visits but also by his interest in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am sure that we all feel a particular debt to him for what he did in this connection.
The Prime Minister also stressed the wide range of Dr. King's many interests. It would be wrong for me to rehearse what my right hon. Friend has said but I should like to add a few personal words. I always found that Dr. King had an immense fund of kindness and goodwill. He was a man who was always intensely serious about his responsibilities to this
86
House, but never solemn. He was a man to whom gaiety came naturally, particularly when there was a piano within reach. He is a man of considerable wit and humour. I believe that Dr. King is a truly good man whose goodness shines out and warms all those who have had the honour and pleasure of meeting him.
We wish him all happiness in his retirement and we hope that he will have a long and happy retirement. He has so many interests he is interested in the welfare of young people, writing, music and in travel. He is happy in those interests and I think we would all agree that he is happy and blessed in the life and company of Mrs. King to whom also on this occasion we should like to pay tribute and express our great affection.
I have no doubt that the House will think it right that Her Majesty should in the terms of this Motion be invited to mark the retirement of Mr. Speaker King in the appropriate way. It is my happy duty to commend to the House the Motion standing on the Order Paper.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The Motion moved by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) provides the third opportunity for hon. and right hon. Members to pay tribute to Mr. Speaker King in this present Session. The first occasion was when he was re-elected to the Chair last summer with the customary show of reluctance which we have on these occasions, and the other occasion was, as the right hon. Gentleman said, when he announced his impending retirement in the House and when the Prime Minister and a number of us paid immediate tributes to what he had done, reserving later comments for today.
Mr. Speaker King was the first occupant of the Chair from our party on this side of the House. There was, in connection with his election as Speaker, even more publicity and speculation, even more allegations of various kinds of procedures, than we have had in the last few days. The reason was—and this is no disrespect to the present occupant of the Chair whom we have the pleasure of calling Mr. Speaker today for the first time—that, unlike yourself, his elevation to the Chair could be held to have an effect on the size of the Government majority which was then three and might have fallen below that. There was no difficulty

87
in securing the full support of the party opposite in his election. Some schemes and hopes do not always come off, however.
As you are, Mr. Speaker, he was well supported by a well-balanced team who occupied the junior Chairs in the months ahead. Certainly he had a task which no one would wish on any incoming Speaker, that of having to preside over a House where there were inevitably, as there are today and always will be one prays, matters of deep controversy, but also at a time when no one could know the date of the next General Election and when, for that very reason, controversies which we might have taken before in our stride sometimes tended, especially later at night, to get a little out of hand. It was for his conduct in the Chair, in those early days particularly, that many of us remember him, before he had time to establish his great authority.
The Home Secretary paid tribute to some of his extraneous and extramural activities, and rightly so. It is certainly true that he is a man of gaiety. Those of us who have heard him at functions outside this House, in which he enjoyed taking part on a scale far beyond that of any of his predecessors, will remember his love of fun, especially with young people. He had great experience of them from his position as headmaster, perhaps in a less unruly house than the one over which he was called to preside here. I have seen him at various teachers' conferences and other occasions.
One new dimension he brought to the Speakership compared with the record of equally distinguished predecessors was an identification of the Speakership of this House with the Speakership of other Assemblies throughout the Commonwealth and in a number of other foreign countries too. He frequently sought the leave of the House to travel, which was readily given because it was always in the recess so that we were not losing his services. There are many Commonwealth and foreign Parliaments who derived great benefit from his visits, and I believe that this House and country did by the way in which he comported himself when abroad.
It was characteristic that he arranged the timing of his retirement, of which he had given informal notice to a number of
88
those who needed to know many weeks before, in such a way that he was able to represent this House at the big conference of Commonwealth Speakers.
I know that I speak for all of my hon. and right hon. Friends when we send our best wishes to Dr. King and to Mrs. King, whose hospitality and friendship we shall long remember. We wish him a very happy retirement, in which I am sure he will continue to carry out the public work for which he has been noted all the years that he has been in this House and long before, and in other ways to work for the service of his fellow citizens especially the younger generation. That will be the hope of us all and I am sure, as the right hon. Gentleman is sure, that the whole House will unanimously pass this Motion.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The Leader of the Opposition has rightly pointed out that this is the third occasion on which we have paid tribute to Dr. King, and I shall not, therefore, unduly prolong our debate on the present Motion. Moreover, I think it unnecessary to do so, since I believe that Dr. King and Mrs. King are in no doubt as to the gratitude which the House feels for the way in which he discharged his task as Speaker and the way in which she backed him up.
Dr. King has a tremendous sense of humour. I have very happy recollections of the short hand-written notes which used to pass back and forth, though how he ever found time for them I know not. I particularly remember an occasion when he stayed with my wife and myself in Devon, and I found that we were up half the night, he, perhaps, being rather more steeled to all-night sittings than I was. On the occasion one learned not only of his love of Parliament and his knowledge of its tradition and history but also of the depth of his reading and the extent of his profound and enduring love of literature. He had not only those qualities but he was, as the Leader of the Opposition said, widely travelled. Some of us are pleased that one of his last acts as Speaker was to preside at the conference of Commonwealth Speakers in India, one of the most important parts of our multi-racial Commonwealth which he has done so much to help to preserve.

89
Dr. King entertained many people, both from the House and outside it. It is not for me to question or to encroach upon the Royal Prerogative, but I hope that, when that is exercised, in whatever way it may be, the result will be that Dr. King will not be many miles away from this Chamber, and that, in an economic sense, he will not have to depend exclusively upon the Members' Pension Scheme for his future sustenance.
I am sure that it is the wish of all right hon. and hon. Members that he will have an active, a full and very happy retirement. If one thing is certain, it is that the moving of the Motion and our support for it is done in no spirit of formality but with a real feeling of warmth and gratitude.
Mr. R. H. Turton: Dr. King came to the Chair with, probably, a greater knowledge of the customs and history of Parliament than any of his predecessors. Throughout the whole of his Speakership, he showed a great affection for the House, which was reciprocated by the affection which Members of all parties felt towards him. He presided over our proceedings with wit, patience and good humour.
I think that Dr. King can be regarded as one of the great Speakers of Parliament. As has been said, this was the Opposition's first successful effort at producing a Speaker, and I congratulate them on having produced Mr. Speaker King, with his very great record. He has been a great friend to Commonwealth Parliamentarians. He was the most widely travelled of all Speakers. No predecessor had travelled so widely both throughout the Commonwealth and the United States of America, and I believe that no Speaker, with his wife, has shown greater hospitality to Commonwealth Parliamentarians.
May I add a word as a member of the Select Committee on Procedure? Dr. King helped that Committee greatly by giving evidence on a number of occasions. Some of the recommendations of the Committee were adopted by the House, and, in particular, we have had innovations regarding both Question Time and Standing Order No. 9. The way in which Mr. Speaker King carried out the recommendations of the House on Question Time and Standing Order No. 9
90
showed his ability in improving the system of Parliament. I am sure that Parliament can still be improved, but, when we look back on his Speakership, we shall realise that a great stride has been made towards making this place a better debating Chamber.
In my capacity as Father of the House, I add my good wishes to him and his wife in their retirement, and I hope that the thoughts expressed by the Leader of the Liberal Party as to his comfort and position in the future will in due course he fulfilled.
Mr. Michael Stewart: I rise only because I think that Dr. King would appreciate it if somebody who was a fellow member with him of the National Union of Teachers said a word on this occasion. He was a great ornament to his profession. I remember, from the days when both he and I were working in opposition, how many educational causes dear to his heart we were able together to do our best to forward.
I believe that the whole teaching profession felt that an honour was done to it when he was raised to the high office which he held in so distinguished a manner. I am delighted that the Motion has been moved, and I am sure that it will have the unanimous support of the House.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: I hope that it will not be thought out of order if I make a few comments on the Motion.
There will be general agreement I imagine—I say this with a minimum of regret—that I was probably one of the more difficult pupils in this particular school. I found, contrary to my expectation, that I was treated always with the greatest courtesy and tolerance, indeed, forbearance, by Mr. Speaker King. Whenever I went to seek his advice, which, odd as it may seem, I was not averse to doing, and I took refuge in his secluded chamber, I was always treated with patience and, of course, his usual courtesy—and with more than my share of Speaker's sherry.
We all have in our varying ways a great affection for the ex-Speaker. I only hope, now he has been put out to grass and goes to another place, as he eventually will, that Dr. King is treated

91
by the authorities in that Chamber with the same great kindness, courtesy and consideration that his more difficult pupils in this Chamber received.
Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: On purely personal grounds, I should like to add a short furthe tribute to your peredecessor, Mr. Speaker. Before Mr. Speaker King was elevated to hte Chair, he and I had innumerable debates on social security matters across the Floor. He set an example to the House of powerful, penetrating criticism, coupled with a most exquisite personal courtesy.
When he was in the Chair, I owed him a great deal. He was in your Chair, Mr. Speaker, when I made the transition, which some of us make several times, from Front Bench to back bench. As you will know, Sir, that is a moment at which the kindly help, courtesy and advice of the Chair is of special advantage to a Member. I should not like this moment to pass without saying how grateful I am to Mr. Speaker King for his innumerable kindnesses.
As has been said, he was the first occupant of the Chair to come from the Labour Benches. If I may say so without impertinence, the Labour Party has great reason to be proud of that. So has the House. Your predecessor, Sir, served us extremely well, with courtesy, with charm, and above all, with personal and individual kindness. We all wish him many years of good health and happiness, to enjoy not only the gaiety of social life, for which he is so admirably fitted, but whatever Her Majesty in her most gracious wisdom may see fit to confer upon him.
Mr. J. D. Dormand: The fact of which Dr. King was most proud—perhaps this is not generally known in the House—is that he was a County Durham man. It is remarkable that throughout his Speakership, and in the international position in which he was held in such high regard, Dr. King remembered above all that he was a County Durham man. As a proud Durham County man myself, I do not wish this occasion to pass without that fact being put on record.
I recall that, when I was sworn in last year and I shook hands with Mr.
92
Speaker King, he asked, "Are you a real County Durham man?", and, when I was able to assure him that I was born and bred and lived in the county—it was almost as though I was one of his good former pupils—he said, "That is all right, you are welcome".
I should like the House to know also that Dr. King obtained a grant from Durham County Council many years ago in order to be able to go to university. He never forgot that, and it was typical of the man.
On his first teaching appointment, he wrote to Durham County Council to remind it that he had obtained a post. He wrote to the county council again when he was appointed a headmaster and when he was elected a Member of Parliament. He did not forget to inform the county council when he was appointed to the Speakership. That seems to me typical of the man.
I am proud that I am a Durham County man and that I have been able to say what I have said today.
Sir David Renton: Reference has been made to the generous hospitality of Mr. Speaker King, but I do not think that it is generally known that perhaps his most touching act of hospitality was the giving of parties for mentally handicapped children in Mr. Speaker's house. I attended more than one of those parties, and it was wonderful to see how he made the occasion go in the most unlikely circumstances.
Like the Father of the House, my tight hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I served on the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform, the first for a quarter of a century, over which Mr. Speaker King presided during his first three years of Speakership—and very exacting work it was, requiring knowledge, patience and skill, and Mr. Speaker King showed those three qualities in great measure to the great advantage of this House. I should like to join in the tributes paid to him.
Miss J. M. Quennell: I should not like this occasion to pass without one of the Hampshire Members adding her voice to the expressions of regret about the departure of Mr. Speaker King, who was, and is, an honorary alderman of Hampshire County Council—Durham

93
does not have all the honours in this respect—a Hampshire Member, and always a good Hampshire man.
Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), I served on Mr. Speaker King's Conference on Electoral Reform. I, too, was touched when I brought to this House the sixth form of the Lord Mayor Treloar's College, all of whom are physically handicapped, and Mr. Speaker received them in his house. Without the co-operation of hon. Members on both sides of the House, we would have had an almost impossible job to get the chairs round the building, and Mr. Speaker put the bonne bouche to their trip on that day.
Mention has been made of Mr. Speaker King's hospitality and of the innovations he made in the House. I do not want to put any ideas into your head, Mr. Speaker, but one of Mr. Speaker King's most touching gestures when he became Speaker was to give a special dinner for all the lady Members of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved, nemine contradicente,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that she will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of her Royal Favour upon Dr. the Right Honourable Horace Maybray King for his eminent services during the important period in which he has with such distinguished ability and dignity presided in the Chair of this House, and assuring Her Majesty that whatever expense Her Majesty shall think fit to be incurred upon that account this House will make good the same.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ARMED FORCES BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.45 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The House will know that the Bill was first introduced and taken through its various stages in another place. Members will probably recall that some doubts were expressed as to whether this course of action was constitutionally correct. I think that the very full explanation given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House allayed in large measure the doubts which existed and the House accepted his explanation. Indeed, during the Second Reading in another place the noble Lords, Lord Byers, Lord Winterbottom and Lord Shinwell—and both of the latter noble Lords served in the Ministry of Defence in a previous Administration—agreed that no constitutional problems arose.
  The reason why no constitutional problem arises is that the Bill does not provide any grant of Supply for the Services of the Crown. The House will probably know that until 1955 the Army and Air Force Bills were Supply Bills. This is no longer the case, and Members who are interested in the undoubtedly fascinating history of those Bills will find the matter referred to at some length at pages 768 and 769 of the 17th Edition of Erskine May.
  While absolutely no constitutional problem arises, we are anxious to take account of the wishes of the House. On this occasion I think that there is fairly general agreement that it served the convenience of both Houses that the Bill should be introduced in another place. But if that course is felt to be unsatisfactory my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has explained that he will be prepared to consider a change.
  I do not claim that this Bill is the result of deep research which we undertook when in opposition. It is in fact the result of recommendations made by the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill in 1966. The Government and Opposition of the day accepted the Select Committee's Report and work was set in

  95
  train within the Ministry of Defence to carry out the broad intentions of the Select Committee.
  The Select Committee said that it hoped that the next quinquennial Bill, which is the Bill we are discussing today, would go further towards simplifying and standardising Service law. It accepted that traditions and differences which did not impair efficiency in the Services should be allowed to continue, but it urged that further standardisation should be introduced as soon as possible where different practices were a barrier to efficiency.
  As a result, the Navy Discipline Act, 1957, the Army Act, 1955, and the Air Force Act, 1955, were reviewed. The outcome of this review is incorporated in the Bill and is a single common code of offences and their related maximum punishments. However, when the House studies the Bill, it will see that it does not attempt to provide a single discipline Act for the Forces. It keeps the three existing separate Acts in being, but amends them in a number of ways.
  At first sight, it might seem more logical and tidy to create a single Act, but there are a number of reasons why we have not attempted to do this. The main reason is that the present distinct systems reflect the different operational requirements of the Services—the different environment in which they work and the different tasks on which they are often engaged. For example, forces afloat must be able to deal very quickly with breaches of discipline. Single ships may be at sea for a long time without returning to base. This is the kind of situation which does not frequently arise in Army or Air Force service. Therefore, we do not think it necessary to give commanding officers in the Army and Air Force the same powers of discipline as are needed by their colleagues in the Navy. Also, there seems to be a good deal to be said for keeping a known and accepted system of military discipline. The present Acts are known and, I hope, are broadly understood by Servicemen in the field and afloat, and when so many changes have been made in recent years I think there will be considerable relief in the Services that wholesale changes are not being made in an administrative system which, on the whole, is working reasonably well.
  96
  Another important reason for keeping the two disciplinary systems is that a single Act would by no means be as simple as it might first appear. It would have to be somewhat longer than the present separate Acts and would be more complicated and more difficult to use in practice than the single Service Acts. It seems to me that the job of a commanding officer in the field or afloat, or undertaking one of the arduous peacekeeping rôles which are frequently the task of the Forces today, is difficult enough, and I think we would probably all agree that we should try to keep the law as simple as possible.
  For these reasons, we have decided not to attempt to combine the three separate Acts into one. Instead, the Bill keeps the existing Acts in being, but amends them to harmonise the disciplinary system wherever it makes sense to do so.
  Now I turn to the Bill itself. I must announce to the House that it is of a fairly technical nature. I shall try not to weary the House by giving an account of every Clause of what is a long and complicated Bill, although I shall try to mention some of the more important elements of it.
  Clause 1 is of historic and constitutional importance. From the seventeenth century until 1955 the Army Acts, and subsequently the Air Force Acts, were annual Acts which were renewable every single year. Anyone who has seen the film "Cromwell", which is on at the moment in London, will not need to be reminded of the reasons which led Parliament to keep such a tight grip on the very existence of an army in this country. In 1955 the Acts became quinquennial Acts subject to annual renewal by Order in Council, after affirmative Resolution by both Houses, up to a maximum of five years. On the other hand, the Naval Discipline Act was never subject to this kind of procedure. The Naval Discipline Act has always been a permanent Statute, and it is only revised as and when Parliament considers it to be necessary.
  The Select Committee of 1966 particularly asked that the difference in status between the three Acts should be looked into. We might have tried to place the Army and Air Force Acts upon the same permanent basis as the Naval Discipline Act, and, looking at the

  97
  matter solely from the point of view of the original reason for annual passing of the Army and Air Force Acts, there really would be very little reason to urge that this was not possible. On the other hand, the Select Committee of 1954 only recommended ending the annual passing of these Acts on the basis that the special jurisdiction given to the Armed Forces should be subject to review by Select Committee in the course of the quinquennial re-enactment.
  I feel that it would be inappropriate, therefore, to attempt to move the Army Act and the Air Force Act on to the same permanent basis as the Naval Discipline Act. I do not think this would be the wish of the House. We therefore provide that the Naval Discipline Act, which, up to now, has been permanent, should become a quinquennial Act upon the same basis as the other two Acts.
  I apologise for that rather complex explanation of what is, I accept, a fairly complex situation.
  Turning to subsequent parts of the Bill, Part II of the Bill, that is Clauses 2 to 43, are, in a sense, the most important part of the Bill and certainly its central theme. These Clauses, 2 to 43, create a common code of offences and maximum punishments which will apply to all members of the three Services. Up to now there have been two codes of offences and punishments. The Navy has had its own code, and the Army and the Air Force have had a separate joint code.
  The Royal Marines have always been subject to the Army Act, but when they are serving in Her Majesty's ships or in naval establishments they are subject to the Naval Discipline Act.
  The Bill contains a considerable number of amendments which will bring these differing codes into line with one another. In order to do this it is necessary to introduce into certain of the Acts, some new offences which have not appeared there before. One example is that the Army Act will now contain the offence of loss or hazarding of a ship, which, previously, rather naturally, has been only a naval offence. I accept that this change is not perhaps urgently necessary, and I cannot imagine that lieutenant-colonels will be spending much time studying the difference between port and starboard; but the short answer is that it is necessary
  98
  if we are to provide a common code for all the three Services in the three Statutes.
  Equally, just as one or two new offences have been created, so a number of existing offences have been dropped from the common code. For example, there will no longer be a separate offence of cashiering, which, to me, has always carried the implication of having a hand in the till. Nor, also, will there be the offence of falsely obtaining or prolonging leave in the Army and Air Force Acts, but before Servicemen falsely attempt to prolong their leave may I warn them them that there are in fact other provisions which will stop them doing that.
  What we have in the Bill is a harmonisation of the lists of offences so that there is a common code. We hope it is drafted in a form which will make it easy for the Services to use.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: Would the noble lord say a word or two about Clause 28? There is a new offence about creating despondency orally or in writing or in other ways. It seems rather widely drawn. Would it apply to some casual remarks within the Forces—operating in Northern Ireland, for instance?
  Lord Balniel: For me to attempt to interpret the legal meaning of the words in the Bill would, on Second Reading, be unwise; and I shall be explaining to the House later on that we shall be proposing, if it is the wish of the House, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee; and it is that kind of point which, I should have thought, would be eminently suitable for discussion in the Select Committee.
  The Bill also—and here I come to Clauses 36 to 40—establishes a common scheme of punishments. Certain punishments, as I have explained, disappear altogether. Instead, there will be a single code of punishment to which all members of the Armed Forces will be subject. It is not only certain punishments which disappear from the previous legislation. So also do certain old phrases. The provision under which
  "an officer who behaves in a scandalous manner unbecoming the character of an officer and gentleman is to be cashiered"
  is amended. I think that phrase is redolent of soldiering in the Punjab, of brandy glasses, card tables. I suppose this is a bit anachronistic. I imagine

  99
  lawyers would find it very difficult to define what gentlemanly and ungentlemanly conduct is. I think the best definition was given by King James when he was asked by a mother to make her son a gentleman. King James replied, perhaps rather roughly, that he could make him a nobleman but God Almighty could not make him a gentleman. The phrase, "conduct and character of an officer and gentleman" has been withdrawn from the Bill.
  Along with establishing a single system of punishment, we have also decided that there should be a single maximum penalty for the different offences. This is the present naval system, but the Army and the Air Force Acts at present carry a higher maximum penalty for certain offences on active service and a lower penalty at other times. These offences are disobedience or threatening a superior officer, desertion, drunkenness and offences by or in relation to sentries. In modern conditions it seems quite inappropriate to measure the gravity of any one of these offences by the existence of a state of active service. This does not seem to be the right criterion. Drunkenness when one is flying an aircraft with crew or passengers on board and disobedience on patrol with one of the Polaris submarines are neither more nor less serious whether or not a state of active service exists.
  There is one provision in the code of offences to which I should draw the attention of the House. Under Clauses 2 and 7 it is proposed to re-enact the death penalty for a range of military offences. These offences are: mutiny or incitement to mutiny on active service, misconduct in action, assisting the enemy, obstructing operations, failure to repress a mutiny and spying for the enemy on board Her Majesty's ships and naval establishments overseas. The last one is not in the Bill but is in Section 93 of the Naval Discipline Act.
  Hon. Members are of course rightly deeply concerned about the scope of the death penalty in our legal system. It still exists for one or two offences in the civil law, for instance, treachery under the Treason Act, but the House will note that apart from mutny or incitement
  100
  to mutiny on active service, the only offences which will carry liability of the death penalty are those which have been committed with the intention of assisting the enemy. The results of the grave offences which still carry the death penalty as a maximum sentence could be far greater than any results likely to flow from a crime of murder in civil life. These are the kind of offences which could imperil a ship or a military unit and consequently the lives of comrades. They could imperil the security of an army or a fleet or the security of the country as a whole.
  The other point which the House might like to know is that of course the court will always be able to award any less punishment if it thinks fit to do so. As one would expect, the utmost restraint has been used in carrying out the death penalty in the past. If we put aside executions for murder, which of course is a civil and not a military offence, and which is no longer a capital offence in the military courts, four men have been executed under the Service Discipline Acts since 1939. Three men were executed after conviction for armed mutiny whilst serving in the Indian Ocean in 1942. One was executed for the civil offence of treachery in the course of the war in 1946.
  I will rapidly draw the attention of the House to Part III of the Bill, Clauses 44 to 58. The purpose of the Clauses is to codify practices where they differ between the Services—and they are fairly technical in nature. Clause 56 I think is of general interest. Hon. Members will recall that some time ago a private soldier was brought before a magistrates' court as a suspected deserter. He managed, by committing perjury, to convince the justices that he was not subject to military law, and so he was released. The military authorities later collected evidence which showed that he was in fact a deserter from the Army, and he was arrested by the military police under the normal powers of arrest in the Army Act and charged for the offence of desertion. There was a fair amount of criticism at the time on the grounds that this soldier should not have been brought to account by the military authorities without his being brought again before the civil court which had previously released him. Administrative orders were issued to ensure

  101
  that this situation would not arise again, and Clause 56 is designed simply to embody this in legislation.
  Parts IV and V of the Bill, that is Clauses 59 to 75, contain a variety of miscellaneous Amendments, many of which are rationalisations of practice between the Services. One of these, Clause 74, will be of special interest to the Navy. It enables the new rank of chief fleet petty officer, recently introduced into the Navy, to be given its proper title of warrant officer. I am sure that Members of the House will agree that it is a most desirable step forward that ratings in the Royal Navy can now achieve a comparable position with the warrant officers of the other Services.
  Finally, I should like to refer to part of the discussion in another place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he intended to introduce an Amendment. This would provide that civilians sentenced by court martial should be able to appeal against sentence to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court. At present, civilians in this position are in exactly the same position as members of the Services. After their trials are confirmed and reviewed they may then appeal against conviction to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, but if they wish to appeal only against sentence they can only do this to the Defence Council.
  It was argued in another place that, while there were clearly good reasons for civilians accompanying the forces overseas to be tried by court martial rather than by the local courts, it was nevertheless desirable to give them, as far as possible, the same right of appeal against sentence to a higher court as civilians would have in this country. It was not possible to lay an Amendment to achieve this purpose in another place because the actual working out of the Amendment has proved to be a good deal more difficult and complicated than we had expected. We intend, though, to ensure that appropriate amendment to the Bill is made during its passage through the House, and I thought it was appropriate to inform the House at this stage of our intentions.
  It is now a parliamentary convention that a Bill which affects the discipline of the Services should be referred to a Select Committee. If the House gives a Second Reading to the Bill, we therefore intend to move to send it to a Select
  102
  Committee for examination. When the Select Committee has reported on the Bill, it will of course we recommitted to a Committee of the whole House.
  It is possible that hon. Members of the House and of the Select Committee will have criticisms to make of this legislation, but the Government accept full and total responsibility for the introduction of the legislation into the House. I think it would be the wish of the House as a whole that we should express our thanks to those who over many years have spent much time and work in the preparation of this codification of law, although the ultimate responsibility for its introduction rests on our shoulders.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.9 p.m.
  Mr. George Thomson: I should like immediately to join the hon. Gentleman the Minister of State in expressing the appreciation of the House to those who have done such immense labour in this great task of codification of the various Service Discipline Acts.
  We on this side of the House welcome the Bill in principle, subject to the close scrutiny of its detailed provisions by the Select Committee which the right hon. Gentleman proposed should be set up at the conclusion of the debate. I was grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the Government's decision to introduce the Bill first in another place and for the way in which he said it. Nevertheless, we on this side of the House wish to put on record that we believe the Government were wrong in their judgment. I accept immediately that this was done in the interests of the management of Government business between the two Houses and not with any sinister intention of eroding the constitutional rights of the House of Commons. The rights of this House in regard to the raising and keeping of standing forces in peace time go deep into the history of parliamentary democracy and I feel that it would have been wiser not to have disturbed them.
  This Bill is in direct descent from the historic annual Army and Air Force Acts which were never passed in the Commons until the Commons had voted the Supply to determine the number of men in the Services each year. The position is summed up in page 769 of Erskine

  103
  May. I draw from that a rather different conclusion from the one the noble Lord was seeking to draw, but perhaps it might be simpler to refer to what was actually said in Erskine May:
  "By the procedure laid down in the legislation of 1955, the Commons, in addition to their control over the number of the naval, military and air forces, and the yearly sums to be appropriated for their support, reserve to themselves"—
  these are the words on which emphasis may appropriately be put—
  "the power of determining whether a standing army shall be kept in being in time of peace."
  The noble Lord referred to that excellent and entertaining film about the life of Cromwell. It reminded us that one king lost his head and another lost his throne over this principle. It was rather unwise of the Government to raise their ghosts.
  There are also contemporary reasons, quite apart from the historical reasons, why this principle is important to the House. The House is therefore right to be a little sensitive about its position. We are dealing in the Bill with the liberty, and to some extent with the life, of our constituents who are Servicemen. They do not have a number of the usual channels which are open to civilians for redress of grievance if convicted. Members on all sides are very much the watchdogs for those Servicemen.
  I say frankly to the noble Lord that we on this side do not particularly like the fact that the Secretary of State for such a large spending Department is in another place. It is for the Government to choose whether they wish to arrange their affairs in that way, but if they have the Secretary of State for Defence in another place then they ought to be particularly careful about the traditional rights of the House of Commons. In fact, I do not think the Government helped the House of Lords by their action, though they may have assisted the expedition of their own business.
  Their action forced the House of Lords to take this Bill at a galloping pace. The Government were in such a hurry in the other place that they were not even able to introduce there one important Amendment which, as the noble Lord said, they had hoped to introduce before the Bill left that House. Their Lordships would have
  104
  been better served if they had had the benefit of the considered conclusions of a Select Committee of this House.
  It will be five years before this matter comes before the House again and I have no doubt that by that time there will be a very different Government in power. However, I wish to put on record that we think that the Government were wrong in their judgment on this matter and we feel it should not happen that way again.
  This is a complex Bill and it is difficult to have a Second Reading in the usual sense. It is essentially a Bill appropriate for scrutiny by Select Committee. It presents particular difficulties to laymen in the House. I once undertook a course on how to put people on charges in one of the Services, but I never had an opportunity to practise what I was taught and I have now forgotten all I was told. I can claim that my own military career was as free of crime as it was free of any distinction. The only time I nearly fell foul of the military code was when I was found on the parade ground at Cranwell eating a piece of home-made cake that my mother had just sent me. It was too irresistible to wait any longer to have a nibble at it.
  Lord Balniel: Dundee cake?
  Mr. Thomson: No doubt it was Dundee cake. I wonder under what provision of this Bill that misbehaviour would have come. Would it have been conduct unbecoming to the character of a temporary acting, but I am happy to say paid, sergeant in the Royal Air Force?
  The noble Lord has told the House that the Bill follows a report of a previous Select Committee in 1966 under the then Labour Government. We for our part welcome the achievement of a single common code of offences and a common range of maximum penalties. Servicemen will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, for the successful campaign that he waged in the early 1950s for these changes. He waged that battle with the unique panache he commands and he was able to ensure that every five years there is an opportunity for a thorough examination of Service discipline.
  These Clauses, although extremely technical, involve important human

  105
  issues. Above all, the Bill involves the task of reconciling the individual rights of those in the Services with the necessities of the profession of arms. It is sensible to have a five-yearly review. Service discipline inevitably must be seen against the background of a changing society. Servicemen no longer live in a separate, insulated category. They are very much skilled professionals, operating within society as a whole.
  Concepts of crime and of the treatment of crime have been changing fast in our society over recent years. Changes in the civilian criminal law must inevitably be reflected in the military law. In addition, the professional work of the Serviceman has been changing rapidly. The formal declaration of a conventional war now seems almost as archaic and old-fashioned as the hansom cab. The Serviceman faces all sorts of new challenges and problems. He may find himself involved as part of a United Nations peacekeeping force, where his right to use force may be shrouded in a good deal of ambiguity; or he may now find himself dealing with the new military problem of urban terrorism, such as that in Northern Ireland. That again is bound to raise new problems for the military law.
  There is also the tragic innovation of aerial hijacking which the Bill recognises creates new legal problems. It was mentioned in another place that Clause 71, in Part V, reflects the remarkable discovery that some civilian passengers in military aircraft are outside the jurisdiction of any system of law during the period when they are in that aircraft. As an old civilian traveller on military aircraft, I have been pondering what splendid opportunities of lawlessness I must have missed by ignorance of the fact that I was in total immunity during the period I was travelling through the air as a guest of the Royal Air Force.
  I suppose there are three broad categories of offence which have to be dealt with in terms of military law. First of all, there are the offences which would come under the criminal law in civilian life, which is a straightforward matter. Secondly, there are the offences such as absence without leave, which is not a crime in civilian life, but which it is necessary to regard as an offence given the problems of organising an effective military
  106
  force. There would be general agreement about that, and that distinction is fairly straightforward. Thirdly, there are the offences against morale, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). It is more difficult in that respect to determine where to strike the right balance, and there was some discussion of these problems in another place. No doubt the Select Committee, once it is formed, will wish to look more closely at the problems.
  I note that that ringing phrase, "conduct unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman", is disappearing for ever from the martial landscape, along with the Admiralty and the tot of rum. But, in our egalitarian age, I wonder why "scandalous conduct", even in this amended Bill, should be an offence committed by officers but not, apparently, by any other Servicemen. Why do officers have a monopoly of this sin?
  While on this subject, why should there be a completely different set of penalties for different ranks in the Services? We have just welcomed the fact that a common code of offences and penalties is being established by the Bill between the Services, but between ranks there is a most intricate hierarchy of penalties. This is all set out in splendid detail in Clause 38 of the amended Bill.
  There, one finds that, in the case of an officer, for example, detention cannot be imposed, nor can reduction in rank, apparently, as I read the Bill. He is exempt from minor punishments. Warrant officers also have their own special omissions. The same is true for sailors below the rank of leading seaman, and there is a separate category for ratings themselves. Perhaps that is a matter of principle which the Select Committee might look at more closely.
  The noble Lord mentioned one of the major matters of principle involved in the Bill, the retention of the death penalty for certain categories of military offence. Like the noble Lord, I speak as a strong abolitionist in regard to capital punishment for murder. I notice, first of all, that the Bill reduces the number of offences for which the capital penalty can be invoked. It is being removed altogether in the case of mutiny with violence or the threat of violence in peacetime. Second, it is being retained for a limited

  107
  range of offences in the face of the enemy or for positively assisting the enemy.
  In time of war, when the State itself sanctions the killing of an enemy, when, indeed, killing is likely to be widespread and possibly indiscriminate, the circumstances are very different and give rise to quite different considerations from those which apply to the abolition of capital punishment for murder. Indeed, as the noble Lord said, the abolition of capital punishment for murder applies equally whether that crime is committed within the Services or outside.
  The second matter of general principle which arose during the deliberations in another place was the question whether the operations of the Parliamentary Commissioner should be extended to personal matters within the Services. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at this question. As has been explained, they are at present considering a Report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and this was one of its recommendations.
  I think that there would be general agreement that the Parliamentary Commissioner should not deal in any way with disciplinary offences. That would be as inappropriate as his dealing with the activity of the criminal courts in civilian life. But there are some special considerations regarding the position of Servicemen. As I said, by entering a military life, they voluntarily surrender a certain number of the normal channels of redress of grievance which are open to the ordinary civilian. The Discipline Acts provide a machinery for redress of grievance and I think that the Services are scrupulous in operating that machinery, but the Select Committee took the view that the Parliamentary Commissioner should have the right to consider whether that machinery had operated effectively in every case. There is the question of justice being seen to be done as well as simply being done.
  I do not expect the Government to commit themselves on this matter at this stage. Nor would I like to commit my party finally on this matter. I simply say that the problem should be looked at sympathetically. I am not clear whether this would come within the terms of reference of the Select Committee,
  108
  but by the time that it reports back to the House, perhaps we could have looked at this question again.
  It is against the background of those comments that I join the noble Lord in welcoming the Bill.
  5.27 p.m.
  Mr. James Ramsden: Both my noble Friend the Minister of State and the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) have stuck closely in their speeches to the detailed legal provisions of the Bill. I would seek to do the same, because, although it has been known—I checked my memory by looking at past debates on these Bills—for the debate to go a good deal wider, particularly in Lord Wigg's day, and turn on the general philosophy of the maintenance of standing forces and connected questions, it is appropriate, I think, as we have a season of general defence debates to come shortly, that we should follow the example of the two Front Bench speakers.
  As to whether there was any constitutional impropriety about the Bill going through another place before it came here, I was rather more in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman than with my noble Friend. I was puzzled by my noble Friend's reference to what he called a "Supply Bill". I failed to find the animal in what was admittedly a cursory reading of the two pages of Erskine May, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman was right in his explanation of why it was all right for the Bill to go first to the Lords. He reminded us that the ultimate control of this House over the existence of the Armed Forces comes in Vote A, in control of the Estimates.
  The change in procedure in 1955 and the change by which this Bill now happens only every five years, instead of every year, came about to a certain extent by accident. Again, I am taxing my memory, but I think that in 1954 the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, then the hon. Member for Dudley, and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), possibly more in a spirit of faction than in an attempt to be constructive, put down about 22 pages of Amendments to the Army Act. The Act was exempted business, and if it were not got through by a certain date there would be no Army. The effect of their strategy

  109
  was to bring the then Minister of Defence, Lord Head, to the point when he had no option but to surrender. He was obliged to ask the two hon. Gentlemen for their terms.
  I do not think that the hon. Gentlemen in question had given the matter as much thought as they might have applied to it before that stage was reached because their terms were that there should be instituted a Select Committee and that there should be this five-yearly procedure. I agree that it is a good idea to have a Select Committee, and the House was, therefore, served well by their strategy. But I am not sure that it did not originate, like so many things, by accident.
  I do not see any impropriety in the Bill starting off in the Lords. The reason why it is has emerged in this way is that at this time of the year the Lords find themselves short of Bills with which to deal, while they are very much overloaded in July. The authorities of the House looked into the position and thought it would be a good idea to enable the Lords to finish their labours at the end of the Session in a more leisurely way. I hope that if it happens again it will not happen as it has this year, with the Commons losing a week at Christmas in an effort to lighten the labours of the other place at the end of the summer.
  My noble Friend referred to a change in procedure which the Bill introduces; namely, the making of the Naval Discipline Act quinquennially renewable instead of being a piece of standing permanent legislation. This deserves more than a passing reference because the point is historically interesting, if nothing else. This House has always in the past welcomed without question the permanent legislation of the Navy, but has looked much more critically at the Army and, later, in association with it, the Air Force.
  I recall answering Questions—they were tabled in almost identical terms—for the Army and the then Under-Secretary was answering for the Admiralty, about the eviction of an Army wife and a Navy wife respectively from their quarters. When I answered the Question about the Army wife the House was severe with the Army authorities for having acted hastily and disturbing the family. However, when my hon. Friend answered for the Navy, the attitude of the
  110
  House was rather like saying, "Why has this troublesome woman made things awkward for the British Navy?" This reflects a genuine feeling which the House has had for many years, and it is historically interesting to note that the Navy is now on the same footing as the other Service.
  I am not sure who decides the actual composition of the Select Committee, but it does not seem necessary for a Minister to be on this body. There has always been a Minister on it, and this has involved a great deal of detailed work, though the Minister of the day need not be aware of much of this detail.
  Indeed, a Minister on a Select Committee is neither flesh, fish nor fowl. He has an interest in the content of the Bill before the Committee, unlike the back-bench members of the Committee. But he cannot be expected to know in detail the answers to the questions which the other members of the Committee are bound to ask about the Bill in the same way as the witnesses who are invited to come before the Committee will know those answers.
  It is for consideration whether it is not a waste of a Minister's time to be on such a Select Committee, especially considering that the Amendments that may emerge from that Committee and come before the House have to be answered for by the Minister at that stage.
  Why is there no legislation in the Bill consequent on the acceptance by the Government of the Donaldson Report? Perhaps what the Government intend to do about that Report does not require legislation, though this was not made clear at the time of the anouncement before Christmas. However, there are Clauses regarding terms of engagement under the 1955 Act, and I would like to know whether legislation is not in the Bill because it is not ready—in which case, will it come later?—or because it is not necessary.
  Will my noble Friend spare a thought for those who, as part of their military duties and education, must learn military law? I have been looking at the 1955 Act, and, like the Navy and R.A.F. Discipline Acts, it presents a mass of interleavings, sidelines and marginal notes. The whole process of the unification of the Services must mean changes in the whole ambit of military law, and this will make it difficult for

  111
  those who need to learn military law as part of their duties.
  There must be a case for some sort of consolidation Measure. My noble Friend explained why one Act for all three Services was not possible within the framework by which he has decided to proceed, and I accept his explanation. However, is it not possible for those concerned to be provided with a "fair copy" to help them with their labours?
  I was glad to hear my noble Friend's remarks about the provision enabling financial recovery in connection with a judgment for debt to be made from a Service man's pay. I am sure that hon. Member's have come across cases—they are not at all numerous—of a Service man moving out of an area and perhaps inadvertently leaving behind unpaid debts. It is right that those who may be the victims of these occurrences, which are not frequent, should be protected, and this provision is, therefore, welcome.
  I wish to raise a constituency point which I have no doubt concerns the constituents of many hon. Members. I refer to low-flying aircraft. We are aware that this type of training must occur, but if it must happen over the air space of this country and inevitably cause a certain amount of annoyance, this upheaval must be kept to the minimum. I have always found when writing to the Ministry that complaints are carefully examined and verified and that one can always rely on individual cases to be investigated. The whole subject is taken very seriously indeed.
  It is not a bad thing that those who understandably complain should realise that, as a matter of Service discipline, undue annoyance should not be caused, that pilots in training are under a duty to make sure that they do not cause it, and that if it is caused frivolously it can result in dismissal from the Service. It is fair that this should be realised, but I hope that my noble Friend will see that the rules are maintained, and will maintain with the same care his past practice of investigating complaints with a view to disciplinary action should it ever be necessary.
  I hope that he will also look again at a proposal that was being kicked around when the former Government were in office, that low flying training down the
  112
  centre of the Pennines might avoid even the extreme western fringe of my constituency by the use of another path, although I realise the difficulty of doing that having regard to civil airfields and the congestion of our air space.
  I welcome the Bill. I enjoyed my noble Friend's explanation of it, and feel enlightened by it.
  5.41 p.m.
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: This debate seems like old ground to me. I feel almost as though I were making my maiden speech all over again, though I do not seek the indulgence of the House.
  Of the two mild protests that I wish to make, the first concerns the present composition of the Ministry of Defence. I noticed that my Brigade magazine recently commended the take-over of the Ministry by the Grenadier Guards, so I felt it my duty to be present today and at least to put in a word for the Coldstream Guards.
  My other protest concerns what all speakers have so far pointed out, which is that the Bill has first been dealt with in another place. It was more or less by accident that I found that out, but when I trooped along to listen to the Second Reading I was amazed to find that I had missed it. Reading the speeches on that occasion one finds the excuse made for the Bill starting its life there was that the other place wanted some work. That may be quite all right, but what happened was that the House of Lords short-legged the Leader of this House by getting through Second Reading, and the Committee, Report and remaining stages in four hours, four minutes flat.
  The Bill contains 77 Clauses and two Schedules and affects 350,000 Servicemen and their families. What was not greatly understood in another place was that it also affects quite a number of civilians and their families. Punishments for Service crimes range from the death penalty to reprimand. That being so, it is no wonder that only those involved in the Services, or who may have been involved in the Services, become interested because here there are no precedents. There is nothing in the way of an hon. Member's mailbag filled with representations from people in the Forces, or from pressure groups, trade union or otherwise, asking that various Amendments should be made on their behalf.

  113
  That being so, it is the duty of us all to subject the Bill to close scrutiny, and this I shall seek to do. I apologise for the fact that owing to other duties I have not been able to do as much homework on the Measure as I should have liked, but I intend, if chosen to serve, to busy myself with it in the Select Committee.
  It is becoming customary on occasions such as this to refer to those interested in the subject. Here we have distinguished soldiers, sailors and airmen—and, I think, marines. According to the last edition of my Brigade magazine we have in the House 40 members or ex-members of the Brigade of Guards. Here is one of the best trade unions of all. If one adds messengers and other members of the staff the number becomes immense. We have all ranks from major-generals to a couple of my old company commanders, and sergeant majors and warrant officers, and so on right down to myself. If ever we had to form a House of Commons company, the amount of work that would fall to me would be quite fantastic, as I would be the only one left available to do it.
  We do not need just the view of those who have dished it out; those not on the receiving end. My brushes with authority have been perhaps a little more extensive than have those of people not at the receiving end. I do not say that I speak with any great authority because of that. I was never court martialled, but from a reading of the Bill I must assume that I was perilously close to it at times, or my C.O. must have been very understanding or lenient on occasion, or I was clever enough not to be caught. Nevertheless, my Service crimes had nothing at all to do with what might be considered civil crimes.
  I see to it that I get around the Forces quite a lot during most recesses. I spent Christmas and the New Year with a certain sergeant of the Second Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in Berlin. That was a wonderful experience, and I believe it to be about the best way to find out how Service life affects people. When I asked: "Do you know that when the House resumes after the Christmas Recess there is to be a five-year review of Service punishments?", none of those I asked knew anything about it whatever. That particularly worried me, and I shall wish
  114
  to say something about it in the Select Committee. We have to find some way in which information about such matters can drift through the ranks so that what is decided can be seen to be absolutely necessary for discipline.
  This measure is one in a continuing series of Bills. When we refer to members of the Armed Forces we are talking all the time about professionals and specialists. That is what we have in the Army today. The men themselves consider themselves to be professionals and specialists. Some people might throw up their hands in horror at the civilisation of the Army these days, but it is something that will continue and all we can hope to do on occasions like this is to make sure that the disciplinary codes keep pace with such developments.
  One has only to stay with a battalion to notice the terrific changes that are taking place, not just over the years but over a matter of months. It is nothing out of the ordinary for the C.O. of a battalion to find that one of his biggest duties is not the care of the troops under his command but the care of their families. The C.O. of one battalion had more than 250 children under five years of age under his care. As a great deal of a C.O.'s time must be devoted to that, it is obvious that nowadays commanding officers must not only be first-class soldiers but also be first-class administration and welfare officers.
  I know that in the Bill we can do nothing about the civil law, but I should like the number of Army crimes which are not civilian crimes to be kept to the minimum.
  I thank the Minister for giving us a better explanation than was given in another place of the facts relating to the death penalty provision. Since 1939 this provision has been used very sparingly; there have been only four executions under this power, although there might have been two or three more if the Army could have got their hands on those who were responsible for one particularly disgraceful incident.
  I have been worried for some considerable time at the fact that apparently members of the Armed Forces can still be sentenced to death for murder. Any British soldier who commits a crime off-duty is responsible under the civil law of the country in which he is stationed, so

  115
  it would appear that it is still possible for a British soldier to be sentenced to death and even executed in a country which retains the death penalty. Perhaps this matter can be taken up in close detail in the Select Committee.
  I shall also want to have it justified to me why dismissal with disgrace should be retained in the punishment list. Dismissal would have to be accepted. Not only have the words "with disgrace" lost their meaning, but as there are some crimes in the Army which are not crimes in civilian life it is unfair that a man for the rest of his life should have to carry the stigma of having been dismissed with disgrace.
  I am glad that the offences of scandalous behaviour and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman have gone. Nowadays even the officers regard themselves as professionals. Everyone in the Forces is trying to do an efficient job. In my stay with the Second Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in Berlin I was impressed by the togetherness of the troops. I spent the afternoon of Christmas Eve in the support company club of that regiment. It was a wonderful afternoon when the officers, warrant officers, sergeants and men gat together and talked about things in a rational way. I cannot conceive of such a thing happening five years ago.
  We shall have to be on the watch all the time in our scrutiny of the Bill for acts which are offences if committed by officers but not offences if committed by other ranks and vice versa. All members of the British Armed Forces are now professionals. Such distinctions may have been necessary during the time of the Indian Mutiny or the Boston Tea Party, but they are no longer necessary.
  On the face of it, the new provision that someone sentenced to imprisonment is automatically dismissed the Service is an advance, but I am worried in particular about the position of men who signed on at the age of, say, 18, for 22 years and who will be 40 on the completion of their period of service. By the end of about 18 or 20 years the only thing that such a man is looking forward to is the end of his 22 years' service and his pension so that he can adapt himself to civilian life with his pension behind him. A man in this
  116
  category may have an unblemished career for, say, 18 years and then do something stupid or unfortunate in the last few years of his service and be sentenced to two years' imprisonment and automatically dismissed the service. I shall want to examine this provision very carefully to see if there is any protection for men in this category.
  Another aspect of Service discipline which is worrying me greatly arises from the unfortunate situation facing the Army and the country in general in Northern Ireland. It is amazing how well discipline is holding up there under the terrific pressures of T.V. cameras and commentators going round with troops in their back pockets, so to speak. This has led to some unfortunate incidents in families which have sons serving out in Northern Ireland. There should be some machinery to obviate these invidious occurrences, because it must be difficult for a man from Northern Ireland who signed on in the British Army to find himself posted back to serve in Northern Ireland. In my early days if I had had to go with the British Army to Northern Ireland I should have found it very difficult to explain this to my grandfather, knowing his views.
  Is there any machinery to ensure that such men can be sifted out? I recognise that men who join the Army volunteer to serve anywhere at any time, but we must expect servicemen to have feelings in these circumstances and we should attempt to secure that nobody is forced to serve in a country in such circumstances against his will. The fact that there have been invidious incidents is proved by the figures far absence without leave amongst those posted to Northern Ireland. Care must be exercised about the disciplinary aspect of service in Northern Ireland. One irate mother in my constituency phoned to say that she had heard on television about a certain guardsman who had done a certain thing and that his name had been mentioned; she wanted to know if it was her son. That is one of the terrible things that can happen in such situations. It caused a great deal of distress to that lady and the whole family. Unfortunately, it turned out to be her son, but I went to see him later and explained to him. The matter was no fault of the Army or the Defence Department. I can only say a big "Thank you" to the Department for

  117
  the co-operation I have had from it on such problems.
  I intend to give the Bill a great deal of scrutiny. The House should show the Forces that we are doing this, because they have no direct representation. Many Servicemen—I am talking about those on long engagements—do not consider themselves to be represented by any Member because they do not feel that they have a root in any one place. If they are asked who is their Member of Parliament, they will say, "What do I take as my last address? Is it my last Army camp?" Many of them feel disenfranchised in one way or another.
  I am not really suggesting an Ombudsman for the Services. I have come to the conclusion that at times I am more or less the Ombudsman for quite a number of disgruntled Servicemen. Letters from many of them seem to end up on my desk, and dealing with some of them is a labour of love for me. We must try to make sure that the Armed Forces have a representation in the House which makes itself felt here. We must find a machinery for doing that, particularly on Measures such as the Bill before us, so that we can obtain the true feeling not only of the Army Council and the Defence Department but of the men. We could get some good ideas from some of them on what some of the punishments should be. We might get a few surprises as well. It could only help if Servicemen felt that they had a voice here and had a say in the decisions being made for them. It could also go a long way to help the recruiting figures, which happily have shown a bit of a spurt lately.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: I wish to speak about a fairly technical matter concerning Clause 75, on which I have some doubts which I hope can be resolved.
  One of the features of a Bill dealing with the Armed Services in a comprehensive way, as the Bill does, is that it covers not only the three Services but more than one jurisdiction. The Bill commendably seeks to iron out divergences between the law of England and the law of Scotland in Clause 75, dealing with a technicality of evidence. My doubt is whether the amendment to previous legislation which it proposes is apt to achieve the desired result. The Clause
  118
  attempts to achieve the same result in Scotland as is achieved in England, whereby certain documents are admissible in evidence or are evidence of any matter stated in them. It is provided that such documents
  "shall be sufficient evidence of the matter so stated in such proceedings in Scotland."
  My doubt arises on the use of the word "sufficient" in this context. It is tolerably clear from a quick perusal of the Bill that three classes of documents are in view: first, affidavits; second, records of court proceedings, such as courts martial; third, various certificates. The difficulty I have with "sufficient" arises in this respect. If we say that evidence is legally sufficient, that means that it may be admitted by a court and considered on its merits. I think that we are also saying "considered on its merits without regard to the legal necessity for any other evidence". But a court has also to assess the sufficiency of evidence in another sense. Having accepted the evidence before it as sufficient in a legal sense, it must decide whether that evidence is sufficient in weight to allow it to achieve a certain result—for example, to decide for one side or the other in the contest before it.
  I feel that the problem with which the Clause seeks to grapple is primarily that of dealing with affidavits and certificates. It is a well understood practice in the law of England, though not in the law of Scotland, to take the evidence of persons outwith the United Kingdom, or in places inaccessible to the courts, in written form. An English court has no difficulty in regarding such a written affidavit as equivalent to the evidence of a witness given in court before it. But in Scotland such a document would normally require something more; it would require, at least, for instance, someone to speak to it as evidence in the case. Obviously, Clause 75 wants to eliminate the need for that, and that seems to me a reasonable requirement.
  The second situation with which I think the Clause tries to cope is that where, according to the law of Scotland, a document would not by itself be legally sufficient and it would be necessary to have corroboration by a witness giving oral testimony to the same effect.
  Those are the two things the Clause tries to do—on the one hand to allow

  119
  things like affidavits to be legally sufficient, without any further testimony, and on the other to exclude the need for corroboration where the law of Scotland would require it. Those are laudable objectives if we are trying to achieve a uniform code of law for the two countries and the three Services. My doubt about the aptness of the wording of the Clause arises from the use simply of the word "sufficient". Saying that
  "it shall be sufficient evidence"
  does not make clear whether the object of the Bill is merely to make the evidence legally sufficient or to go beyond that and say that the testimony in the document is to be sufficient for all purposes. In other words, it does not make clear whether it means to exclude an argument that the document before the court, although legally sufficient, is not sufficient evidence to establish the point which is sought to be established.
  The questiton I have raised is a short one, but it is important, because the House would not wish the effect of a document produced in a Scottish court to be substantially different from the effect of the same document produced in an English court, and the object of the Clause is to remove that doubt. If the word "sufficient" could be taken in the sense that I have put forward, as referring to the weight of evidence and not simply its legal admissibility, it would have the effect that a litigant in Scotland would be barred from arguing to the court that although it was legally sufficient the evidence was not sufficient in weight.
  I should be very grateful to hear from the Government whether they have canvassed this matter properly. If they have not, I hope that they will look into it seriously and that they can resolve my doubts about it today or at a later stage.
  6.9 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am in general entirely in favour of bringing Service disciplinary codes up to date, which in essence is what the Bill does. I agree very largely with the remarks from both sides of the House about this aspect. I am also, with slightly less enthusiasm, in favour of unifying the disciplinary codes applicable to the three Armed Services.
  120
  Service discipline must always be of a different nature from that in civilian life. This is perhaps implicit in the very use of the word "Service" to describe the Armed Forces of the Crown. But in the process of bringing Service discipline up to date it would be an error to over-reach and make it too liberal too fast.
  I also put it to the House that there is no need to make Service discipline over-liberal, because Service discipline, certainly in my experience, has been most fairly applied through many generations. I think also that the appeal procedure, even under existing conditions, is very adequate, and personally I am suspicious of the idea of the Ombudsman being able to extend his area of operations within the Services, so to speak. Without having a closed mind on this subject, I feel that at present the appeal procedure is adequate, and one does not want, so to speak, to fog the issue or complicate the life of the Serviceman or the officer by bringing the Ombudsman into it.
  It would also be fair to say that Service discipline results in wonderfully good industrial relations, if I may use that term, within the Services.
  Mr. Concannon indicated assent.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nodding. It is, in fact, a lesson to the rest of the country. I am sure that I speak for all three Services in this.
  In an effort to rationalise, I think that it is very important not to let the essential difference between the three Services be blurred for a matter of drafting or administrative convenience. The disciplinary circumstances, after all, in a submarine are quite different from those in the Second Regiment of Fusiliers stationed in Berlin. I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who spoke about the situation in Berlin, was surprised to see the close relationship or understanding between officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks, as I understood him. That situation has existed within the submarine service since the beginning.
  Mr. Concannon: I do not think that I said in that context that I was surprised to see it. I was surprised at the extent

  121
  it has moved over the few years even since I left the Forces.
  Rear Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am glad that the Government are giving attention so early in this Session to the conditions in the Armed Forces. Obviously, as my noble Friend said, there has been a great deal of labour in working out this very detailed Bill. I am glad most of all that this matter is now under consideration because of a point made by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence when he said, in a recent lecture at the Royal United Services Institution:
  "… we can't succeed in recruiting voluntary forces unless we, as a Government, are seen and heard to attach real importance to Defence."
  That process is going on under this present Government and is long overdue.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: The hon. and gallant Gentleman might direct his attention to one particular aspect of the Bill. It removes Section 2 of the Naval Discipline Act in relation to the duty imposed upon a naval officer to use his utmost exertion to bring his ship into action and to pursue an enemy whom it is his duty to pursue. That provision has been deleted. As a gallant seaman himself, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us his views on the deletion of these duties?
  Rear Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, but I think that it is really implicit, certainly in the training of all the Forces. It probably hardly needs saying. But, as an aside, it is probably worth remarking that, in the legislation—and the Select Committee will have to take care of this—it is very important that no distinction should be drawn between what happens in peace and what happens in war, because peace and war are very difficult to distinguish in the present day. I want to quote from a speech made in the House not long ago on the subject. Stating that there was a completely different dimension in war, the speaker said:
  "The main battlefield now lies not on the plains of Europe but elsewhere. It lies in the steaming jungles of Laos and the ruined cities of Vietnam. It lies in the bazaars of Bangkok and the city council of Singapore. It lies in the swamps of Borneo and in the minds of 80 million Indonesians. It lies in the wrangles within the Indian Congress and
  122
  in the swollen bellies of starving babies in Calcutta. It lies beneath the sweltering sands of Arabia and in the rumour, gossip and intrigue of the small Gulf States."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 285–6.]
  So it goes on. The point I am making is that it would be misleading and confusing to the Services to have different sets of circumstances in peace and war in the legislation we are to go into in detail. The quotation about this new background I agree with—because I was the chap who made the speech.
  6.16 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) gave a most eloquent quotation from his own speech and I am sure that it will go down in history in various anthologies of English prose. But I cannot agree with him altogether on the question of distinction between peace and war in relation to this Bill. Of course, it is much more difficult than it used to be to distinguish between the two. Very often, there are no formal declarations of war. Perhaps it is a police action, so called, or a United Nations action, as in Korea. But I hope that at least some of the penalties in the Bill, such as the death penalty—which the Minister of State spoke of with great restraint and with some sympathy—would hardly ever be applicable in peace time. I think the hon. Gentleman said that there had been one execution since the war—I think we know which one that was—and I suggest, with respect to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that there is a distinction to be drawn there.
  Secondly, I do not altogether agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman on a minor point he made—the use of the word "service". That does not distinguish the Armed Forces from the entire civilian community by any means. There are all sorts of ways in which people serve as civilians, in the police, the Fire Service and other ways. Mr. Speaker himself is the servant of this House, and so on. So I do not think that the Armed Forces have any monopoly of the admirable concept of service.
  There is another point on which I agree to some extent with the hon. and gallant Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon)—that is on the greatly improved relations in our Armed Forces

  123
  between officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks generally. In my experience, this has been most noticeable in the Royal Marines, particularly in a Royal Marine Commando. I think one can generally observe a very great improvement, which probably reflects the general rise in the educational standards among other ranks.
  It is not universal yet, unfortunately. One still hears of unfortunate incidents like that rather ridiculous but deplorable recent case in which a number of sailors were drunk and appeared to have enacted a sort of charade. Discipline in that ship must have been extremely bad anyway, and the relations between the officers and ratings not as they should have been, from all accounts. But I hope that that sort of offence would not be regarded as the most serious kind of mutiny. I cannot remember the result of the charges. Those involved were quite severely punished, I think, and perhaps they had to be.
  In my interjection in the speech of the Minister of State, I referred to Clause 28. He was good enough to say that this was a matter which could be dealt with by the Select Committee, which would go into all the details. That is naturally so, but I would not myself accept that Clause 28 is merely what one, in another context, calls a "mere Committee point". An important principle is involved.
  This is the kind of offence to which we are accustomed in what is strictly war time; in the Second World War, for example. However, in peacetime, or in one of these curious marginal situations which are half war and half peace, there are some dangers in enacting something so widely drawn and so vague as this Clause—"Offences against morale". It says:
  "Any person subject to military law who spreads (whether orally, in writing, by signal, or otherwise) reports relating to operations of Her Majesty's forces, of any forces co-operating therewith, or of any part of any of those forces, being reports calculated to create despondency … shall … be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years …".
  That is a somewhat dangerous principle, and I hope that if it goes through unamended, it will be applied with great restraint and discretion.
  It is easy to think of situations in which a soldier, or even an N.C.O. or an
  124
  officer, talking freely with his colleagues, might comment in a disparaging way on the performance of some allied force, perhaps in a United Nations peacekeeping exercise. One can think of the example of Northern Ireland, or Cyprus, or Vietnam, where we should now be committed, if the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester had had his way, for I remember his speech from the Opposition Front Bench when he said that we ought to send some warships there. It would be almost impossible for any civilised officer or other rank not to comment on the brutality and corruption which would be so evident all around him in Vietnam in certain allied forces. There are dangers in Clause 28, but I will say no more about it at the moment.
  I wanted to speak chiefly about a particular aspect of naval discipline; that is to say, the conditions in the Royal Naval detention quarters at Portsmouth. I know that the hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the Navy in the Ministry of Defence is very much concerned about conditions in this establishment, as was his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen.) I drew my hon. Friend's attention to them—I am sure that he was aware of them—three and a half years ago when I visited a constituent in the detention quarters at Portsmouth. I found that, although, of course, they were hygienic and no doubt humanely run, they were extraordinarily backward by comparison with even one of our civilian prisons, which are not at present a model to the world because of overcrowding and so on.
  My constituent said, "I am glad that you have come on a Saturday afternoon, because on Saturdays we are locked up from midday until Sunday morning." That seemed to be a long time for a teenager to be locked up in solitary confinement in a cell. He went on to say, "Also, we have to do two tasks on a Saturday." I asked what he meant and he replied, "Most days we do one task, but on Saturdays we do two, because we are locked up and there is nothing else to do." I asked, "What tasks, what sort of work, do you do?" He described the process which is most familiarly known to students of English history and literature as picking oakum. It seemed to me rather extraordinary that in the 1960s able fit young men, even if

  125
  they have committed a military offence, should still be picking oakum.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton slightly refined the term later by pointing out that there were three stages, or phases, in the process and that perhaps only the first could be accurately described as picking oakum, while the third was the greatly refined and sophisticated process of making a kind of matting out of the oakum picked. But I still think that there should be more variety of constructive tasks available, which would help slightly in the rehabilitation of naval ratings confined in these quarters.
  The aim should be to assimilate military and naval detention barracks and the punishment and procedures in them to the ideal always set forth by the Home Office for civilian prisons, although it is not always lived up to in civilian prisons—that the emphasis should be on rehabilitation rather than mere punishment.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as always, would wish to be fair and that before leaving the subject of detention quarters—for his remarks will be widely reported in the Press—he will wish to agree that admirable results are produced throughout the naval disciplinary system of which the detention quarters are only a small part.
  Mr. Driberg: I agree. On one matter the hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong. All my remarks are invariably ignored by the Press, except when they can be libellously distorted. I agree with the main point that he makes. Even these rather backward detention quarters were humanely administered so far as I could tell, and were perfectly clean, but I did not think that they were suited for rehabilitation.
  I have another comment which in a way is related to that. The constituent whom I was then visiting was one of those lads whose position was dealt with by the Donaldson Committee, whose report was issued fairly recently, with not very encouraging results from the Government. He was one of those who, out of boredom, for a change, had signed on at 15 and had repeatedly gone absent and was apparently quite unsuited to the life and discipline of the Royal Navy. I persuaded him to give himself up and I turned him in personally at the police
  126
  station, which I think is the best thing to do when these lads become desperate and are on the run. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) was good enough to have this lad examined by a Service psychiatrist.
  This is a point which I ventured to make in the evidence which I submitted to the Donaldson Committee. Premature release, so to speak, whether on compassionate grounds or release by purchase, is always difficult for the Service authorities, which have to keep a balance between the requirements of the Services and the interest of the individual. That is perfectly well understood. But what I would say to any hon. Member who is trying to secure the release of a Serviceman on the ground that he is not suited to the Service and that it is a waste of time and money to keep him in the Service is that he should ask the Minister responsible to allow the man to see an independent civilian psychiatric consultant as well as a Service psychiatrist.
  In this case the two psychiatrists differed remarkably in their estimates of the man's character and potentialities. In January, 1967, I was advised by the Ministry that he had been examined by a psychiatrist who could find no psychiatric disorder. Later in January my hon. Friend wrote to me and said that the psychiatrist had found no mental disorder which rendered him unfit to stand trial or even to continue in the Service. So he pleaded guilty and got ninety days' detention. My hon. Friend added, as is the custom with letters from the Ministry of Defence tinder any Government:
  "I sincerely hope that"
  so-and-so
  "will earn his full one third remission by good behaviour and that on release he will then be able to settle down to a useful career in the Navy."
  I then persuaded by hon. Friend to let an independent consultant psychiatrist examine this person. I do not wish to cast any reflection on the Service psychiatrist, who no doubt gave an honest opinion after a rather short interview, but the civilian psychiatrist came to a totally different conclusion, so that in July my hon. Friend wrote:
  "I have now seen this second opinion and it indicates that there has been, regrettably, some deterioration in your constituent's mental state

  127
  since he was first seen by the naval psychiatrist"—
  I hope that that was not because of his incarceration in those detention quarters—
  "and it is therefore unlikely that he will ever become a useful member of the Service. In these circumstances … I am approving his discharge as temperamentally unsuitable for a naval career."
  If any question of the mental or emotional stability of a Serviceman arises, particularly if he is a young Serviceman who has signed on for a long term at the age of 15 or 16 without realising what he was doing, it is extremely desirable that he should see not only a Service psychiatrist, but an independent civilian psychiatric consultant. I hope that those who represent the Ministry of Defence in this House will be good enough to bear this in mind and follow the excellent example set by my hon. Friend.
  6.31 p.m.
  Mr. Ernle Money: I want to deal briefly with one aspect of court martial procedure not covered by the Bill. That is the situation which arises over costs for a successful defendant. As a young barrister I used to spend quite a lot of time in Germany appearing for Service personnel, officers and other ranks, who had been charged generally with civilian offences under the Air Force or Army Acts. There is nothing sweeter in an advocate's career than the moment at which he can ask for his client to be discharged with costs and then to succeed.
  Although in many cases legal aid is available, it is contributory, and certainly in the Air Force and Army in many cases it is highly contributory. However, Judge Advocates have no discretion to award costs to a successful defendant. That falls even harder on senior other ranks or officers who for reasons of income do not fall within the scope of the legal aid scheme at all and in these circumstances have to carry the whole of their defence even when acquitted after a full and fair trial. They are still left heavily out of pocket so that any victory from their point of view must to some extent be a Pyrrhic one. It is a very small slur on what is otherwise an admirable system of justice. It is certainly something which can cause an individual to be punished through his pocket for merely being tried,
  128
  which is alien to the British system of law.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: In many respects this Bill is to the Forces what the Industrial Relations Bill is to the industrial worker. It has its penal sanctions which can be applied to Servicemen as they go about their occupations. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) said he was convinced that military law was applied fairly in the Services. I hope and believe that he is correct but we have no means of knowing whether that is a fact because, unlike the industrial worker, the Serviceman is not represented in this House by those who are knowledgeable through current contact and consultation with Servicemen.
  It is one of the defects in our debate that we are discussing measures of the utmost importance to these men without the benefit of their views and opinions. I do not take the view of the noble Lord who, in opening the debate, said that these Acts are broadly understood by Servicemen. I very much doubt whether the average Serviceman has even seen the Army Act, the Air Force Act or the Naval Discipline Act. To give an illustration, when I was serving in the Royal Navy—
  Lord Balniel: The point I was trying to make was that the Army Act, the Air Force Act and the Naval Discipline Act were long-standing Acts which I said I hoped were understood by Servicemen. I appreciate that they do not follow all the details. I was arguing that it was desirable to keep them separate rather than to have a unified Act which would be longer and more complicated.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I accept that. The noble Lord said "broadly understood", and I accept his definition. I am glad that he agrees with me that the ordinary Serviceman probably does not understand the details of the Act applying to his Service.
  I was about to give an illustration of something which occurred to me during my service in the Royal Navy. I had reason to be in dispute with those who held command over me and I exercised my rights under the then King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions to inspect the regulations which applied to

  129
  the particular incident over which I was in dispute with my superior officers. I was entitled to see them, but I had to see them in the presence of an officer, who merely turned to the page he thought appropriate to the point I wished to investigate, allowed me to read that page, but not to make an extract from it in writing so that I might have it in mind later. I am sure that such out-of-date procedures have long since passed.
  I am still doubtful about how quickly a Serviceman can get access to his particular disciplinary Act. I would like the Minister to give the House an assurance that on each ship or establishment these Acts are readily available for Servicemen to read and study without there being present a superior officer and that the men are able to understand the law applying to their occupations. That is a basic requirement, and I hope that we can have some assurance tonight. I hope, also, that the Under-Secretary will reply to the interesting point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) about the application of Scottish and English law to Clause 75. It is a most pertinent point. The Minister must not slip away from the debate without dealing with it, and I hope that he will not endeavour so to do.
  As the Bill will go to a Select Committee, we do not want to deal now with too many detailed points, but I wish to refer, in particular, to Clause 8. In days now gone, it was an offence—I think it was called "dumb insolence"—to stand before one's superior officer and by an expression upon one's face convey to that superior officer that one did not hold him in high regard. That has been abolished, but I am concerned—indeed, to use stronger language, I am somewhat appalled—to find that in Clause 8 there is a proposal to resinsert into the Army Act and the Air Force Act—not the Naval Discipline Act, because we have not been sufficiently progressive to remove the corresponding provision there—the words, "or behaves with contempt to". Thus, we are returning to the days when it was an offence by any facial expression to convey one's opinion of the person before whom one was standing to attention. I believe that this is a retrograde step.
  130
  I hope that the Minister will give a clear explanation of what is intended by the expression, "to behave with contempt to a superior officer". I hope that it does not mean that, if a serving soldier, airman or sailor is on a charge or is being addressed by his superior officer, he will be guilty of another offence if he expresses by his eyes the opinion which he may genuinely hold. That point needs to be cleared up, if not today, certainly when the Bill goes to the Select Committee.
  I was surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) did not deal at greater length with the passing of those fine-sounding Sections and subsections of the Naval Discipline Act which deal with the duty of an officer in command of one of Her Majesty's vessels to bring that vessel into action in the face of the enemy and to pursue those whom it is his duty to pursue. I should like to hear from the Under-Secretary whether the Admiralty Board expressed any opinion or regret at the passing of those traditional sentences in the Naval Discipline Act.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) rightly referred to the passing from the Army Act of the words referring to "officers and gentlemen", and I assume that henceforth all members of the Army will be gentlemen at least by implication. The passing of those words is all very good, and probably the passing of the words in the Naval Discipline Act about the duty of a commanding officer is all very good. But we must be careful that we do not go too far in removing all the traditional customs and usages in our Armed Forces.
  I particularly regret the passing of the Navy rum ration. If I might remind my right hon. Friend, the stopping of the naval rum ration, unfortunately, did not bring equality into the Royal Navy. It brought inequality and continuing distinctions between the various sections of the Royal Navy. The rum ration was abolished because it was considered to be incompatible with the need for seamen to operate the complex machinery and systems now used in the Royal Navy, and so it passed from the scene. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) had responsibility in

  131
  this matter, and he carries the odium of having taken the decision.
  Though the rum ration was abolished for the lower deck, strong alcoholic drink was still available in the wardroom. My right hon. Friend talks about equality in the Forces, but we did not get equality in the Royal Navy when we made it a "dry" lower deck and still left the wardroom "wet". [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not a dry lower deck."] It is dry inasmuch as ratings no longer have spirits. I believe that they are entitled to an extra can of beer. The so-called extension of the privilege of spirits to petty officers and chief petty officers only serves to emphasise the point. By giving that privilege to petty officers, we give a constant reminder to the ordinary seaman on the lower deck of the privilege that he has lost and which is conferred only upon those of superior rank.
  I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East in his remarks about a Parliamentary Commissioner for the Forces. It would be a useful step forward if there were an official available to Servicemen who could listen to their genuine fears and complaints about the operation of the various laws and regulations governing their jobs. I go a little further than my right hon. Friend who left the question open. I say that it is no longer an open question. It is essential that we have a commissioner for the Armed Forces to do that job.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), in a remarkable and compassionate speech, dealt with some of the problems affecting individuals in detention, and, in passing, he referred to the occasion a short time ago when a number of seamen were charged under the Act and were sentenced to imprisonment for being drunk—I think the charge was conduct to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline, or whatever it may be—[An HON. MEMBER: "Mutiny."]—they were charged with mutiny because they were drunk on board ship. I was horrified to read that, despite the fact that those seamen were sentenced to imprisonment, the officer in command of the ship, who obviously had failed to exercise proper control, discipline and leadership, and who had invited a tramp aboard and entertained him in the wardroom, suffered only a reprimand. The
  132
  comparison between the punishments meted out, imprisonment for the seamen who were allowed to conduct themselves in such a disgraceful manner, and a reprimand imposed upon the officers who, by their lack of leadership and control, allowed this situation to develop, is but an illustration of the continuing disparity between the standards which appear to be applied to officers and those applied to other ranks.
  I hope that the Select Committee which is to consider the Bill will make visits to the Forces and have an opportunity, at least informally—I recognise all the difficulties of formal meetings—perhaps over cups of tea or glasses of beer, to discuss some of the matters covered by the Bill with ordinary rank-and-file Servicemen. One accepts that one cannot have trade unions in the Forces, but the Select Committee, before recommending acceptance of these proposals to the House, ought to enable itself to discuss these matters informally with serving men so that we may know as a matter of fact rather than theory and belief the real reaction of those who are entrusted with the duty of protecting us and our nation.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Carol Mather: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) reminded us of the withdrawal of the rum ration by the last Government, and I agree with what he said. It was a somewhat mean and unnecessary act, and I regret that it was ever done.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke also about the availability of the Army Act and the other Acts to ordinary soldiers, sailors and airmen at the places where they live and work. In my 22 years of experience in the Services, I found that the Acts were available in the company office, the squadron office or the ship's office for anyone who wished to see them. Most serving men, however, are more interested in the summary justice which is meted out by their commanding officer, and they are more likely to direct their minds to that.
  I come now to the Bill itself. Clause 2 relates to conditions of total war, and I have one or two points to raise. On the question of misconduct in action, I am sure that the principle behind the

  133
  Clause is right, where it refers in the proposed new Section 24(1) to the offence of surrendering
  "without lawful excuse … any place or thing to the enemy"
  or abandoning
  "any place or thing which it is his duty to defend. …".
  It must be right to put those words in the Act, but in certain theatres during the last war one was constantly abandoning places and things as one moved up and down in desert warfare, and it would be difficult to say whether one has a lawful excuse at any one moment.
  I have in mind another situation of which I was a victim during the last war and I have been unable to discover from my reading of the Bill how the malefactor in such a case would be caught. This was the case of a "stool-pigeon", a British Serviceman who deserted to the enemy with the intention of assisting them. He passed through the lines in the desert war, in 1941–42, and went over to the Italian side. Thereafter, as British soldiers were captured and became prisoners-of-war, he appeared among them in British Army clothing, impersonating a British officer. He tried to obtain from them information about dispositions and plans, and also whether they had plans for escape.
  This man came to me. He appeared to be a British soldier, being dressed as an officer, and I was taken in. After he had left the cell where I was a prisoner-of-war, I had all my clothing taken away, and the various maps, compasses and things which I had hidden were removed from me. This man moved among numerous prisoners of war as they came through, and, in the way I have described, obtained from them information about Allied plans and about their own plans for escape. It was proved afterwards that he was responsible for the capture and death of many of our people concerned in those operations. Yet, having looked through the new provisions, I cannot see how he would be caught.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Is it not the proposed new Section 25(1)(d),
  "having been captured by the enemy, serves with or aids the enemy in the prosecution of hostilities or of measures calculated to influence morale, or in any other manner whatsoever not authorised by international usage"?
  Mr. Mather: I have noted that, but the opening words are "having been captured". The man I am referring to went over of his own volition, so I do not think that his case would be covered by that paragraph. However, I understand that he was eventually brought to book under the law prevailing at that time.
  I turn next to Clause 6, which specifically provides that looting is against the law. During the last war, however, looting or the collection of booty was pretty prevalent and was winked at by the authorities on a fairly large scale. I remember that a very senior officer with whom I served was once accused of looting a pig. I feel that this phraseology should be looked at again to take account of that sort of situation and what might happen if, by some chance, we had war on that scale again.
  I do not feel that the establishment of an ombudsman for the Armed Forces would be a great advantage or be particularly good for military discipline. The redress of grievances works extremely well in the Forces, and I should prefer to leave it to our present methods.
  6.56 p.m.
  Miss Joan Lestor: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I was delayed in attending to a constituency problem.
  The matter which I wish to raise is connected with the Bill and it arises from the recommendations made in the Donaldson Report, some of which were recently accepted by the Government. I was disappointed that all the recommendations were not accepted, but I was pleased that at least some were, and I felt that progress had been made in developing an understanding of the situation of young men or boys who, at one point in their lives, are encouraged to join the Forces and then, when they are a year or two older, realise that they have made a mistake. Everyone welcomes the new arrangement under which they will have a right to leave earlier than was possible hitherto, but our acceptance of that principle entails that we consider also the position of those young men who were boy recruits—I have two in my constituency, and one of them has this week, I believe, given himself up—and subsequently deserted because they were

  135
  unhappy and could not get their discharge.
  In accepting some of the Donaldson recommendations, we recognise that young men at 15, 16 or 17 years of age will not fully appreciate all the consequences of the decision which they take then. I hope that we can go a stage further and, in the same light, consider the position of those who regret the decision which they then took and have deserted. The young man in my constituency to whom I have referred enlisted before he was 16. He is now 21. I am not sure how long he has been a deserter; I was not able to ascertain that.
  My plea is that some compassion and understanding should be shown towards these young men. We have, as I say, endorsed the principle that boy recruits should have an opportunity to consider their position and obtain their release after they have served three years, and so on, and I hope that this will be borne in mind when some of these other young men who have given themselves up come forward for judgment. A number of young deserters who are still not able to give themselves up because they fear not only detention but that they will be put back in the Services and will have to serve the rest of their time and lose the period of their desertion are condemned to many years of misery and unhappiness. It will be a waste of their lives.
  I know that it is not possible to make a general statement because each case must be dealt with individually, but if we could make it known to boy recruits who have deserted that the same principles will be applied to them as we are to apply to boy recruits after they have served a certain time we would end a great deal of unhappiness and uncertainty for perhaps a small but very important section of young people.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. John Morris: There is always a danger in defence debates, which I have been taking part in for a number of years, that old battles will be refought. This debate has been no exception. We have had a short, interesting but nevertheless wide-ranging debate. I was interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who returned
  136
  to his old battle concerning the rum ration for the Navy. I was glad to hear that he does not now regard that matter as important.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) made an interesting speech. I think that it was made on behalf of the Coldstream Guards, because he was chiding the Ministry for having been taken over by the Grenadiers. Far be it from me to intervene in the sniping between various members of the Brigade of Guards. All that I would say for the record is that it was drummed into every recruit to my old regiment, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, that when we were offered the opportunity to become the first battalion of the Welsh Guards in 1916, we turned down the honour because it was felt that it was hardly worth while to become a new regiment dating from 1916 in view of the illustrious victories which the Fusiliers had won from 1753 or thereabouts.
  Having been concerned for over two years in discharging, as Minister, across-the-board responsibilities for each of the Services, I very much welcome the major aim of the Bill to bring the Services more into line one with another on the issue of discipline. From my short experience in these matters, I realise the limitations—the different considerations of each Service and the attractions of commonality which must be weighed against any possible deterioration in the effectiveness of each Service. I think that it would be right to say that under my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) we made very great progress in creating a Ministry of Defence compared with the previous loose-knit federal structure. I am sure that this trend will continue.
  Like the Minister of State, I had the opportunity, as an across-the-board Minister, to see the problems of each Service in turn. I had the chance, as I am sure the noble Lord has had, of presiding over each of the Service Boards. It was interesting to see how they behaved—and I do not mean that in any offensive way—and their reactions to problems. Not many people have had the opportunity of presiding over each Service Board in turn.
  While my responsibilities hardly ever referred to the issue of discipline—I was concerned with equipment rather than

  137
  with the problems of men apart from a fairly short period in the summer just before and after the death of Gerry Reynolds, who was highly esteemed by the Services—I remember on one famous occasion presiding over the Navy Board when the system of discipline in the Navy was discussed.
  The process of the harmonisation of the Services will go on. We envisaged this in our last White Paper. We proposed the abolition of single Service junior Ministers and instead the appointment of one or more Ministers who would be responsible across the board for the three Services. It is perhaps regrettable that the Government, who were pledged to reduce the size of the Administration, shied when they came to this fence. This was in the face of a report of business men, senior Service officers and senior civil servants who had come to the same conclusion as us. Nevertheless, they merged two posts in the office of Minister of State, as we had envisaged.
  Lord Balniel: Far from shying from the issue, we took a positive decision to the effect that it was right and in the interests of the Services that each Service should have a political head to whom it could look. We are absolutely convinced that our action was right and wise.
  Mr. Morris: The noble Lord is entitled to his opinion, but the Government shied at our decision to reduce the number of Service Ministers. After a great deal of consideration, they rejected the idea of having one political head for each Ministry and decided on appointing a person with across-the-board responsibilities.
  Mr. Ramsden: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Opposition, when in government, said that they would reduce the number of Ministers? They said in the White Paper that they would replace them with others with across-the-board responsibilities, but, to my recollection, they never published any intention about reducing the number of Ministers.
  Mr. Morris: This was one of the major claims of the Government when they were in opposition. We made our position clear in our last White Paper on these matters. We said that we would
  138
  amalgamate the two offices of Minister of State, as the Government have done, and that instead of having one junior Minister for each Service there would be a reduction in that one Minister or possibly more would have across-the-board responsibilities. One of the Government's claims when they were in opposition was that they would reduce the number of Ministers. When they came to the question of junior Ministers for each Service, they shied at the fence.
  The Service Boards cling to their junior Ministers as though they were their fathers in God. They have a certain amount of power in questions of discipline, but they still believe that they have a substantial power, which has been eroded. They know full well, if they look at the matter rationally and objectively, that the powers of decision have been taken from the Service Boards and vest in across-the-board Ministers like the Minister of State and the Secretary of State. But I am sure that in the fullness of time the Service Boards will no longer exist and there will be junior Ministers with across-the-board responsibilities.
  A great many senior offices are filled by members of each Service in turn. We on this side of the House are partly responsible for this. The fact that these men, from the Chief of the Defence Staff down, hold the offices in turn is perhaps regrettable. The best man for the job should do it. Although there are many jobs which can be done only by members of a particular Service, I hope that in the fullness of time the best men for the job will be given the job rather than its being a question of the turn of any particular Service.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Services are in the fortunate position of having so many excellent men that the jobs can be rotated with ease?
  Mr. Morris: Discussion of that point would take me outside the ambit of the debate. All I would say is that it is a very odd defence of the system to say that there are so many excellent men in the Services that the jobs can be rotated rather than that they should be done by the best men for the job.
  I welcome the Bill, as I said earlier. Obviously, when we are in the Select

  139
  Committee we shall have to examine in some detail particular Clauses. It is, perhaps, one of the difficulties, as the Minister, I am sure, would concede, of making a Second Reading speech on the Bill that it is full of a large number of very important details. However, the Bill seeks to harmonise the three Services, and this, I am sure, is welcome to the House. I also accept, although I feel we should look at this also, regarding the framework for administering the disciplinary code of each of the Services, that there are different needs for the different Services, and I appreciate very much the needs of the Royal Navy in this respect. Anyone who has had any experience of these matters will, I am sure, accept the need for speedy and effective decisions when one is, perhaps, more remote than are others from the central machine.
  To achieve this harmonisation in the codes there has had to be a great deal of give and take by each of the Services. This is commendable to the House. It is not always easy to give up one's existing position in order to arrive at the degree of harmonisation which one sees in the present Measure, but I think that this is in the spirit of the relationship now between the Services.
  I would also make the point, which has been made already, that one of the objects of the Bill is to bring military law closer in harmony with the civilian law. This is a sound principle, and it reflects the consideration given to this matter as far back as 1963 by a Select Committee of this House, when it found that members of the Armed Forces should, so far as is consistent with the efficiency of the Services, enjoy the normal rights of a citizen.
  This is obviously sound, because a soldier today, more than ever, is part of the society whence he comes: he is not cut off; he behaves, particularly in his off-duty hours, in his social life, very much likes the others in the society from which he has come. Indeed, this is reflected in the changed problems within the Armed Forces, for he is married younger, as he would have been, no doubt, had he remained in the outside world, and as other men in the outside world are nowadays, and this gives rise in turn to, for example, problems of soldiers' accommodation.
  140
  Indeed, this problem is seen in the architecture of the Forces today. When I was a young recruit one was kept incarcerated behind high walls for weeks on end before the outside world was allowed to see one in one's brand new uniform—ill-fitting sometimes. Now, in the new camps which have been built, and I refer particularly to one in the Principality, at Crickhowell, the very architecture, the very openness, has been deliberately planned—this was explained to me by a very senior officer in the Principality—for the purpose of showing that soldiers today are not cut off from the rest of society; and that place is very different from the old barracks in which some of the older generation worked. Perhaps not a great deal of thanks is due to the Armed Forces themselves for this development, because the standards and codes of discipline, if they are to be effective in this day and age, obviously must reflect in part, also in substance, the conditions in the outside world.
  We have had a number of comments about courts martial, and particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield. Courts martial are, of course, limited in their jurisdiction. I would bow to the experience of one hon. Member who has spoken on this subject, but I found from my short experience of these matters, when I was a National Service subaltern, that the courts martial did their job effectively, and general officers were able to grasp details with commendable speed, and generally justice was seen to be done. Since the setting up of the Courts Martial Appeal Court I think this is much more so, in that there is a new avenue of appeal.
  I am glad that one of the amendments which are now introduced by the Bill is to give to courts martial powers of awarding consequential sentences for more than one charge. This brings the courts martial, as is the object, into line with our civilian courts.
  The Minister of State told the House that, following the discussion in the other place, an Amendment would be brought in to deal with the position of civilians on appeal. Perhaps it is a surprise to some Members of this House that civilians can be dealt with at all by a court martial, but where they are accompanying part of the Regular Forces, either here or overseas, they are subject to military law, and

  141
  where such matters arise overseas it is usually in the civilian's interest that these should be tried by a court martial rather than that he should go within the jurisdiction of an overseas country.
  It seems rather odd, though, that while there is a right of appeal in civilian courts in this country, both against conviction and against sentence, the only remedy against sentence for a civilian, like that of the soldier, is to make his representations through the usual military channels, whereas an appeal against conviction can be made to the Courts Martial Appeal Tribunal. We shall look forward to the Amendment which will be introduced, according to the assurance of the hon. Gentleman, to remedy this position and to give the civilian the right which he enjoys in the outside world.
  I think that one of the other matters which cause concern from time to time is sentencing—that is, the powers and the methods and the policy of the military courts on sentencing. One of the queries in another place was whether or not a court martial should award a sentence of a probationary period. Obviously, this will not arise with a soldier, but it might well be an appropriate remedy in the case of a civilian. Perhaps when the hon. Gentleman winds up we shall be told the position on this, and, indeed, about the form of punishment, which we have in our civilian courts, of suspended sentence. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us what is the position, and what is the range of punishments which can be awarded to a civilian. I am sure the House would be interested. Particularly following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), on the whole issue of sentencing, I think it would be valuable for the House, knowing that there is no appeal against sentencing for soldiers, to be told some time what is the policy on sentencing. How does sentencing by courts martial compare with that for like offences in civilian courts? I am sure the House would welcome at some stage, perhaps before we pass the Bill, the Minister's taking the opportunity of presenting a document for the Select Committee, or in some other way enlightening us on sentencing.
  As to detention, I have no personal experience of having been detained, fortunately, but I would think that detention
  142
  could be compared with imprisonment. That, obviously, must be very expensive in terms of manpower. One would like to know how this sentence compares with similar punishment in civilian life.
  I was concerned with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking about the naval detention centre. He commended my hon. Friend for the improvements which have taken place, and I am advised by him that quite extensive improvements have taken place in the conditions at the detention centre, but I would ask a question, and I can ask it not having been concerned, as I said earlier, with issues of discipline. Since we are harmonising more and more the three Services and having a common code for offences and punishments, is it not right, perhaps, to look further into the issue raised by my hon. Friend when he was a Minister? If I recall aright, the suggestion was the unifying of places of punishments. The premises at Portsmouth are exceedingly antiquated. Following the study, it might be proper to move the place of punishment of those who have been sentenced by the Navy to Colchester where those who have been sentenced by the other Services are accommodated. I know that this suggestion commended itself to my hon. and right hon. Friends when they considered it at first blush. Since we are seeing a great deal of harmonisation, we should also harmonise this so as to save a great deal of expense and achieve a commonality of conditions for people in the Services who have to serve sentences. A great deal of fresh air could be let into the matter in this way, and perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will say a little about this later.
  May I thank the Minister for the fair and detailed way in which he dealt with the issue of the death penalty. I am sure that the House will also wish to commend him. The death penalty is now being re-enacted for a range of military offences. As one committed to the abolition of the death penalty for murder, I have examined with some care the new proposals. I immediately concede, as did my right hon. Friend, that Clause 7 is a great step forward. The present position of mutiny with violence or threat of violence being a capital offence will no longer continue, and retention of the death penalty will be limited to an optional sentence for Service offences which

  143
  directly or indirectly assist the enemy. I presume this would arise usually in time of war, and perhaps this can be confirmed. Where there is a great deal of killing sanctioned by the State going on, it would be odd to take exception to the ultimate sanction being available for somebody who has put himself in the position of being the tool of the enemy. It is a matter for individual conscience, but very different considerations arise as to the use of the death penalty where a person endangers the lives of his comrades.
  Clause 56 deals with the position of the deserter. Before I went to the Ministry of Defence my right hon. Friends were much concerned about the unfortunate incident where a person brought before the magistrates' court as a deserter was discharged, and was then arrested under military law by the military authorities but was not brought again before the magistrates' court. Administrative steps were taken by my right hon. Friends soon after that event to ensure that there should not be a repetition of this procedure, and I do not think there has been a repetition of it. I am sure the House will welcome the putting into legislation of the administrative steps taken by the Government's predecessors to avoid a repetition of that incident.
  The right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), who has a great deal of experience in dealing with defence generally—I have crossed swords with him metaphorically during the last nine years on defence matters—raised the issue of low flying. This is a matter which causes a great deal of concern in many parts of the country. In this day when we pay so much lip service—and I hope more than lip service—to the environment, some parts of the country do not realise what the problem is, but many areas are acutely affected by low flying. It was the policy of the Ministry of Defence—I am sure it still is, but perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will give this assurance once again—to limit as much as possible in time and intensity the level of flying on these necessary operations.
  This matter has been pressed upon Ministers from time to time, and my good colleague in the other place who was responsible for the Air Force said that he probably had more letters from Members
  144
  of Parliament on this issue than on any other. In many instances this training cannot take place over the sea, which is a solution which is pressed upon us from time to time. I am sure that those who are affected will welcome the proposal to strengthen the punishment for illegal low flying and, given the sophisticated aircraft that are now being flown, to recognise that responsibility should lie with the commander of the aircraft. I was not in sympathy with the deliberations in another place. Here we are dealing with highly sophisticated aeroplanes where the power of decision lies with the commander of the aircraft, and that is where the responsibility should lie. I particularly commend this part of the Bill.
  This is perhaps only of very small cheer to those who are affected by low flying, and I ask the Minister responsible to ensure that he presses this matter from time to time. From my Ministerial experience of five and a half years, I have found that the only way to ensure that one's interests are kept alive is to keep the pot boiling. I hope that the Minister will continue to ask, time after time, whether the Air Force is keeping to its assurances to limit the instances of low flying to as few as possible. The proposal in the Bill will be a small assurance to those who are directly affected.
  I welcome the Bill in that it seeks to harmonise discipline and administration in the three Services. Secondly, it brings military law more closely in line with civilian law. Thirdly, it recognises the need to mitigate where possible the impact of military activities on civilian life. I join in the thanks that have been accorded to those who have been working on the Bill for two years, if not more. Subject to the necessary scrutiny in detail which must take place in the Select Committee, I add my voice to commend the Bill as yet another step in the harmonisation and bringing together of the three Services.
  7.28 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kirk): Both the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) and the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) commented that this was not an easy Bill on which to have a normal Second Reading debate. This is true. It is very

  145
  much an omnibus Bill. It is possible—indeed, it has been shown this afternoon to be possible—to discuss almost any matter relating to the Armed Forces without going out of order and, as a result, we have had a wide-ranging debate. I think that everyone will agree that it has been a good debate and, if there has been a central theme, it has been the great affection and pride which we in this House have for the three Armed Services of this country, and our determination through this Bill and in other ways to support them to the fullest possible extent.
  What criticisms there have been of the Services have been designed to improve them rather than to run them down. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Con-cannon) was slightly critical of the Services but even more worried about the Ministry of Defence, which he seemed to think had succumbed to a coup d'état of the Brigade of Guards and what he would regard as one of the more junior regiments of that Brigade. I can assure him that, although I am heavily outnumbered, there is a small patch of dark blue still in the Ministry of Defence, and we hold our own very well.
  The right hon. Member for Aberavon queried the Government's decision on taking office last June to keep the three Service Boards separate. This is not a matter specifically referred to in the Bill, but the fact that discipline ultimately is exercised by the Boards brings this matter within the confines of the Bill. It will be recalled that there was a proposal put forward by the previous Administration in their last White Paper to abolish the single-Service Ministers and thereby no doubt eventually to abolish the three Service Boards. This was not a question of our shying away from this matter. It was a matter of judgment.
  In our judgment, although the greatest measure of harmonisation is desirable between the three Services, there are separate and distinct manifestations within the Services which are best represented by separate Boards and by separate Ministers. I believe that this has been welcomed widely within the Services. It certainly makes the conduct of defence matters in this House a great deal easier, as hon. Members know who come to us with their problems. Although the abolition of one of the offices of Minister of
  146
  State has placed a considerable burden on my noble Friend, I can assure the House that the three of us who act for the three Services also occasionally mix in each other's responsibilities and there is a good deal of tri-Service co-operation always within the Ministry and it seems to work well.
  If I may turn to the provisions of the Bill, I feel that I should refer once again to the constitutional propriety of bringing forward the Bill in another place. My noble Friend made it plain that since the change in form that took place in 1955, there is no statutory or constitutional reason for the Bill not to be brought forward in another place and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said—and this matter was also referred to by the hon. Member for Mansfield—there were reasons of convenience as between the two Houses why that should be.
  There is one other reason which is worth mentioning. This is the fourth quinquennial review and it means that the Select Committee will have the advantage, if somewhat second-hand, of opinions expressed in another place about this Bill.
  The Bill will need to be gone into in detail as this Second Reading debate clearly has shown. A number of points have been raised which I will try to answer. After this Bill has gone to a Select Committee, it will subsequently go into Committee of the whole House. Therefore, at the end of the day nobody will be able to say that we have not done our homework. Indeed, it will probably be discussed more than any other major Bill this Session.
  One of the major points in the Bill is the codification of offences under the three Acts, and in consequence the placing of the Naval Discipline Act on a quinquennial basis like the other two. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate referred to the rather privileged position which the Navy appears to occupy in the House as opposed to the other Services. I am in the unique position of being the only person here who has been politically associated with two Services, first of all with the Army in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and now with the Navy. I have certainly noticed the warmth and affection I now get from the Navy which

  147
  I never got when I was Under-Secretary of State for War. Nevertheless, we feel it right that we should not trade on this privileged position, and the Navy and the Admiralty Board itself welcome the fact that they, too, will come up for scrutiny every five years. They will then have an opportunity to put their views to a Select Committee every five years, an advantage which hitherto has been denied to them.
  The Bill has been generally welcomed in the House. A number of detailed points have been raised, and I shall try to answer them as best I can, though it will be necessary to go into matters in much more detail when the matter is before a Select Committee.
  The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) raised the question of the abolition of the rum ration. I do not know whether he wanted a further statement from me. This was a decision taken by the previous Administration. I re-examined the matter on taking office and came to the conclusion that they were absolutely right, and I am certain the Navy has benefited from it. Although we have allowed petty officers' messes to sell spirits, speaking as a veteran of six months or more who has consumed more pints of beer in petty officers' messes than I care to remember, I assure the hon. Gentleman that widespread drunkenness has not taken place in those messes. Indeed, the situation is settling down very happily indeed.
  The question of low flying was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and also by the right hon. Member for Aberavon. I can give the assurance that Ministers in this Administration are just as concerned as was the previous Administration over the matter of low flying. I personally have investigated two cases and I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State responsible for the Air Force has done the same. This is one of the most difficult problems facing the Ministry of Defence at the moment, and as a Member of Parliament whose constituency contains Stansted I have this matter very much in mind.
  The important question raised by a number of hon. Members related to the death penalty, which was a matter originally raised in the speech of my noble Friend fully and generously and
  148
  which the House appreciated. I would point out that both my noble Friend and myself voted for the abolition of the death penalty, as did my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State responsible for the Army. We were therefore put, not perhaps in a dilemma, but certainly in an earnest position when we came to examine this Bill in draft over this question. We all three came to the conclusion that there was no alternative but the maintenance of the death penalty for certain offences. It applies only to offences committed with intent to assist the enemy, offences which most people would agree are very close to treason, and therefore would be liable under civil law as it at present stands; or the one case of the offence of mutiny with violence when committed in a warlike or active service situation.
  I would point out to the right hon. Member for Aberavon that it is unlikely that these provisions will ever be used. It is almost impossible that they would have to be used in peace time, but we feel that the provision should be there. I feel as a result of today's debate that the House accepts this view as reasonable, regrettable though it may be to many people, including myself.
  I come now to a matter in which I have taken a close personal interest, and that is the question of the Royal Naval Detention Quarters at Portsmouth. The right hon. Member for Aberavon referred to the possibility of unification of various corrective training centres which the Services maintain. We are still considering this matter, but there are problems. One of the major problems, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) will recall, is that the Navy is different in two respects, in that conditions in certain of Her Majesty's ships are not all that comfortable and therefore conditions in naval detention quarters cannot be all that comfortable either.
  Secondly, and rather more seriously, the Navy does not have, as have the other two Services, guard rooms in which to keep short-term offenders for up to 28 days under fairly minimal conditions. For that reason the Royal Naval Detention Quarters serve a dual purpose in a way that the military corrective training establishment at Colchester does not. This, coupled with their age, which is considerable, leads us into difficulties.

  149
  I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sutton for the immense improvements in R.N.D.Q. as I saw for myself not so long ago. These improvements included the introduction of lectures, television, controlled discussion between instructors and detainees; an improvement in food, with an increase to 4,200 calories; the introduction of bunks instead of plank beds; extension of the library, and so on. All these things have been done within the constraining limits of this institution.
  We are going further now with structural improvements as well—again planned by the hon. Gentleman—work on new washing and toilet facilities, a new sick bay, work on a dining hall, modernisation of the galley and so on, and we hope to take over a plot of adjacent land which will enable us to provide extra space for physical recreation.
  All this does not alter the fact that there are problems in dealing with naval ratings who have committed offences, some quite serious offences, in trying to achieve the right balance in conditions in the naval detention quarters, having regard to the conditions in which they serve at sea. Our object is to rehabilitate them for continued service. Those who are to be discharged from the Royal Navy go to Colchester from the beginning and not to Portsmouth. It is right that, in these circumstances, the corrective training should be undertaken in a naval environment and by naval personnel, as they are intended to continue serving there.
  However, I have been worried about the position of those serving long sentences in Portsmouth. If one takes the analogy of the guard room, it is clear that, whereas guard room conditions may be all right for reasonably short periods, they are not all right for long periods. I have therefore decided to limit the period in R.N.D.Q. to that which is necessary to achieve the rehabilitation. Any further period of detention will be served at Colchester and they will be moved there. I hope to be able to embark on this on 1st February this year.
  Mr. Driberg: Could the hon. Gentleman say something about the tasks?
  Mr. Kirk: Yes, the tasks have now been reduced. They now amount to no
  150
  more than two hours a week. This was another reform by the previous Administration. It is part of the difficulty in confined surroundings with little to do, but we are trying to improve that with increased space and so on. But the tasks will remain, all the same: we do need the mats in the Royal Navy.
  The right hon. Member for Dundee, East raised the question of "scandalous conduct", and asked whether it was still necessary to provide for this offence in this Bill. This offence has been a feature of Service disciplinary Acts for a long time. We considered it again very carefully when reviewing the systems, and we have concluded that it is essential if the standards required of an officer are to be maintained. Every profession has its own system of ethical standards—examples are medicine and the law—which has to be accepted by members and which goes beyond the requirements of the ordinary law.
  Cases arise—not very often, I am glad to say—when an officer cannot match up to the standard of this profession. In some cases, it is enough to allow the person concerned to leave quietly, but, in a few cases, what has happened is too serious to follow this course and a more formal process is essential, which may even be fairer to the individual on occasion, since it provides at least the chance to have his case heard.
  This provision enables the Service to deal with the case of an officer who has not necessarily committed a criminal offence and may not even have conducted himself in a way "to the prejudice", but who nevertheless is unsuitable for further service in the Armed Forces. We believe that this provision is right.
  A number of hon. Members, including both Front Bench speakers, opposite and the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford asked about the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner being applied to the Forces. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) were against this proposal. We are all agreed, I think, that so far as the Bill concerns the proceedings in military courts, it would be wholly inappropriate and totally wrong for the Parliamentary Commissioner to be given powers.

  151
  As to the other aspects of the question, however, I am in a slight difficulty. The right hon. Member for Dundee, East recalled the Report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration earlier this year on the question of areas excluded from his investigations. That Report, which raised very important issues of policy, so far as the Government were concerned, is still under consideration, and a statement will be made in due course. Until it is made, there is not much that I can say about it, except that this matter is definitely under review in the general review of the Parliamentary Commissioner's activities.
  Mr. John Morris: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman cannot answer this question now, but I should be glad if he could give an answer later. Will this matter come within the cognisance of the Select Committee—whether or not the Parliamentary Commissioner's powers should apply?
  Mr. Kirk: I do not think that one can guarantee it. The Select Committee is to examine the Bill. To what extent it can examine something which is not in the Bill and which, for the reason that I have given, cannot be in the Bill, it is difficult to say. That is largely a matter for the Committee itself to decide.
  The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) mentioned Clause 28, dealing with the spreading of information damaging to morale. With respect, this is not a new provision. It merely repeats the present Section 27 of the Army and Air Force Acts, and the only purpose of putting it in here is so that we can write it into the Naval Discipline Act. This is part of the process of unification and not a new and sudden departure—
  Mr. Driberg: But that does not justify it, with respect.
  Mr. Kirk: That is true, but I was answering the hon. Gentleman's point that we were making a new and sudden departure. The question of justification is a matter for the Select Committee and then the Committee of the whole House. I should have thought that there was a case for it—it has proved so in the past—but that is a matter for the Select Committee to decide.
  The hon. Member for Barking and a number of other hon. Members mentioned
  152
  some of the matters arising out of the recent Report of the Donaldson Committee. I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Government had not done much about it. His hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Joan Lestor) qualified that by saying that we should have gone a good deal further.
  In fact, of the many recommendations of the Donaldson Committee, we accepted all but two. One of them, we thought, was wholly impracticable—the suggestion that many things borne on the Defence Vote should be borne on the Vote of the Department of Education and Science. That is something which I am all for, but it would be difficult to achieve. The other was one which created, we thought, an unfair discrimination between different types of boy soldier—apprentices and others. Otherwise, we accepted the Report as it stood, and we intend to apply it. Therefore, the problem would not have been made any easier—particularly the problem to which the hon. Lady referred—if we had accepted the two recommendations which we did not accept.
  The essential recommendation of the Donaldson Committee which should ease the hon. Lady's problem—we have corresponded on a number of these cases—is the one which urged the Navy in particular to shorten the period in which discharge by purchase was allowed. The Navy has undertaken to do this. It will fall into line with the other Services by 1977. That is a longish period, but conditions of naval recruitment require that we take time to adapt it. That, and that alone, will solve the problem of someone who is already in the Service, although I have given instructions that the system of a four-year engagement which has been applied to certain of the over-18s entering the Service in certain sections of the Navy shall now be applied roughly throughout the Service. That may help those entering the Service at that time.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate asked whether the Report itself required legislation. Clause 64 of the Bill provides for the making of regulations which can be used to reflect any changes implicit in the Report. I am advised that nothing further is necessary to ensure that that Report is carried out to the full.

  153
  Another question was whether we should not try to get a common code of punishment for officers and men. This is a difficult one. To give one example, how would it be possible for a private soldier to be reduced in rank? He could not go any lower than he was at the time, so that punishment is not available for a very large number of soldiers. Furthermore, the whole point of military detention, if not accompanied by discharge from the Service, is to re-educate, to get the man back into the Service and into a Service frame of mind again. It would be very difficult for an officer who had been sentenced to detention to go back and command the respect that he should command as an officer.
  So there are considerable problems here, which I am afraid it is almost impossible to resolve. Although we cannot provide in the Bill the same punishments for officers and other ranks, the new provisions for punishment in the Bill contain fewer differences. For instance, we have got rid of cashiering, something which was only for officers. We replaced it in the Army and Air Force Acts by dismissal and disgrace, and this applies to any Serviceman. However, to have complete unification for officers and other ranks would, I suggest, be almost impossible.
  Dr. David Owen: Detention is almost exclusively an other ranks punishment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) mentioned his feeling about detention being almost synonymous with a prison sentence. I believe that there is a feeling in the House generally that detention is used rather too frequently as a form of punishment in the Services and that a review of this form of punishment is necessary in that it is used rather more than it perhaps should be in the changed climate of opinion in Britain with regard to penal law.
  Mr. Kirk: It is difficult to comment specifically on this subject. One would need to make a wide survey of precisely how often this form of punishment was used. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is rather more an other ranks punishment; this is because officers, if they are imprisoned, do not return to the Services, mainly, of course, because they cannot. Other ranks, on the other
  154
  hand, can return. This is the major point of difference and the reason why there appears to be discrimination here, but it is rather more in the form than in the substance.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate spoke of the difficulty of applying, as well as fully comprehending, the complications of Service law. I am advised that the Services do not find this a tremendous problem. All officers are given some training in Service law and there are legal services available to give advice and instruction if necessary. Although some of the manuals may be complicated, they are designed to instruct.
  As for legal problems generally, a knotty legal problem was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) on a difficult point of Scottish law which I was ordered to answer by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford. I will, therefore, answer it.
  I am not, as it happens, either a Scotsman or a lawyer. Drawing heavily, therefore, on the advice I have, I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Clause in question seeks to deal only with admissibility and not with the weight of evidence. It is necessary only because in Scotland the formula to establish admissibility exists in relation to the phrase "shall be sufficient evidence"in England it is "shall be evidence". The Clause does not confer any higher degree of proof than that existing in England. I hope that that is comprehensible to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is, to a certain extent only, comprehensible to me; and if he requires further information I will gladly consult the Lord Advocate.
  I come to the question of the Iveston mutiny. I do not think that there is any doubt that it was a case of mutiny. Indeed, this appears to have been accepted by the men, because they did not appeal against conviction but against sentence. In those circumstances, I do not think the authorities had any choice but to proceed in the way they did. Nor do I think there was any great discrepancy between the way in which the men were treated and the way in which the officers were dealt with. The officers had not indulged in mutiny though they may have been negligent. They were, therefore, reprimanded for carrying out their duties in a negligent way, but they were

  155
  not found guilty of an offence other than that and I do not see how they could have been treated in any other way.
  The hon. Member for Mansfield asked why a Serviceman is dismissed if he is sent to prison. I suggest that one can assume that if a Serviceman is sent to prison he has committed a quite serious crime. That being so, he is not the sort of man we want in the Services. The standard required in the Services nowadays is high. It has been the practice for a number of years not to take back a Serviceman if he has been sentenced in the civil courts to serve a prison sentence. The Clause to which the hon. Member for Mansfield referred merely writes into the law what in fact has been the practice for a considerable time.
  The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford raised the question of dumb insolence, something of which he will never be accused. This is not a question of putting the clock back but of unification. There are various forms of contemptuous behaviour which should be guarded against and it was felt right to bring the other Acts into line with the Naval Act. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so, he can pursue the matter further with the Select Committee or in Committee of the whole House. The facts on this issue are readily available for study by Servicemen. Indeed, there is an obligation in this matter to ensure that men under one's command are acquainted with the facts. For example, the Articles of War must be displayed in all Her Majesty's ships.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) referred to the award of costs. I regret that my hon. Friend is not in his place to hear me tell him that he certainly has a point. It is a matter that should be looked into by the Select Committee, and I hope that it will be. At present it is a matter for discretion: costs can be awarded to a successful appellant in a courts martial appeal court but not in the lower court.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Esher raised the question of looting and desertion to aid the enemy. I believe that the case he cited would be caught under the treason or treachery Acts. I cannot believe that a Serviceman who crosses over to the enemy in time of war and
  156
  while in uniform remains to assist the enemy would not be caught under one of those Measures.
  As for looting, that has been an offence since the last war. The Bill widens its scope to include operations in aid of the civil power, which we are advised is a point not covered by the existing Acts. This is necessary in view of the amount of time which the Services now provide in aiding the civil power.
  I have done my best to cover most of the points that have been raised. My noble Friend pointed out, as I did at the outset, that there will be opportunities to raise these and other points in the Select Committee and during the deliberations in Committee of the whole House.
  In view of the general welcome which the Bill has received, I trust that it will now be given a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee.—[Mr. Monro.]

  OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL
    New Clause 1

      PROVISION OF SECURITY AS CONDITION OF REGISTRATION
      The Board of Trade may require as a condition of the registration of a vessel under the Merchant Shipping Acts that the person seeking registration shall deposit with the Board of Trade such sum as they may specify by way of security for the payment of any fine or for any damages awarded in civil proceedings arising from any discharge of oil which constitutes an offence under the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955, the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1963 or this Act.—[Mr. Booth.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      7.58 p.m.
      Mr. Albert Booth: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The purpose of the Clause is to ensure that the Board of Trade can require, as a condition of the registration of a vessel in the United Kingdom, the provision of

      157
      security for any fine or damages awarded in civil proceedings arising from a discharge of oil in navigable waters which constitutes an offence under the 1955 Act, the 1963 Act or this Measure.
      As, under the Bill, Britain is to be responsible for all offences committed by U.K. registered ships outside our territorial waters as well as for offences committed by the discharge of oil within them, I trust that the House will agree that if there is to be the provision of such security it is appropriate that it should be made operable from the time at which the ship is registered.
      However, the main bone of contention which the House must consider at this stage is whether this form of security is necessary. I believe it to be necessary in part because of the nature of the shipping industry. It is an industry the major assets of which are mobile. Nobody can guarantee that any of the major assets of a shipping company will be in United Kingdom ports at any time when there is an action as the result of an offence. This of itself constitutes a need for special guarantees to operate in respect of damages or fines for breaches of legislation in respect of oil in navigable waters.
      8.0 p.m.
      Some of us contended in committee, that it was desirable to have some provision whereby a ship could be held in a United Kingdom port if it was suspected of having committed an offence. The Minister very properly, as I thought, argued that it would be wrong to take this power because by holding the ship and keeping it off the high seas one was depriving its owners of the ability to earn a certain amount of money, and perhaps causing them further charges without having established that they were guilty of the offence, and, if subsequently found to be not guilty, they would still have been penalised. That is a powerful argument against taking power to hold a vessel in order that one has some security against the payment of fine or damages if those responsible are found to be guilty, but it does not in any way solve the problem of guaranteeing that there is a security. We are therefore now forced to consider the provision of a security from the time of registration of the vessel.
      We must also consider the problem of the need for security in relation to the
      158
      very difficult nature of legal proceedings in respect of the discharge of oil in navigable waters. In this instance one has to secure damages from a unit operating in a multi-national industry. It is possible for a vessel to be owned by a subsidiary company in one country and, for tax purposes, leased to the parent company, which is in a second country. The vessel can be registered in a third country, but have a crew comprised entirely of nationals of a fourth country, and can be chartered by a company in a fifth country. This may seem to be stretching the laws of probability rather far, but it is not. In fact, complicated multi-national ownerships and arrangements for the operations of tankers even to the degree I have just described are comparatively common.
      I therefore contend that if in addition to the legal complications deriving from this multi-national type of operation, there is doubt whether any fines imposed or damages awarded can be obtained, there will be a very considerable disincentive to commence a legal action. We must ensure that there is no such disincentive, but that there can be effective legal action against those who dump oil at sea. It has, in part, to be effective to deter others, but it is also certainly necessary in view of the known saving in cost which can be obtained by flouting the provisions of this legislation.
      I believe that Britain is one of the first countries to seek to legislate the provisions of the international convention in respect of oil discharged as a result of bad operating procedures. We are therefore designing the legal means whereby we may safeguard against pollution by those operating procedures. In carrying through the Bill, therefore, we may be creating a pattern for international legislation, and in view of this we must seek to guarantee its absolute effectiveness. If we fail to do this, we shall fail not only those whom we represent by virtue of our membership of the House but a worldwide community whose crucial marine environment is at stake.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): The new Clause would require persons who seek to register a ship in the United Kingdom to deposit a sum of money to be specified by my Department, as

      159
      security for the payment of any fine imposed or any civil damages awarded as a result of an offence under the Measure.
      In the first place, the House should understand that the Clause could apply only to persons seeking to register ships in the United Kingdom, and would thus discriminate unfairly against British shipowners acquiring new ships or buying existing ships which had not previously been registered in this country. Since most owners of United Kingdom registered ships are resident or have assets in this country, the problem of enforcing the payment of fines or damages, if it were a problem, would be far less difficult in respect of those ships than of ships registered in foreign countries.
      But it is not a problem. Although there may frequently be difficulty in securing sufficient evidence to prosecute a master or owner of a ship which has caused pollution or to bring a civil action for damages, we know of no instance in which, once a fine has been imposed or damages have been awarded, difficulty has been experienced in securing payment. Hon. Members are no doubt aware that Section 13(1) of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955, gives the courts power to enforce payment of fines imposed for offences under that Act by seizing and selling the offending vessel, its tackle, furniture and apparel.
      Further, I remind the House that we shall shortly be bringing forward legislation to enable us to give effect to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, drawn up in 1969. This will oblige ships carrying oil cargoes to and from our ports to be satisfactorily insured against their potential liability for oil pollution damage, and to carry evidence that they are so insured. In the meantime, hon. Members will be aware that some 80 per cent. of the world's tanker tonnage has banded together in a voluntary agreement known as the Tanker Owners' Voluntary Agreement concerning Liability for Oil Pollution—"TOVALOP", as I understand it rather more easily—which ensures that compensation is available for oil pollution damage caused by the negligence of a participating tanker.
      In short, the Clause is discriminatory and in my judgment unnecessary, and I must invite the House to reject it.
      Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I noticed that my hon. Friend used the word "negligence". What happens if the pollution is due to the deliberate act of the master of a vessel rather than to oversight or negligence?
      Mr. Grant: If my hon. Friend is referring to a civil suit by a party which has suffered damage, I am advised that this provision will be just as applicable, and that the party's rights will exist just as much if the pollution is caused by a deliberate as by a negligent act.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 2

      FREE PROVISION OF FACILITIES FOR OIL WASTE DISCHARGE
      In subsection (1) of section 8 of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act 1955 there shall be added at the end thereof, 'and every harbour authority shall provide such facilities free of charge at such berth', and subsection (3) of that section is hereby repealed.—[Mr. Booth.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The Clause would require all British harbour authorities to provide facilities for the discharge of oily water and waste oil at every one of their berths. The aim of the Clause is to enable ships' engineers to discharge waste oil whenever a ship is berthed for loading or for unloading or for any other purpose alongside a berth in a British harbour.
      There are a number of means whereby this can be done. There can be a piping system within the harbour which couples to each berth. There can be tanks alongside each berth. The point of the Clause in requiring such facilities to be at every berth is a recognition of the fact that it is a very expensive operation to shift a vessel which has been alongside one berth, say, for the purpose of loading, to another berth for the purpose of discharging oily waste into facilities provided alongside that berth. Apart from the generally rising costs of docks and harbour dues, there is the very high operating cost of vessels, the necessity of catching limited tides, and so on. Therefore, an assential feature of the Clause is that it requires the facilities to be placed at every berth.

      161
      The other feature of the Clause which will be unique in British law is that it would require the provision of facilities to be free of charge. The reason for this is that we should within our law enshrine the idea that there should be no option about using the facilities. The idea of being able to pay a charge and use the facility or not pay a charge and not use it carries with it an implication that one may or may not require to use the facilities. In light of the problems of oil pollution in navigable waters, it should be an accepted practice that a ship coming alongside for the purpose of loading or unloading will at the same time want to discharge some waste oil. Whether it be waste oil from washing an oil fuel-ballast tank or waste oil which has been accumulated from the lubricating system or oily bilge water is not important. The concept should be that ships coming alongside for any purpose should take that occasion to discharge waste oil.
      In this connection I quote briefly from a paper given at the Rome Conference on Oil Pollution by the Chairman of the Nordic Union for the Prevention of Oil Pollution of the Sea, a body which has done some excellent work in this field:
      "…one of the strongest inducements to mariners to dump oily residues unlawfully into the sea is known to be their fear of incurring the displeasure of their owners if they lose time or involve their ships in expense by using facilities in port …".
      These words used by a man who is an absolute authority on the subject make it perfectly clear that it is generally held to be the case that a skipper would incur his owner's displeasure if he involved him in the expense of using facilities or if he took up any time in port to discharge waste oil. This was a statement of the general position. I do not doubt that there are some enlightened owners and some highly principled skippers who, irrespective of this general consideration, meticulously on coming into port take the opportunity, even if it means re-berthing vessels or holding the ship for another tide, to get rid of their oily waste, but I question whether this is the general position and I put it to the House in all seriousness that a very large amount of oil is dumped into the sea because of the cost and time involved in getting rid of that waste oil into proper facilities ashore.
      162
      8.15 p.m.
      There are two types of oil waste discharge with which we are now principally concerned. There is the oily waste that comes about as the result of the washing of the tanks of large tankers. The adoption by the best tanker companies of the "load on top" method has reduced to a very considerable extent pollution from this source.
      The other category is the waste that accumulates from using the oily waste separator processes on board ship, whether they be the settling out type of separator or the centrifugal type of separator. These processes result inevitably in a number of ships, particularly British and Swedish ships which are required by law to have the separators for certain purposes anyway, coming into port with a considerable amount of waste oil.
      In addition, I think that we must envisage the necessity in a certain number of tanker cleaning processes for additional facilities for putting waste oil ashore. The first reason for this is that, even using the "load on top" method, the amount of settling out which can take place and, therefore, the percentage of water from the tank which can safely be discharged at sea without contamination depends to a considerable degree on the sea conditions when the vessel is coming towards the port.
      If the vessel has had a rough passage all the way from its last port of discharge to the port where it is to pick up and has washed during that period, the continuous motion of the ship will reduce the amount of settling out which can take place in the vessel and will, therefore, reduce the percentage of water which can be discharged without causing any contamination. Therefore, if at the end of a rough voyage a ship comes in with 6 inches or 10 inches of water in her tanks which is still heavily contaminated, the ship's operators must decide whether they are to discharge that or accept as the penalty for properly using the "load on top" method that they must forfeit that amount of carrying volume in their ship on the next voyage.
      For this reason, we must ensure that even when comparatively large tankers come alongside there are facilities for discharging a large quantity of what is the

      163
      oil-contaminated water of a washing process rather than the water-contaminated oil of the separator process.
      The second reason is that I believe that it is right to a certain extent in this form of legislation to anticipate technological improvement in the oil/water separator technology; that is, although tanker companies will not at this stage admit that they can, without involving themselves in expense which is repugnant to themselves, put all of their discharge overboard through an oil/water separator process, the time is not far distant when it will be economically viable to put all oily water discharge overboard, where there is any marginal doubt as to oil content, through the oil/water separator process. For this reason, it will soon be necessary to have these additional facilities even where they are not immediately necessary at present.
      If this type of operation were done on a large scale by port authorities, it might be run even at a profit rather than its being an expensive operation. Where there can be in stable shore conditions a settling-out tank, the large volume gained from having these settling-out facilities in port might be a source of income to a port. However, whether or not the provision of such a facility is a source of income to the port is not our major consideration on the Clause. Our major consideration must be that we should not let this legislation go through the House while it can still be said that there is a considerable degree of obligation on a skipper to get rid of oil at sea rather than use such facilities because of cost or inconvenience.
      Therefore, I strongly urge the Minister to accept the Clause, to ensure that at least the United Kingdom will be able to say to the other maritime nations, "We are not only imposing fines on people whom we catch putting oil into the sea, but we are making it as easy and convenient as possible for any ship coming into a British port to discharge waste oil into facilities which are there for that purpose while the ship is carrying out other normal operations which require it to be at the berth".
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am concerned about one aspect of the Clause, though I have a great deal of sympathy with the case which the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness
      164
      (Mr. Booth) has just made. While he was speaking I looked up the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955. The hon. Gentleman's case is very cogent, and the Government should give further consideration to it.
      Unfortunately, in Section 22 of the Act the definition of oil extends much further than we would wish. It says:
      "'oil' means oil of any description and includes spirit produced from oil of any description, and also includes coal tar".
      I need go no further, because my point concerns spirit. There are a number of tiny ports in the United Kingdom which do not receive by tanker oil in the sense that the hon. Gentleman and I mean it but which receive petroleum spirit, which does not have residues of the kind referred to. It would help to achieve the aim which the hon. Gentleman has in mind if "oil", for the purpose of the Clause, were redefined to mean what we both think of as oil, excluding petroleum spirit and aviation spirit, where such problems do not arise.
      Perhaps I may speak parochially for a moment. Quite a lot of petrol, and possibly paraffin, comes up the Exeter Canal by tanker, with the advantage of reducing congestion on the roads. A requirement to provide facilities for heavy oil, which never arrives in that way, would be onerous and is not what either the hon. Gentleman or I intend.
      If my hon. Friend could undertake that in another place further consideration will be given to the Clause, with a view to restricting it to heavy oils and excluding petroleum spirit, I think we shall achieve our objective without imposing an unreasonable burden where it would obviously be inapplicable but for the definition Section of the 1955 Act.
      Mr. Anthony Grant: The Clause would abolish the right of harbour authorities to make reasonable charges for oil reception facilities provided by them or on their behalf in pursuance of Section 8 of the 1955 Act, and it would require such facilities to be provided free of charge. I never believe in relying on purely drafting points, but I should point out that the words
      "at such berth"
      are not understood, since no "berth" is referred to in the Clause or in Section 8 of the 1955 Act.

      165
      The proposal has certain attractions. Its intention is to make sure that no obstacle is put in the way of the use of shore reception facilities for the disposal of oily wastes when the alternative is disposing of them into the sea. I entirely sympathise with the objective of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), and it is something which my Department has very much in mind.
      However, in considering whether proper use is made of shore reception facilities we must make a distinction between the position as it is now and as it will be when the new restrictions provided for by the Bill come into force. At present the two classes of vessel which have most need to use shore facilities are tankers and vessels about to undergo repair. These are not relevant in the context of the new Clause, because the responsibility for providing facilities for them rests with the oil terminal operators and the repair yards respectively. It is not laid upon harbour authorities by Section 8 of the 1955 Act.
      That means that we are concerned here with dry cargo ships alone, therefore. In their case, those which use their bunker fuel tanks for water ballast are already required to be fitted with oil/water separators. Many others fix separators voluntarily. I am advised that the normal practice of such ships is to return the oil which is recovered by the separator to the bunkers, so that for this purpose there is no need to use shore reception facilities at all.
      As regards oily water from engine-room bilges, the Convention at present provides a specific exception where the oil is only lubricating oil, so that it is not illegal to discharge such an oily mixture outside territorial waters. This is not a big exception in theory, but it affords an excuse for discharges of bilges containing other oils, and it is very difficult for us to prove an offence. Against that background it is perhaps not surprising that not very much use is made of the shore reception facilities provided by the harbour authority.
      Moreover, where masters of ships are tempted to ignore the facilities and discharge their oily residues illegally, I suspect that the inconvenience and delay in getting a ship alongside the shore
      166
      facility is a more important factor in their minds than any charge made for the use of the facility. I think that the hon. Gentleman himself recognises that.
      When the amendments to the Convention are brought into force, it will no longer be permitted to discharge engine-room bilge water containing lubricating oil. That loophole will be removed, and we hope that effective enforcement will thereby become practical. Shipowners will, therefore, have to decide how to comply with the new requirement, either by providing effective means of excluding oil from any bilge-water that is discharged or by discharging the oily water ashore. We in my Department have every intention of making sure that this requirement is effectively enforced. With the assistance of the higher penalties now provided in the Bill, I think that this is the right way of seeing that shore reception facilities are used whenever appropriate, and it is preferable to seeking a way to subsidise their use.
      But there is one much more important positive objection to the new Clause. Even under the new regulations it will not be every ship that has a need to use shore reception facilities. One would imagine that it will probably be the minority. If harbour authorities were prohibited from making specific charges for the use of their facilities, they would have to recover their costs by charges on the generality of port users, and, therefore, the whole body of port users would be required to pay for facilities for which, one would hope, only a minority would have a use. The subsidy to that minority would be at the expense of those owners who had provided their ships with alternative satisfactory means of dealing with oil residues. I do not think it would be desirable, fair or right to impose an extra cost upon them. For that reason, I hope that the House will reject the new Clause, attractive though it may be.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Gentleman relied rather heavily on the fact that if these so-called "free" facilities were made available—and he was right in this—they would not be free because the cost incurred by some users would be spread through the whole of the users of a particular port. On Merseyside we are conscious of the cost of port facilities of this kind, as any

      167
      other hon. Member from any other port must be.
      But I challenge the hon. Gentleman on one point. He said that only a minority of the users of any port are using the facilities at this time, or ought to be using them. If he goes back over the statistics and the information he can get, he will find that, while it is still only a minority of the total number using any port, it is an ever-increasing minority. It may well be that in a few years' time it will be the majority. There is nothing to stop the hon. Gentleman from later consideration of the idea in this new Clause, and I think he will find that there will be a majority as the years go by. If, then, a majority of the users of a port who ought to be using these facilities are paying for them through a general levy so that they are paying for them in any case, they may well be encouraged to use them.
      Many of the facilities of our ports in the United Kingdom are old. If we are to spread through the whole range of port facilities the provision of pipelines or berths to ensure enough tanker berths, the cost will be very great. It may be that the hon. Gentleman's Department will be advised to look at the facilities that are being provided in the new ports under construction—for example, the Seaforth scheme, the Gillingham scheme and the new London Docks. Perhaps we can even speak of a possible Foulness port. The idea that these installations should be planned and built into these new facilities and ports is very worthy of consideration.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 3

      POLLUTION PREVENTION OFFICERS
      (1) Where it appears to a pollution prevention officer that a contravention of any of the provisions of section 1 or 3 of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955 as amended by this Act has at any time taken place, he may—

      (a) go on board the ship in relation to which the contravention has at any time taken place, with or without persons assigned to assist him in his duties, and for that purpose may require the ship to stop and do anything else which will facilitate the boarding of the ship, and

      (b) take the ship and the crew of the ship to the port which appears to him to be the nearest convenient port in the United
      168
      Kingdom and detain the ship and the crew in the port until the completion of proceedings for the contravention.

      (2) The following persons shall be pollution prevention officers for the purposes of this section—

      (a) commissioned officers of any of Her Majesty's ships;

      (b) officers of Customs and Excise;

      (c) the following members of the Coastguard; that is to say:

      inspectors, district officers and members in charge of coastguard stations;
      (d) surveyors of the Department of Trade and Industry; and
      (e) other persons appointed pollution prevention officers by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Prestcott.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      We are here attempting to tackle the fundamental problem—enforcement. The Government are to be congratulated on continuing a Bill started by the last Government to deal with the problem ahead of most other countries under the Convention. We argued in Committee that the Bill has a number of failings. One of the major problems is that of enforcement. The Bill clearly states the offences and becomes involved in making regulations for British ships. As most of us are aware, many of the problems arise from vessels of other nations. This is an international issue. We shall be dealing with the international consequences of the problem in later Amendments.
      The Bill, stating the offences, lays down regulations concerning the records in order that we may be able to apprehend offenders by spot inspections. By these records, we shall have some indication of what is happening to dirty oil, which generally comes about through the load-on-top system which has caused a great deal of the problems. A load-on-top system has been developed by a company in this country which has made a considerable advance towards solving the problem. We have to be concerned with those who ignore moral pressures to adopt these methods and with those countries which do not compel their ships to adopt these methods and whose ships discharge by night or day, if it is thought that they will not be caught, and whose discharges create the problems with which the Bill is meant to deal. The Clause

      169
      is meant to bring the problem to the fore. We do not claim precision for its wording. It is an attempt to apprehend those who commit these offences at sea.
      The Bill lays down the offences and the fines which may be imposed on masters and owners who commit them, but we are concerned to find a deterrent to prevent the offences. The importance of a deterrent depends upon how much those who commit offences believe that they have a change of getting away with them. We were told in Committee that inspections under the 1955 legislation were made by surveyors and Board of Trade personnel and that in 1969 there were about 2,000 inspections. That is only about nine a day and is far from enough considering the number of ports in this country. That is not a sufficient deterrent.
      Subsection (2) of the new Clause deals with offences committed by the discharge of oil in port. There is not much of a problem here as it is usually easy to detect the source of such a discharge. The great problem is offences at sea. Log books may record voyages and discharges of oil, but are not necessarily sufficient to show where an offence has been committed. We are dealing with British ships, but much of the problem is created by the discharges of ships of other countries. Far more oil is discharged into our oceans illegally than as a result of collisions. After his recent voyage, Thor Heyerdahl talked about huge balls of oil which he found floating in the ocean, often away from the usual shipping lanes. The problem is increasing in intensity and immensity.
      We have rightly praised load-on-top systems; but it must be remembered that even with such systems, because of the powerful pumps which are used by modern tankers and even if the machinery is stopped when the operation reaches the recommended period when oil and water have come together to form the sludge which creates part of the pollution problem, measuring devices are not sufficiently accurate to prevent every illegal discharge. Discharges of oil at that stage can be far greater than the permitted amount at sea.
      Using the load-on-top system the amount of sludge is equivalent to one-tenth of 1 per cent. so that with a 200,000-ton tanker we are talking of 200
      170
      tons of sludge. When we remember that 800 vessels a day use the Channel we can see that these discharges of oil, insignificant in themselves, create enormous problems, and this highlights the importance of the separators mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). Even using the meter system for oil discharge a decision has to be made by someone once a level is reached as to whether an illegal discharge should be made. What the person will have in mind are his chances of being caught and at present they are minimal. We have heard of the problems of using pilots to spot illegal discharges or offering money to members of the crew. These discharges take place at sea and they must try to catch the offenders there.
      The second kind of offence concerns those vessels with dirty sludge as a result of the load-on-top system, which discharge in the middle of an ocean and then pick up another cargo. They are not too worried about the discharge of sludge from the tanks and then they return to this country. Once the vessel has done a number of voyages it will be almost impossible to detect whether it has discharged the sludge brought about through the load-on-top system.
      That presumes that regular inspections will be made in an English port. The Bill does not propose to increase the number of those carrying out inspections, and the likelihood that a vessel will be subject to a spot check is slight. We cannot draft measures which will prevent these problems but we have a greater chance of increasing the fear among people that they will be caught by increasing the checks to which vessels are subjected on arrival here.
      In the Clause we suggest that a number of other bodies, such as the Custom and Coastguard, could be considered to be on watch, playing a part in prosecuting those who commit this offence. Many engineers and captains do not do this but there are a few and it is with those that we are concerned. If they had to consider other vessels being on the look-out they may stop to think before committing the offence. Therefore, I ask the Minister to reconsider the view which he stated in Committee on 17th November:
      "We shall have to look at the manpower situation from time to time, but at this

      171
      moment the advice we have from the experts is that the Bill should facilitate rather than hamper their task."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 17th November, 1970; c. 41.]
      Now is the time to look at the manpower situation. The Bill is an attempt to handle the problem, but we must bear in mind the increasing size and number of tankers being built and used to meet the increasing demand for oil. It is proposed to have the same manpower to deal with an ever-increasing problem. I hope that the Minister will take these points into account. We must have greater manpower in order to make the inspections which are essential for the proper enforcement of the Bill.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. James Johnson: The more I look at the Clause, the more it endears itself to me and the more fascinating I find it. Since my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is my neighbour, I feel fraternal and I must support him.
      I seize upon a narrow point in my hon. Friend's argument about enforcement. He used also the word "deterrent". In this connection, I refer to subsection (2)(a) of the new Clause:
      "commissioned officers of any of Her Majesty's ships".
      On these benches we once had a famous Cabinet Minister who said that anyone who willed the end must also will the means. What on earth is the good of setting out all these desirable aims and objectives without at the same time having some means of enforcement.
      In Committee, I put to the Minister the analogy—he thought it a somewhat vague analogy—of the vessels which we use for protecting our deep-sea fishery vessels and for detecting offences against the law on the high seas. Would the Minister address his mind to that? Why not use Her Majesty's ships, what we formally term the Queen's Navy? The people who discharge oil at sea are commercial pirates, ditching this filthy muck into the ocean, and taking us nearer to what some of us fear will, by the year 2000 A.D., be an ecological "Munich". We need vessels to protect us and other nations against this abominable filth poured into the seas. Let the Minister
      172
      regard these people as what they are—I use the true advisedly—shipping villains.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East suggested, though not in so many words, that eight vessels out of 10 obey the law, if I may put it that way. But two vessels out of 10—mainly under the Japanese flag—do not. We often talk about flags of convenience. But this is not Liberia, if I may put a word in for that State, with which I have some connection. As I say, these are mainly Japanese ships, and, without doubt, the total—I stand to be corrected, but I believe this to be right—is at least 200,000 tons ditched or deposited in this way, which is the equivalent of many "Torrey Canyons", perhaps as many as 10 or 12.
      This state of affairs must be tackled seriously. If we feel as a nation that we cannot tackle it on our own, why not act in conjunction with other nations, under the auspices of I.M.C.O. here in London? Why should we not have for this purpose something analogous to the United Nations peace-keeping force on land? Why cannot we have a force of that kind so that our Navy, in co-operation with other nations, could join in dealing with this menace on the seas?
      We must have enforcement. It is no good expressing a pious hope that these people will behave themselves in future. It is a perfectly fair analogy to refer to what is done in respect of deep-sea fishing. In the same way, we could expect the Queen's Navy, or, as it is put in the new Clause,
      "commissioned officers of any of Her Majesty's ships",
      to be on the look out and to tackle the pirates or villains of the high seas.
      Mr. Anthony Grant: I am always pleased to answer a debate in which the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) take part, because I know that they have a keen interest in this subject and they make their contributions with great enthusiasm. Clearly, not a drop of oil will touch Kingston upon Hull. I am intrigued by the suggestion by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that there should be some sort of United Nations force moving about the oceans. We shall think about it, but he will

      173
      appreciate that it would be a matter for international agreement and would involve a large number of countries.
      The problem of enforcement has been not so much a shortage of surveyors and people to ascertain offences but an inability to pin an offence upon the offender because of lack of evidence. In that sense, the Bill will make their task much easier and will enable them to bring miscreants to justice far more easily. In the past, lack of evidence has been the problem.
      The new Clause, moved with great sincerity by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, would enable pollution prevention officers, as he defines them, to go on board a ship, requiring it to stop if necessary, where they suspect that a breach of the Bill has occurred. Further, such an officer could take the ship into the nearest port and detain it until the completion of proceedings for contravention.
      We debated this question fully in Standing Committee. I assure the House that I have carefully considered the various ways in which the requirements of the Bill might be more effectively enforced. I considered the possibility of detention of the ship until the completion of proceedings before the Bill was introduced and I rejected it. As I told the Committee, my reason for doing so was that a power such as his might impose a quite disproportionate financial penalty on the persons interested in a ship even before the criminal proceedings could be dealt with in circumstances in which it might turn out that no offence had been committed. A large tanker may cost thousands of pounds a day to run. To have the ship immobilised because it was suspected that an offence had been committed in connection with it would be unduly severe.
      There is one precedent for this power on which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West touched; namely, that power found in the Sea Fisheries Act, 1968, in relation to fishery offences. But it is most unusual and is made necessary only because foreign fishing boats commit offences under that Act, principally by fishing in United Kingdom waters contrary to the Act, without calling at a United Kingdom port. That is not usual in relation to pollution offences.
      Mr. James Johnson: Is it not a fact that our fishery protection vessels can pursue offenders to any distance? I accept that the offence may have taken place 10 miles offshore, but the vessel is pursued and chased. If there is oil pollution 10 or 20 miles offshore, why is it not possible to have a vessel of a similar nature to pursue and hound the offender?
      Mr. Grant: I do not think the two things are analogous. The fishery poacher never comes into a port. He deliberately poaches in the territorial waters of a country. The case of the oil pollution is utterly and entirely different. He comes into a United Kingdom port. The effect of the Bill is that he will be liable if he discharges oil illegally anywhere in the world. What the hon. Gentleman has said is not a parallel case because the fishing boat cannot be detained in port. The fishery offender cannot be got hold of and he never comes into port, whereas the tanker does. The pollution offence is not parallel with the fishery offence.
      Nevertheless, I recognise that there is a real problem with which this proposal attempts to deal. But I am not convinced that prosecution of offences under the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts is proving so difficult as to necessitate the introduction of special provisions which cut across the general principles of procedure applicable in criminal cases in this country. I recall giving analogies in Committee. The difficulty of bringing proceedings against foreign masters or sailors is a common one applicable to offences under the Merchant Shipping Acts and the general law. In the absence of real proof of need in this context, I do not think that a provision peculiar to the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts is justifiable.
      Lastly and most important, there is considerable danger that if legislation of this kind became widespread it could lead to considerable harassment and delays to United Kingdom shipping. The Canadians have already introduced a provision of this type, and our view is that it could be detrimental to our shipping interests generally if this example were to spread throughout the world.
      I should like to make two further comments which may lead the House to consider that the new Clause is unnecessary.

      175
      The powers of sea fishery officers are strictly limited to taking action against foreign fishing boats which are within United Kingdom fishery limits and British fishing boats anywhere. This Clause does not appear to have any such geographical limitation, yet we should be in breach of international law if we sought to interfere with foreign ships on the high seas or even passing innocently through our territorial waters. The exception in the Sea Fisheries Act occurs only as a result of international agreement.
      9.0 p.m.
      Secondly, in relation to the pollution prevention officer which the hon. Gentleman seeks to create, I draw attention to Section 11 of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955. This gives to all surveyors of ships and other persons—who would include any persons listed in subsection (2) of the new Clause—appointed as inspectors by the Secretary of State, all the powers of an inspector under Section 729 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. This Section gives him power, among other things—I invite the House to consider this—to go on board any ship and inspect it or its equipment; to enter any premises or inspect apparatus as necessary; to summon witnesses and examine them; to require the production of necessary documents; and to examine witnesses on oath. Section 11 of the 1955 Act makes it clear that these powers include the power to test equipment the vessel is required to have fitted, and to require the production of oil record books. Furthermore, where the vessel is in harbour, the harbourmaster has similar powers.
      Therefore, we do not think it right to give inspectors the sweeping powers which this new Clause envisages. I hope that the House will agree that our inspectors already have sufficiently wide powers. For these reasons I regret that I cannot recommend the House to accept the new Clause.
      Mr. Ogden: It is perhaps appropriate that the representative of that sea-girt constituency of Wirral should have joined us at this time when we are discussing oil in navigable waters, for every Member of the House will be aware of the interest which you, Mr. Speaker, took
      176
      in matters of navigation and the Merchant Navy so near your own constituency.
      The Minister, in replying, and rejecting the new Clause, suggested that his reason was not the shortage of ships or of the personnel to discover whether someone is breaking the law in this regard, but that one of the reasons was identifying the source of the oil and linking a sample of the oil with a particular ship, and particularly because of the size of the oceans and the amount of traffic. He told the House he was more than anxious to answer questions from Members representing Kingston upon Hull. I do not want to take advantage of the fact that he comes from an inland port and that I come from a Merseyside one, but I wonder whether he has had drawn to his attention an article which appeared in yesterday's issue of The Times in which the science correspondent of that newspaper reported:
      "A method of computer analysis for identifying rapidly the source of oil slicks at sea is being developed at the Admiralty Materials Laboratory near Poole, Dorset. The way the type of oil that causes pollution can be analysed to provide certain identification is described in the current issue of the journal Laboratory Practice by a research group from the laboratory. The scientists believe the method can be used to find out the origin of a spillage of crude oil, residues from tank bottoms, or furnace fuel oil."
      I would hope that, in the light of that, and the answer which he gave, he might take up this point, and consult his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, the scientists, civil servants and officers who are at work on this problem. It has always been an extremely difficult one. We may find the ship, but to link a sample of oil with the ship is difficult. Since the work seems to have got so near to completion it would appear that it would be useful to have the results of that work. I wonder whether, instead of just nodding, he would just add a comment. I should like his agreement, and if he could put it on record that would be appreciated.
      Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: As this is the first time I have spoken since you have been elected to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, let me be permitted to say how delightful it is to see you sitting where you are.

      177
      The only reason I intervene is that I am a little concerned about the reply which my hon. Friend gave to this new Clause, having been Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which looked into coastal pollution after the experience we had with the "Torrey Canyon". It was only natural to consider what both the United Kingdom Government and I.M.C.O. might do with a view to ensuring that encouragement was given to the use of the load-on-top system and that any master of a ship who discharged oil in navigable waters, however far out to sea, should be able to be hauled up at once. We discussed at some length the instruction that is now given to masters of ships to ensure that they are fully aware of how to use the load-on-top system and how to ensure that they prevent pollution. I hope that my hon. Friend's answer will not be a final one. I foresee the day when I.M.C.O. will take the view very strongly that there must be oceanic enforcement as well as coastal water enforcement of this legislation.
      I am sorry that I was unable to be present on Second Reading because I should have liked to participate. I do not want to get out of order on the new Clause, but I hope that I may be allowed to say that I think there is a new spirit abroad in the fighting of pollution. The encouraging way in which so many countries have taken up the load-on-top system makes it increasingly important that those owners who do not adapt their ships to this system should be more stringently treated than ever before. As time goes on it will be even more difficult to identify them, and there may well have to be some form of international inspectorate. The Minister referred to Section 11 of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955, which provides:
      "The Minister may appoint any person as an inspector to report to him—
      (a) whether the prohibitions, restrictions and obligations … have been complied with;".
      I do not think that this really covers the point. I hope that this may be given further thought, although I recognise that we could waste a lot of money and possibly damage British interests by overdoing it. At the same time, I am always a little suspicious when I hear the argument used that hypothetically this might possibly damage our interests. We should
      178
      be in the forefront, as I believe we are. Shell in particular has led the way with the introduction of the load-on-top system. We are in the lead in persuading the world to do more about these matters than ever before, and it would be a pity if we did not arm the appropriate body with sufficient powers of inspection and appoint sufficient people with the right qualifications to carry out this inspection.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will look at this again and give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will support anything that I.M.C.O. tries to do by general agreement to ensure that those who are still reluctant to fall in with the sensible modern approach to this matter are properly inspected, properly restrained and properly punished.
      Mr. Anthony Grant: I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that the United Kingdom is very much in the lead in all these activities. We have certainly been extremely active in I.M.C.O. and, as I shall say later on Third Reading, if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, we are in this Bill almost the first country to ratify the convention and we hope to be one of the first to bring in a Bill dealing with civil liability. There is no question of the United Kingdom dragging its feet. Far from it, we are very well in advance.
      We have considered carefully the matter of enforcement and are satisfied that the existing powers are sufficient and that the provisions in the new Bill will make that much easier the task of the officers concerned. This will be necessary to make evidence stand up in court and to obtain a conviction. This is what we hope the Bill will do. We shall, of course, keep the matter under review and consider carefully whether we need any further powers. If my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) looks with great care at the 1955 Act, he will find that the powers I have recited are available to our inspectors at the moment.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) drew attention to an article in The Times. This is known to my Department, and our scientists are engaged on similar lines of research as the Admiralty; our laboratories and experts are actively concerned with this

      179
      matter. I thought the hon. Gentleman would like to have that assurance.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 4

      REGULATION OF NAVIGATION
      The following section shall be added to the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts, 1955 and 1963:—
      '15B. The Board of Trade may for the purpose of implementing United Kingdom obligations between any two or more states party to any I.M.C.O. agreement for reducing the risk of discharge of oil resulting from accidents make regulations relating to navigation of oil tankers within such sea areas as shall be defined thereon including regulations prescribing the saparation of sea traffic proceeding in opposite directions'.—[Mr. Mason.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Roy Mason: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      I doubt whether there is a country in the world more in danger of the awful consequences of pollution of the sea by oil than is Britain. We all remember the "Torrey Canyon", the "Pacific Glory" and "Allegro", the "Taxaco Caribbean" and now the "Brandenburg" accidents. All these have made us acutely aware of that fact.
      Our straits and coastal waterways are the busiest in the world, particularly with oil tankers. The bigger the vessel, the bigger the menace to our coastline and beaches, with the inevitable costs to the Government and local authorities. I believe our coastline and beaches will be menaced for many years to come. The recent collisions were not freakish, isolated incidents. Some 10 or 11 tanker accidents per year take place near our shores, so the chance of another belch of oil from a super tanker, and possibly loss of life, could happen at any time.
      This Bill is intent upon curbing the illegal discharge of oil at sea, increasing fines on the offender and establishing more detailed records of all movements of oil. In that sense it is a very good Bill, but I believe we must do more to impose stricter rules regarding the regulation of navigation of these mammoth oil tankers.
      The Institute of Navigation recently reported that 7 per cent. of the world's
      180
      seagoing ships are involved in collisions every year and that the super oil tankers are the greatest menace of this group. These are vast ships, as big as aircraft carriers, and they are still growing in size. The Japanese are now building vessels of 300,000 tons. Their cargoes are frighteningly dangerous; the vessels are slow to manœuvre and difficult to stop. They are the problem ships of our age. One other alarming aspect of this problem is that many of the owners are under pressure to meet financial deadlines—because of the cost, size of cargo and immense investment in them. They tend to treat navigational regulations as of secondary importance, racing tides, cutting corners at sea, crossing sea lanes with quick turn-rounds, shelving maintenance—to mention just a few of the dangers.
      Because this country is the most vulnerable to oil tanker accidents, because 500 million tons of oil per year are brought to Britain and other Western European countries, I want now to be assured that we have the powers to change the regulations of navigation as fast as we deem it necessary. That is the reason for the new Clause.
      I wish to ask the Minister three specific questions. I should like to know what progress is being made in establishing proper longitudinal and lateral separation measures in all our waters and introducing more quickly the anti-collision rules, not necessarily waiting every time for the periodic slow-moving recommendations of inter-governmental maritime organisations.
      9.15 p.m.
      I hope that on this occasion—we have asked this question a number of times, from Second Reading right through Committee—the Minister can give a progress report on the work being done by his Department and the Institute of Navigation, which might give some satisfaction to the House. As he knows, the pilots, Trinity House and the master mariners have already expressed concern at the routing system in the Channel, where they estimate that 5 per cent. of vessels were actually sailing against the agreed traffic flow system. They themselves have recommended changes to the Minister; they will probably have to wait some time, even if he gives them sympathetic consideration, because they will have to go

      181
      through the I.M.C.O. machinery. But they, too, are in need of some reply to the ideas that they have put to him.
      Secondly, why cannot the Government, and, if necessary, I.M.C.O., consider the possibility of giving these vast, highly lethal cargoes, oil tankers, vessels carrying highly concentrated explosives and methane tankers, the right of way on the high seas? At least Britain and her neighbouring Western European countries should consider this in our highly congested straits and channels.
      We are a great importer of oil, and this, too, will go on for years. We are the most vulnerable of all the nations to tanker accidents and oil pollution. These tankers in our narrow sea lanes are becoming an even greater menace, and it is, therefore, incumbent upon us to take the initiative and change the law of the sea.
      In that way, I would hope that these major vessels, these problem ships of our age, the tankers and the vessels carrying high explosives, should have the right of way on the high seas. Why is not this proposition feasible? I hope that the Minister will answer that tonight as well.
      Finally, I believe that the Western European countries could, without waiting for I.M.C.O., convene a conference to establish a regional agreement. This would be to establish the necessary anti-collision routes and rights of way for these large and slow-manoeuvring tankers. It could be agreed within weeks if Her Majesty's Government would take the initiative with France and the other Western European nations which are involved along our own coastal ways. I.M.C.O. would then be responsible, in the end—not initially—for informing all the other maritime nations of this special regional agreement and of the rules to be observed in our coastal waters and the congested sea lanes between the United Kingdom and the coastline of Western Europe. Such a regional agreement is possible within the I.M.C.O. machinery.
      I therefore hope that the Minister will treat all these suggestions seriously. I hope that the Government will give a blessing to the new Clause if the Minister feels that it is necessary as an addition to give him the powers that he needs expeditiously to deal with anti-collision
      182
      rules and regulations, and if he thinks that we cannot do it fast enough at the moment. I hope that he will also consider urgently some of the other considerations which I have mentioned.
      Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The argument of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) is superficially very attractive, but, on the best evidence that we received in the Select Committee, his facts are wrong. It is not true to say that these big tankers are more dangerous than other ships. In some ways, they are more easily navigated. I suppose that we could have had few more reliable witnesses on this when we were taking evidence in that Select Committee than Lord Geddes. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at what Lord Geddes told our Committee, I think he would wish that he had not propounded some of the propositions which he has propounded this evening. One of the first things that we must get out of our thinking is the idea that it is safe to talk in terms of tramlines.
      Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Lord Geddes, who knows quite a lot about tankers, pointed out that the accident involving the "Torrey Canyon" could be regarded as a maverick accident and unlikely to happen again.
      Sir H. Legge-Bourke: If it can be said to have been a maverick accident, it is obviously unlikely to happen again. We made it clear in our Report that there are two tanker accidents every week somewhere in the world. Obviously the risk of this happening is greater in narrow congested waters such as the English Channel than in other areas, particularly bearing in mind the siting of Rotterdam, London and Southampton. Naturally, the concentration of shipping coming in from the Western Approaches up the Channel automatically makes the Channel extremely dangerous for navigation.
      Let us not assume that the big tankers are automatically the most dangerous to navigate. As I was saying, do not let us assume that it is sensible to think in terms of tramlines for shipping. Indeed, we on the Select Committee are convinced, particularly in relation to the phrase "tramlining", that there is no substitute for the good mastership of a ship. One can have all the rules and regulations in the world, but can one

      183
      always rely on them being complied with? A master must always bear in mind the need for good navigation, and unless we have good navigation we shall have collisions.
      There was never a better example of this than a collision that occurred some time ago. It was between a ship called the "Ann Mildred Brovig", a quite small Norwegian vessel, which went batting into a much bigger ship and holed her badly. The bigger ship was, in fact, on precisely her right route. This collision occurred in fog, and, while one does not know what equipment the smaller vessel carried, the collision illustrates what can happen.
      It is vital for us to realise that we are talking about a highly sophisticated business. I doubt whether any of us is sufficiently qualified to make complete sense of this. I can, therefore, only hope to help the House by mentioning, for example, that having had some preconceived ideas following the "Torrey Canyon" disaster, I was quickly disabused of them when I listened to some of the expert witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee.
      I obviously do not have time tonight to cite all the evidence we took, which was voluminous. However, I wish to quote a few passages from the evidence of Lord Geddes. For example, referring particularly to stopping, he said:
      "These big tankers … have remarkably good manoeuvrability. Their turning circle is half a mile for a complete circle. But they can change course very rapidly. Their stopping distance, if you want to do a crash stop, which is a very rare thing to want to do, is something under two miles. However, one hears all sorts of stories about a stopping distance of ten or twelve miles. I will explain why you hear those stories. If you are coming up to the pilot or to the port approaches you clearly do not want, as with a car, to drive at full speed until the last minute and then slam the brakes on. You slow down gradually. Coming up to the pilot or to the port approaches you put the ship on standby at ten miles, get on to half speed and slow her down gradually in order to bring her to the condition in which you want her. That is why you hear of these enormous stopping distances which do not relate to emergencies. And emergencies do not normally relate to crash stops but to diversions."
      We must recognise that, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Barnsley that we must also recognise with increasing intensity the appalling congestion in the Channel.
      184
      But we also have to recognise that whilst Trinity House may recommend reversing the main routes of the Channel, as it apparently now is recommending, so that a ship goes out along the coast of France and comes in on the English side, I believe, no one should suppose that that will absolve masters of ships from keeping a good lookout and making sure that the men on board are fit to be there. There is no substitute for that being done. I therefore suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that his new Clause somewhat over-simplifies the matter, and I am more frightened than I would otherwise be by his arguments, because I think that they are unsound.
      Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman talks about the Channel and the master mariners who now want to reverse the flow, which means that they want to turn the "tramlines" round—that is a simple word he used—but for the last 10 years they have been voluntarily trying to establish how the traffic should flow in the Channel. Since then, we have had faster and bigger and very many more vessels moving through the Channel than ever before. The master mariners and the Elder Brethren of Trinity House now say that it would be far safer to reverse the flow so that any danger would be towards the deeper water and not necessarily towards the coast.
      I go along with the hon. Gentleman on his point about certificated masters, because the one major complaint of the United Kingdom pilots is that when they go on many foreign vessels, not British vessels, they are appalled by the few officers they find on the bridge; in many cases there is only one officer.
      Mr. Ogden: I thought for a moment that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) intended to change this debate into a controversial occasion when what is before us is largely agreed on both sides of the House. No one would disagree about the importance of masters and crews, or with the fact that some ships, regardless of size, are more manoeuvrable than others, but I was surprised when the hon. Gentleman chided my right hon. Friend and said that large vessels are in the main fairly manoeuvrable and fairly easy to stop on a crash course. It may be that experts disagree, but our information is that

      185
      the sheer size of vessels makes for difficulties. We hear of one ship trying to go between the forepart and the stern of another ship. Size presents difficulties.
      We accept that the Under-Secretary's responsibilities in this respect are very great indeed—in some way he may now be answering for his Minister who, unfortunately, is not able to be present this evening—but he must be aware that on 27th November last the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) introduced a debate on safety at sea. The House then accepted a Motion which indirectly called upon the Under-Secretary and his Department to undertake certain action.
      During that debate several points raised in connection with the present Measure were mentioned. One point made by the Minister, when talking about disasters in the Channel, was that the collision between the "Pacific Glory" and the "Allegro" happened in a seaway which was not a so-called "separated" seaway, so that the rules concerning a separated seaway did not there apply. We have now had a collision in a separated seaway. In that earlier debate the Minister was still claiming that he and his colleagues and his Department intended to try to get an agreement through the whole range of I.M.C.O. and gave no concession at all in respect of a regional agreement. We are entitled now to ask what consideration the Minister and the Department have given to the Resolution of the House from 27th November till now—practically six weeks.
      In that debate I asked questions about the newspaper proposals for the creation of a British marine authority, which might well be a way of working this kind of international agreement.
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Clause is of limited utility. I repeat the point I made on Second Reading that, as long as there is any country which is not a party to I.M.C.O., we deceive ourselves if we imagine that we can control shipping upon the waterways of the world, because all that will happen is that ships will find it profitable to register under flags of convenience of countries which are still not signatories to I.M.C.O. That is the restriction on our practical ability.
      186
      I do not believe that adopting the Clause would achieve the measure of safety that we seek. I repeat that in narrow water such as the Channel nothing will achieve that objective but the extension of the territorial limits of contiguous States until they meet in the middle with no clear space.
      Instead of seking to carry such Clauses and then persuade ourselves that we have dealt with the situation highlighted by the recent collisions, we should do as other countries have done and extend our territorial waters. Other States contiguous to the Channel would then take a similar view. That is the course which the Government, together with the other powers concerned, should be engaged on. If my hon. Friend can tell us that his mind is moving very much in this direction, I shall have an easier conscience in letting the Clause go by without its being embodied in this excellent Bill.
      Mr. Booth: I cannot accept that it is of no value to seek regional agreements or any agreements on navigational problems unless they embrace every maritime country. That is a doctrine of despair, particularly at this time. Had it been believed by the British representative at the international convention that it was not right to place the legal responsibility for the operation of this form of legislation upon the nation whose vessels were registered with that nation, that should have been said at the time and we should not have been considering any legislation of this form.
      The whole purpose of this legislation which we are considering and of legislation which will be considered in Parliaments of other member countries of I.M.C.O. is that each country will be responsible for the ships registered there. I give sufficient credit to those who attended the international conference to think that they considered a number of other methods. In fact, I know that they did. They came down in favour of this one in the belief that action by I.M.C.O. countries could be subsequently pressed upon other countries and that it was better that I.M.C.O. countries should go ahead and take this action, anyway, rather than waiting until some form of international organisation embracing all countries operating vessels could be set up.

      187
      However, there is an additional argument in favour of regional agreement which stems from the knowledge and experience of the countries in that region and from the sea trade that goes on between countries in a limited region. There are no doubt a number of special practices and conventions of navigation which can be operated in certain waters by at least the majority of vessels which regularly frequent those waters by knowledge of the practices which are agreed on a regional basis between two nations.
      In the case of the Channel, I am not suggesting that it should be only Britain and France. Obviously, there are other Northern European nations with many vessels which trade in those waters. But I certainly believe that regional agreements by I.M.C.O. members, or even in some cases other nations, have a part to play in marine safety generally and the avoidance of oil pollution in particular.
      The manoeuverability of large vessels has been questioned. It is flying in the face of common sense to say that we do not have a real manoeuverability problem with some of the larger vessels. The first reason is their draught. Their greater draught automatically restricts the areas in which they can manoeuvre and the routes they can take through narrow waters.
      In addition, there is the scale problem of manoeuverability which results in stopping distances of miles rather than thousands of yards under specific conditions. Unfortunately, weather does not change in scale. In fog it is no easier to see further from the big vessel than from the small vessel. Therefore, in conditions of limited visibility there must be a special problem.
      There has also been a technical-economic development which has caused a manoeuverability problem with the larger vessel—the tendency towards more and more large single-screw vessels. In the past large vessels tended to be multi-screw. They were twin-screw, sometimes three-screw, but more commonly large four-screw vessels, which could be manoeuvred on their engines much more readily than the large single-screw tanker, particularly when the vessel in running light and the top of its propeller is out of the water, which means that it has a propeller bias against turning in one
      188
      direction built into it by the nature of its method of propulsion.
      Therefore, we must concede that one of the reasons why we need special navigation provisions arises not purely from the size of the tanker but from its size coupled with its economy of operation. No doubt, if there were not considerations of economy in operation a large tanker could be made as a twin-screw vessel and could have cross-bow propulsion units to enable it to turn more quickly and a whole range of other measures to enable it to manoeuvre more readily. But in practice it has been found that the cheapest large tanker to operate has the big single screw, without special manoeuvring devices. This is causing the navigation difficulties, which are a fair argument for the need for regional agreements on navigation.
      Mr. Prescott: The Clause tries to deal with the problem we are outlining. The Channel is very congested and is becoming increasingly so, and collisions are made all the more likely by the increasing number of vessels coming into it. It is no accident that they are coming via the Channel, because many of the major oil routes in particular come through the Channel and on into Europe. We are concerned in the Bill not only with the pollution problem posed by such vessels but with accidents and collisions, which cause deaths as well as pollution, and the deaths of seamen represent a far greater problem than the problem of pollution. The two go together, however, in that when a tragedy occurs one effect is the massive oil pollution that we witnessed in the case of the "Torrey Canyon" and the threat of pollution from the "Pacific Glory".
      The problem of congestion and how we control the traffic flows through the Channel is very important. Many marine authorities—the pilots, Trinity House and many others concerned with the problem daily—are questioning the routes, the "tramways" that we talk about, whilst other bodies connected with shipping hold an opposite point of view. This presents a real difficulty for the Government, whose ultimate responsibility is concern for safety, in deciding which is the best method to adopt. That causes a dilemma.
      Nevertheless, the major question about navigation is not necessarily whether

      189
      ships should go upon the right or upon the left or down whichever way may be considered the safer, but the fact that the fundamental rules of navigation in the Channel are being questioned. We have not yet had the reports about the collision of the "Pacific Glory" and the "Allegro", but there is sufficient evidence already to suggest that both ships may have been obeying the international navigation rules of the sea. Very often in these cases there are very fine points concerning the angles at which ships entered the routes they had to plot from the ports they had left. Thus, both vessels might be right in their interpretation of the rules and yet there is a collision.
      A challenging question now about the Channel is whether we should not consider safer rules of navigation in this congested waterway, such as those suggested by my right hon. Friend about giving way to vessels like tankers. There are differences of view, which must be given immediate consideration, about the rules of traffic and the rules of navigation, particularly in the Channel, which gives us cause for our most immediate concern.
      The rules of navigation are one part of the maintenance of orderly traffic through the Channel. What is equally important is the quality of those who man the vessels—the safe and adequate manning and the qualities and certificates of qualifications of those who give the orders, the captains and the officers. This must be a priority in our consideration. Evidence has come to light, particularly in the case of the "Torrey Canyon" and from other inquiries we have had recently—perhaps in the case of the "Pacific Glory" and the "Allegro"—which questions the quality of seamanship and certification of those who charter and man these vessels. There are doubts as to whether they are of sufficient quality for these men to be put in charge of such potentially dangerous vessels.
      We in seafaring have constantly complained of the deteriorating standards, particularly on certain vessels. Flags of convenience, particularly the Liberian, have been mentioned. Liberia has over 19 million tons of oil tankers. It has many new ships, and these are huge vessels of the type which the Select Committee on Science and Technology investigated in the case of the "Torrey
      190
      Canyon". These ships have inadequate manning. More important, these countries do not impose the necessity for high standards of certification, particularly for officers, in contrast to the standards normally maintained by the traditional maritime countries. It is almost like haying a fast car on a motorway driven by someone who cannot really drive.
      Flag-of-convenience countries have about 40 per cent. of world shipping, and we must be concerned at their failure to impose adequate standards. It is all very well for us to say that our sovereignty extends to British ships, but the consequences which flow from the lower standards of manning of flag-of-convenience ships also greatly affect us, as was brought out in the case of the "Torrey Canyon".
      If anything is to be done about the problem, we have to have some sort of international control. This could be arranged through I.M.C.O., but experience has shown that when I.M.C.O. finally decides on a convention many countries do not sign it and many others delay signature. Even if we got agreement now, therefore, we could not expect a convention to be observed for perhaps two or three years. Meanwhile, deaths in the English Channel will continue to increase with the constant increase in traffic.
      9.45 p.m.
      We must have some sort of control and we cannot wait for the period which would be involved in getting co-operation through I.M.C.O., for in the next few years deaths of seamen, collisions and pollution will increase. The Clause therefore proposes that, while we should work for an eventual convention through I.M.C.O., we should arrange with countries bordering the Channel—France, Germany, Holland and so forth—to have some sort of agreement to police this important waterway.
      The difficulty is going outside territorial waters. We can lay down regulations to control traffic within territorial waters, but what do we do about international waterways? If a tanker has a collision outside territorial waters, as we have been made only too painfully aware, that does not mean that we are necessarily free of the resulting pollution. But controlling international waterways is a

      191
      thorny problem and it will be difficult to get some sort of agreement, for instance, to extend territorial waters.
      If we attempt to force vessels below required standards to observe rules which we lay down, we may make ourselves liable to charges of piracy on international waterways. However, what we propose is that vessels which do not have proper standards of management and whose officers and masters do not have proper certification, and which, therefore, are potential dangers, shall not be allowed to enter the ports of those countries which border the Channel. The oil which comes in tankers from the Middle East comes to oil refineries in the countries concerned, and in that way we may be able to exercise some control over the standards of the tankers. We could make regional agreements among ourselves and in that way exercise a powerful sanction against vessels on which minimum safety standards are ignored and which, therefore, create much of the problem.
      The Clause could be a useful interim device pending international agreement. If we await international agreement through I.M.C.O., many seamen will die and more collisions will occur and much more pollution will be caused in the Channel, not to mention windows broken by explosions such as we have recently experienced. It is incumbent upon the Board of Trade to adopt the recommendations of the Rochdale Report, to set up a statutory marine authority with the responsibility of carrying out a number of functions including participating "fully in international negotiations to establish standards" To do this is a first step towards getting agreement. To hang on for I.M.C.O. to do something will be to pay a terrible price. This Clause goes one step towards solving the problem.
      Mr. Anthony Grant: It was helpful to have the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), because he reminded us in clear terms that, with all the advances of technology and sophistication of equipment, at the end of the day in these operations at sea we rely upon the human element and the skill of the mariner.
      The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has put some points to me, crisply and succinctly and I hope that in
      192
      answering them I can deal with the questions raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) at the same time. As I understand it there are three matters. First, the right hon. Gentleman asked me to report on what progress has been made to establish more quickly anti-collision routes. I can tell him that traffic separation schemes must really find international acceptance. This is the only practical solution. The process of consultation before such agreement is reached, on the details of the scheme, inevitably takes time if we are to achieve the correct result.
      As to routing in the English Channel, my Department has been urgently working out new proposals which will be discussed at a meeting next week covering a wide range of expert opinion. After full consultation—
      Mr. Prescott: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the trade unions will be invited to this meeting?
      Mr. Grant: We shall be only too pleased to hear trade union views on this and will value any points that they care to make. After full consultation with United Kingdom maritime interests we intend putting our proposals to I.M.C.O. at the next meeting of its Maritime Safety Committee in March. We are also considering urgently whether the existing scheme in the Dover Straits ought to be made mandatory. Many of us feel that this would be desirable but there are problems of enforcement which we are examining. If it is desirable then we shall seek, through I.M.C.O., international agreement. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to be assured that we are moving as vigorously as we can in this direction. It is important that we achieve the right result.
      Perhaps I could say a word or two about what has occupied the columns of the Press in the last few days and has been referred to in the debate, namely the views of Trinity House and the Master Mariners as opposed, apparently, to everyone else. I should not like it to be thought, as has been suggested in certain parts of the Press, that it is an easy solution merely to change the routes around. It is by no means as simple nor is it likely, necessarily, in our view to reduce collisions. It could increase them. This has been considered at great length

      193
      by a great number of people who are extremely expert on this subject, and it will continue to be examined. I do not want the House to run away with the idea that by a mere switch one can overcome what is a very difficult problem.
      Mr. Mason: Do I take it that the Under-Secretary has not yet finally made up his mind about the proposals put to his Department by the Elder Brethren and master mariners? He may be sceptical at this stage, but is it still under consideration or has he replied saying that it might prove more dangerous than they envisage?
      Mr. Grant: That view is on present information that we have. What I am saying is that we need more information, as to depths in the Channel, and this is at the moment, I understand, being assembled by hydrographers doing detailed research. Until we have that precisely, we shall not be able to express a useful view on these matters. We are awaiting that information. When we have it, then we can have a considered view.
      The second question asked by the right hon. Gentleman was about whether we should change the laws of the seas so as to give ships carrying lethal cargoes a right of way. This proposal has some attraction at first glance. It is something to be very carefully considered in the course of the current review of the collision regulations. However, when it comes to thinking out the details of how it would work in practice, there are serious practical difficulties, as right hon. and hon. Members will realise. For example, one can imagine it working satisfactorily for an encounter between one ship with a dangerous cargo and another ordinary ship when they can clearly see and identify each other. But what would happen in bad visibility or fog? There are no means available at present, I am advised, by radar or otherwise, of identifying particular ships in fog as having the qualities necessary to give them a right of way.
      Moreover, this idea would do nothing to assist in the situation where the two ships meeting both carry dangerous cargoes, as in the collision between the "Pacific Glory" and the "Allegro", both
      194
      tankers and both qualifying for the right of way. The normal collision regulations have to provide for this situation, and it is hard to see that a scheme of priorities would make much further contribution, even if it were practicable. But, having said that, and expressed our view, I assure the House that, if there is a way of getting over the practical difficulties, we should, naturally, consider it.
      The third point put to me by the right hon. Gentleman and by several hon. Members was the question of a European conference in order to obtain a regional agreement to improve navigation in the English Channel. This is, again, an interesting idea and it may be that at some time such a conference would be useful. But I must warn the House that there are limitations. In particular, it is essential that any new arrangements for navigation in the English Channel are accepted by all the major maritime nations using it. I could see objections to trying to impose such arrangements, even with the support of other North-West European countries, if they had not found general acceptance.
      I believe that we are likely to get quicker and more satisfactory results, therefore, by processing our proposals through the normal international machinery provided by I.M.C.O. It is all very well to assume that one can quickly get an agreement between a number of European countries, but—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That the Proceedings on the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Weatherill.]
      Question again proposed That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Grant: If, for example, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) wants them to do, it were intended that they should in some way boycott or ban vessels delivering to their ports, I envisage that to achieve agreement on that basis among European countries might take almost as long—if not longer, and probably be unenforceable—as it would take to go through the normal overall international machinery.

      195
      For those reasons, we are concentrating on getting our proposals ready in time for the meeting of the Maritime Safety Committee in March.
      I remind the House that there could possibly be certain implications not altogether favourable for the United Kingdom if the concept of regional agreements were to be carried through in other parts of the world where we have considerable interests. In a nutshell, therefore, we think it best to concentrate, as rapidly as we can, on the international bodies.
      I come now to the Clause itself, on which we have had a fairly wide-ranging debate. It would empower the Secretary of State, by regulation, to control the navigation of vessels within specified sea areas, and the controls would include separation of traffic going in opposite directions. In Committee, a similar proposal was put forward, and I undertook to consider whether we already had under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the powers which the Clause would give us, but it was put down for the Report stage before I was able to write to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) about it.
      I accept that the Clause is limited to the making of regulations to implement United Kingdom obligations between any two or more States party to any I.M.C.O. agreement. I am advised that we already have power under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to do this. The manoeuvres of ships at sea are governed by the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. These were last revised by international agreement in 1960. Power to apply these regulations to United Kingdom ships stems from Section 418 of the 1894 Act. Section 424 allows the regulations to be imposed on foreign ships provided that the appropriate foreign countries agree. I assure the House, therefore, that we have the necessary powers, should these be necessary.
      To shorten the matter, I can sum up by saying that I am satisfied that in all these matters we should continue to work for international agreement, and we should play, and will play, a full and active part in the work of revising the Collision Regulations. We already possess the powers needed to give effect to
      196
      agreements reached internationally which the Clause is designed to give us, and I must, therefore, invite the House to reject it.
      Question put and negatived.
      Mr. Speaker: We come now to the Amendments. I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together.
      Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is my first point of order under your guidance, and I have no doubt that both you and the House will hope that it will be my last.
      We have made good progress in considering the four new Clauses taken so far, but you will have noted that there is also new Clause No. 5 on the Paper—Security of Lawful Ownership and Control—standing in my name. I am aware that it has been the wont of your predecessor to have a provisional list of selected Amendments posted in the Lobby at the beginning of a debate of this kind. In the House and elsewhere, Sir, you are known both as a person who says what he means and as one who means what he says, so I take it That "provisional selection" is exactly what you meant. Your predecessor in the Chair earlier this evening made no announcement at the beginning of the debate regarding what new Clauses or Amendments were selected—I make no complaint about that—and I was encouraged to believe that you were proposing to offer a sort of general amnesty this evening and that all would be acceptable.
      It is a matter of some importance that the House should have concern for the security, lawful ownership and control, not only of British merchant ships, but of other ships passing through our waters. If any tanker near the British coast were to get into the wrong hands there would perhaps be a disaster which would outweigh any that we have had. Your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker, would be appreciated.
      Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me warning that he would raise this point of order. The word "provisional" means provisional. The matter of selection is for the Chair and is not debatable. In fact, the hon. Gentleman's new Clause was out of order.

    Clause 7

      INCREASE OF MAXIMUM FINE FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES
      Mr. Anthony Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 20, leave out 'In relation to' and insert:
      'The limit of the fine that may be imposed on summary conviction in respect of'.
      It would be convenient, as you have suggested, Mr. Speaker, to take Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 with this Amendment.
      Hon. Members will recall that in the Bill as originally introduced we made provision for increasing from £1,000 to £5,000 the maximum penalty which could be imposed on summary conviction for a number of offences under the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts, 1955 and 1963, primarily those concerning the illegal discharge of oil at sea. £1,000 was already an exceptionally high figure for a fine on summary conviction, but we thought it right to make a considerable increase in view of the increased public concern about illegal discharges of oil and the general feeling that more stringent penalties ought to be imposed. It became clear, however, during the debate on Second Reading that there were demands from both sides of the House for the Government to go even further and provide for a maximum penalty much in excess of £5,000.
      As the House knows, I advised the Standing Committee against adopting an Amendment raising the maximum to £50,000. This was not because I thought £50,000 too large a penalty for a serious pollution offence, but because it is far in excess of the fining powers normally available to magistrates. Because of this, magistrates may find themselves in some difficulty in deciding how to treat pollution offences within such a high maximum.
      The cases which usually come before magistrates are relatively trivial, little or no damage is done, and, athough somewhat higher penalties than those imposed in the past could certainly be justified, £50,000 would be disproportionately a penalty on quite a new scale. We must remember that there is power to take a really serious case on indictment, when there is no limit to the fine which may be imposed, but there has been no occasion to do this in the past.
      198
      On the other hand, the new restrictions which will be brought into force under this Bill will create a new situation. We shall then have a better chance of catching a serious offender, one of those, for example, who deliberately discharges tank washings at sea instead of using "load on top". For such offences we certainly want to have a penalty available which will provide a real deterrent. Even so, the chances are that the power available to magistrates would not be relevant to such an offence. If the offence occurred on the high seas, it would be for the Government of the flag State to act, and if it were a British flag ship we would have the possibility of proceeding on indictment. However, there remains the possibility that a foreign ship might be caught committing a really serious pollution offence in waters within United Kingdom jurisdiction and we might have no choice but to prosecute before a magistrate. If there were to be such a case—which does not seem very likely—the magistrate might well feel it appropriate to impose a penalty of the size which has been proposed.
      I gave an undertaking in Standing Committee to reconsider the £5,000 maximum originally proposed, and intended to return and report with a higher figure. I did not then think a penalty 10 times that sum appropriate because there are valid objections to making such an enormous departure from the normal level of powers available to magistrates, and the occasions when a magistrate will feel justified in imposing such a high penalty are, as I have explained, likely to be few.
      On the other hand, the House has expressed itself in no uncertain terms on this question, and I have little doubt that the demands for an exceptionally high maximum penalty on summary conviction will have found many an echo among our constituents. There is a widespread feeling that the time has come for determined action to put a stop to unnecessary pollution, and this Government fully share that feeling.
      We have, therefore, decided to accept the abnormally high figure of £50,000, and I am sure that this will be seen by the world as an indication that we are serious about pollution. I am sure that we can rely on the judgment of magistrates in interpreting the will of the House in respect of pollution offences.

      199
      However, one change is necessary, and that is the reason for these Amendments to Clause 7. As it stands, the Clause would apply the same maximum of £50,000 to offences under Section 5 of the 1955 Act. This Section enables the Secretary of State to make regulations about equipment to be fitted in ships to prevent oil pollution, and makes contravention of those regulations an offence. The Section applies only to British ships, and, therefore, the argument justifying an exceptional maximum penalty on summary conviction for illegal discharges of oil does not apply to offences under this Section. As only British ships are affected there would be no difficulty about proceeding on indictment against the owners in the absence of the master. We have, therefore, concluded that the maximum penalty on summary conviction for offences under Section 5 should not be increased above the maximum of £1,000 already provided in the 1955 Act. These Amendments provide accordingly, while leaving the maximum fine on summary conviction for illegal discharges of oil at £50,000.
      Mr. Mason: I think the whole House will accept this very sensible, agreeable and, I think, big decision by the Minister. It is very pleasing to those who have been involved through Committee to this stage that he has been able to overcome the objections which we knew were being placed in his way by the Home Office.
      The figure of £50,000 was floated as a possibility during the Second Reading debate and it was supported by practically every speaker during that debate, and in Committee both sides thought that our Amendment proposing £50,000 was wise. So we are particularly pleased that the Minister has been able to agree that we can raise the fine from £5,000 as proposed in the Bill initially up to £50,000 now for a guilty offender. As other maritime nations enact their legislation as a result of I.M.C.O.'s recommendation to deal with pollution at sea by oil I hope that they, too, will follow the lead by substantially increasing their fines for oil pollution. I think that the Government in this respect have now given an excellent lead.
      We felt throughout that our reasoning was sound. If a fine is to act as a deterrent the initial £5,000 was certainly not
      200
      enough. It would have meant little to a major oil company anyway. It guilty, it would pay, would scoff, and would carry on. It is only rarely that they are caught anyway. To them, £5,000 would be an inconvenience and that is all. Most of the honourable oil companies will not mind the increase to £50,000 for illegal discharges because they are not going to be guilty anyway. We really want to deter the mavericks, the fly-by-night oil slickers who are illegally discharging oil by night and vanishing by morning, and a fine of this size may well be sufficient to do that.
      Finally, as the Minister, during the Second Reading debate, said regarding the £5,000 fine:
      "It may incidentally benefit those who are put to the expense of clearing up the pollution, since the court may direct that they be recompensed out of the fine itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 579.]
      That is as good a reason as any to establish the maximum fine at £50,000, and I only hope that those who are responsible for administering the law will remember it.
      10.15 p.m.
      Sir David Renton: We, too, on this side of the House greatly rejoice in the Government's wisdom in accepting the decision of the Standing Committee. It is sometimes in my experience not a bad thing to do anyway if in doubt. I was a little disappointed that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, with that modest charm, or charming modesty, which we have learnt to expect from him, in giving his reasons why he was asking the House to let the Clause be as it was subject to the extensions of it which he is making, did not give quite those convincing reasons in favour of his action which are available. I hope that I am not presuming too much if I attempt to assure him and the House that the Government's action is very wise indeed.
      The first reason is that whenever we fix a maximum penalty we should try to make it big enough to cover the worst possible imaginable example of the offence in question. We should also make it big enough to act as a deterrent, and, bearing in mind the constant change in the value of money, big enough to stand the test of time. Bearing in mind the prevalence of these offences, the terrible damage they do to the quality not only

      201
      of human life but of marine life, the difficulty of detection and many other factors, surely £50,000 is not in excess in itself.
      The only question is—and this is where my hon. Friend was I think in the greatest doubt—whether it is a penalty which should be placed at the disposal of the courts of summary jurisdiction. With great respect to him, when he said that this was disproportionate to what had been applied before and was on a new scale, I do not think he was correctly advised. Under the Customs and Excise legislation, the exchange control and currency legislation and the Companies Acts, courts of summary jurisdiction have power to award fines and fixed penalties, for example, in the case of Customs and Excise, three times the value of the goods, which can easily amount to as much as £50,000 and have on occasions done so. Other examples could be thought of. So I do not think that we are here creating a precedent of the kind my hon. Friend suggests.
      In any event, apart from these good precedents which I have mentioned, there are surely practical advantages in having these cases dealt with in a court of summary jurisdiction fairly quickly rather than in a court of quarter sessions or assizes, which inevitably means delay, and will do so when we have the circuit courts after Beeching. In the interests of the ship owners and of everybody concerned, it is essential, with seafarer witnesses or witnesses who are flying about the world, that these cases should be dealt with quickly, and that means taking them in the courts of summary jurisdiction. If by any chance the court of summary jurisdiction awards too big a fine there is always the opportunity of appeal to put the matter right.
      Therefore, I think that the Government were absolutely correct in their decision and correct also to pay a compliment to the Standing Committee by extending this £50,000 fine to the other offences mentioned in the Amendments we are considering.
      Mr. James Johnson: May I make a Machiavellian intervention by thanking the Minister? I wished to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), who
      202
      had a short joust with the Chair over which Amendments and new Clauses were called.
      I will not name the Amendment which I had hoped would be called, but I ask the Minister to cast his eye down the Amendment Paper, from which he will see that I am not satisfied even with £50,000. If we are talking about a wealthy shipping company which buys £10 million worth of tanker, I should have thought that, since this offence is so heinous, we might well have gone up to £100,000. We thank the Minister. I have in mind his words about the "load-on-top" techniques, which we want so badly. We had hoped to have a debate on that matter. We are unable to do so, and so I end by thanking the Minister for his £50,000 rather than the £100,000 figure.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I wish sincerely to thank my hon. Friend for what he has done. One does not need very much imagination to guess at the battles which he has had to fight, successfully, with other Government Departments which have not done their homework, were not aware of the problems involved, or else were in a state of hyper-anxiety. I am sure we are all grateful to him. It is also encouraging to Committees of this House that when reasonable action of this kind is taken, the Government do not then use their potential majority on Report to reverse a sensible decision taken by Standing Committee.
      Mr. James Johnson: We on the Opposition benches would not wish to appear churlish. May I on behalf of my colleagues also thank the Minister—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The Question is, That the Amendment be made.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 2, in page 5, line 21, after first 'section', insert:
      'under section 1 or section 3 of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955 or section 5 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, shall, instead of the sum of one thousand pounds specified in'.
      No. 3 in line 22, leave out from '1964' to 'fifty' in line 25 and insert 'be the sum of'.—[Mr. Anthony Grant.]

  OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  10.22 p.m.
  Mr. Mason: This is now a changed Bill and a much more substantial one. To the House at large, and especially to this side of the House, it is a more acceptable Bill than was the original one. I believe this is the first Bill positively to tackle pollution in any form. It happens that this is one of the worst forms of pollution—oil pollution of the seas and the effects on our coastal waters and coastlines, with the consequent poisoning of our beaches and of marine and bird life. Oil spillages can have disastrous effects.
  This Bill marks another great step forward towards the ultimate goal of not allowing any oil discharges into the sea whatsoever. Having moved from wholesale dumping into the oceans when no one cared about pollution—and, indeed, were mainly ignorant of all its consequences—we have been gradually step by step, or Bill by Bill, zoning the oceans of the world and determining where oil could be dumped and in what amounts, until now, when by this Bill we are establishing, first, that there will be no discharges of oil up to 50 miles from the coastline, and, secondly, only a scientifically assessed, legally allowable thin slick release which has no permanent adverse or pollutionary effects can be released elsewhere. No doubt there will come a time when a Bill will ban even that.
  The necessity by law to make ships carry an oil record book—an oil movements ledger, if one likes—which must be submitted for inspection to show every movement of oil—loading, transfers and discharges—helps to tighten the noose around the guilty oil polluters. The Committee's wise Amendment to allow fines of up to £50,000 will help considerably. The big oil companies will not mind since they are aware of the dangers, and some of them are especially aware of their own image.
  At this stage a word of praise is due to the Shell Oil Company for devising the
  204
  "load-on-top" technique in dealing with tank washings; and also to B.P. for devising its new technique of containing oil spillages. Both are to be applauded for their endeavours and should be encouraged to maintain these interests in defeating the menace of oil pollution.
  Finally, we all hope that this Bill will help every maritime nation and everyone else who is treating oil pollution seriously to trap the fly-by-night oil slickers, those who do not use the "load-on-top" methods but clean by night, form these oil slicks and vanish in daylight. This Bill has our blessing. It emerged initially when I was at the Board of Trade. I only hope that every maritime nation will now follow our lead, especially making the fines high and penalising the polluters of the sea.
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. Laurance Reed: I understand that it is the custom for maiden speakers to pay a tribute to those whom they have displaced. The representative before me of the constituency of Bolton, East was Mr. Robert Howarth, well known, I think, for his contribution in the field of aviation and also for his sustained campaign to have crash barriers erected down the middle of motorways. Here it might be a little premature for me to pay my obsequies to Mr. Howarth, because I am certain that, with the ability that he has, he will quickly find his way back to this place—though not, I suggest, for Bolton, East.
  I have been prompted to speak by a desire to proclaim a vested interest in this matter. This interest is not peculiar to me, nor to those I represent here because it is the vested interest we all have in the well-being of the environment which sustains us. The oceans, after all, cover 70 per cent. of the earth's surface and they are critical to maintaining the world's environment, contributing to the oxygen-carbon dioxide balance in the atmosphere, affecting global climate and constituting the source of the world's hydrological cycle. The oceans are also economically valuable, providing a variety of food, energy and mineral resources.
  Britain, herself, in addition to protein food, takes from the sea, or the territory beneath it 70 per cent. of her natural gas, 10 per cent. of her coal, 10 per cent. of her sand and gravel and most of her

  205
  bromine and magnesium requirements—worth £200 million—yet they are only a fraction of the wealth which we might generate from the sea in future, provided that we learn to exploit these off-shore assets in a way which will leave the self-regenerative powers of the oceans substantially intact.
  In this Bill, we have been concerned with just one aspect of ocean management; namely, how to put an end to an abuse by traditional users of the marine environment, those who use it as a medium of transportation—an abuse which, if left unchecked, could seriously impair these self-regenerative powers, and consequently diminish the value of the sea as a productive resource.
  I am very gratified that my hon. Friend should have accepted the Amendment moved in Committee. I am chiefly gratified because I am one of those who are supposed to have rebelled against the Government. But it was never a question of voting against anyone, only of voting for something. Each one of us believed that what we were doing was right. My own views were simply that to charge a £50,000 fine instead of a £5,000 fine would constitute a greater deterrent to this offence. I also felt that £50,000 was more closely related to the gravity of the offence.
  We must remember that we have had legislation on this question since the 1920s. I am afraid that the problem is not getting any better. Every year coastal authorities report an increasing number of oil slicks around our shores. In the first six months of 1969 the coastguard service reported 111 oil slicks. In the first six months of 1970 that total had risen to 193.
  Accepting that there were new and better procedures for locating them and allowing for some of the reports to have been duplicated—and accepting that some of the slicks were the results of accidents, with which we are not concerned in this Bill—one is bound to wonder how many slicks were not sighted.
  I have with me the Report of the Lancashire and Western Joint Sea Fisheries Committee for the first six months of 1970. Bolton, East, my constituency, is a member of this Committee, which is responsible for supervising fishery conservation inside our territorial
  206
  waters along about 440 miles of the Lancashire and North Wales coastline.
  In one month of 1970, it is reported—and this is by no means the worst affected area—this happened: on 3rd March there was a one-mile oil slick about seven and a half miles west of the Bar Light vessel and on 4th March an aircraft reported a slick 20 miles west of—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The rules relating to the Third Reading of a Bill are quite strict in that speeches must be relevant to the Measure.
  Mr. Reed: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it is necessary to demonstrate the gravity of the situation that has arisen in regard to oil pollution. We cannot test the adequacy of the Measure without observing the nature and extent of the damage caused by oil pollution in the sea. That is my submission and I hope you will accept it.
  The Report to which I referred shows that between 19th and 23rd March the same area was hit by further pollution, there being one slick five miles off Formby, with other slicks affecting Crosby and Southport. I am not sure, but I believe you are about to call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Suffice to say that there were a large number of oil slicks sighted and that they were by no means small. One was four miles long and 400 yards wide.
  We must put this problem of deliberate oil discharge into the sea against the background of an increasing volume of oil reaching the sea accidentally. We have heard a great deal about accidents and collisions involving tankers and tanker groundings. Do hon. Members know that 70 countries are now exploring for oil on their continental shelves? Do they know that 22 of them have found commercial oil deposits, that 17 per cent. of the world's oil production comes from offshore areas and that by 1980 that figure will be 40 per cent. of total world production?
  Around our own continental shelf territory, apart from the oil province that we have found in the northern sector of the North Sea, there are great possibilities of finding additional oil resources to the north-west of the Orkney's, the Minches, St. George's Channel, Rockall Bank, and the Western Approaches, and even if we

  207
  are lucky enough to avoid a blow-out, as happened at Santa Barbara in California, there is still danger from undersea pipelines and under-sea storage tanks.
  It is of the greatest importance, in these circumstances, that we put an end to the deliberate discharge of oil, precisely because it is avoidable. In so far as a large fine is a greater deterrent than a small one, that was a good reason for the Government accepting the Amendment to which I referred and, therefore, for welcoming the Bill as amended.
  But that is not the only reason for welcoming the changes which we brought about in the Bill in Committee. There is also the question of relating any kind of penalty to the gravity of the offence. What I have heard tonight leads me to suppose that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends have not fully appreciated exactly what is at stake and what is involved in this matter. Perhaps I may be allowed to state swiftly four types of hurt, harm, injury and loss caused by oil pollution of the sea.
  First of all, obviously, there is the threat to or loss of amenity value and the consequent threat to the tourist industry. We use our coastline for fishing, swimming, sun bathing, diving: obviously oil slicks present a threat to the full enjoyment of these pleasures which millions enjoy.
  Secondly, there is the risk to public health. Cancerous growths have been found on various varieties of shellfish and also on certain varieties of free swimming fish such as Dover sole, and it is believed, although it is not known for certain, that the cause is oil and oily waters in the sea. Recent research in the United States has shown that hydrocarbons of the kind that can cause cancer in man are concentrated in certain varieties of oyster and mollusc in polluted waters, and though no one has yet shown that cancer in humans results directly from the consumption of carcinogens in sea food, public health officials in the United States do not discount this possibility.
  Thirdly, there is the direct economic loss to the fishing industry. We know something of the damage that is done to marine life inside the coastal area generally
  208
  by oil pollution or by the cleanup operations. The French have attempted to express this in money terms. They calculated the "biomass"—the total volume of vegetable and living matter—along a 50 kilometre stretch of their coast to a depth of 15 metres. They put it at a certain sum, and to that they added one year's interest or yield. They calculated that the "Torrey Canyon's" oil had destroyed 10 per cent. of this 'biological capital', and that the total loss on this stretch of coast was £80,000.
  Outside the coastal zone it is popularly believed that oil does not do much damage, but that is a fallacy. To begin with, oil is lethal to the eggs and larvae of fish and it just so happens that a number of economically important fisheries begin their life in the top five centimetres of the ocean. After a time the oil is emulsified, either by the action taken to disperse it or by normal wave action. It then ceases to be a mere surface layer and becomes an integral part of the aqueous environment. Here it can become lethal to adult fish, and to benthic organisms, and to zooplankton and phytoplankton which are the basis of primary production in the sea.
  These are only its lethal effect. There are also many sub-lethal effects that cause loss to inshore fishermen. The growth, the reproduction and the quality of fish can all be affected. Fish, being itinerant creatures, have a habit of pushing into cleaner waters when their normal habitat is fouled, and it can be a serious and permanent loss to fishermen if, as a result of repeated oil spills in the sea, the fish are induced to change their migratory patterns.
  Fish can also be tainted, and that reduces their market value assuming they can be sold when in that state at all. It has been shown that the oily discharge from an outboard motor is sufficient to pollute all fish within 1 acre-foot of the motor.
  Fourthly, there is the long-term contamination of the marine environment itself. It was these long-term effects which were singled out for special emphasis at the Conference on Marine Pollution held last December by the Food and Agriculture Organisation. We know that certain substances that reach the sea which are either harmless or relatively

  209
  so can be made harmful or highly toxic as a result of either the chemistry of the sea itself or through biological concentration in the food chain. We had cases of this—D.D.T., polychlorinated biphenyls and, more recently—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must once again refer the hon. Gentleman to the subject in the Bill as it is before us now.
  Mr. Reed: I am coming to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was about to say that the poisons in oil include carcinogens, which are cancer-producing agents, and they can be biologically accumulated through the food chain in the same way. What I am trying to impress upon the House is that, if the House is to make an asessment of what is done in the Bill, it is essential to understand exactly what oil does in the marine environment and the total effect it has. I submit that this is entirely relevant to what I am saying.
  Oil can also damage marine ecosystems, because sea animals use the chemistry of the sea to transmit and receive information and messages, and they use these channels to select their habitats, their food, their mating partners, and even to detect their enemies. Very minute quantities of oil can impair—can block—these communication channels and, consequently, cause major biological disruptions. Phytoplankton in the upper surface of the sea depend upon sunlight to form organic compounds both from water and carbon dioxide. This is the process of photosynthesis. It fuels the entire biological life cycle in the oceans. Yet in some parts of the sea there is as much as 500 litres of oil to every square kilometre. "Atlantis II", a U.S. oceanographic vessel, recently discovered that in the Sargasso Sea there are now more tarry oil lumps than plant life in the upper surface layers. This would be sufficient seriously to reduce the amount of solar radiation that penetrates the upper surface layers and consequently to impair the entire photo-synthetic process.
  It is very difficult to say what effect all this has had on the productivity of the oceans, but it is perhaps relevant to draw the attention of the House to the observations of a distinguished marine biologist internationally renowned who has spent a lifetime exploring underwater. He says:
  210
  "We can say from the evidence we have that the intensity of life in all the seas of the world has declined by between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. in the past 20 years. These comments bear on fixed fauna, on vegetation, plankton, shell fish, edible and non-edible fish, coral and all marine life."
  This is Jacques Cousteau, who is no charlatan. He does not attribute all this to pollution by oil, but makes it clear that it has played its part.
  "The evidence of Thor Heyerdahl, who crossed the Atlantic literally in a sea of oils, is evidence which simply confirms a far more general phenomenon; because, as he remained on the surface, all that he saw was the oil. Had he been able to compare by plunging repeatedly under his boat, he would have been able to note that the actual transparency of the seas was being reduced."
  I, too, have seen something of the reduction in transparency in the high seas in various deep sea dives I have made.
  In these circumstances, I put it to the House that the Bill as amended is surely substantially better than the one presented to us originally by the Government; because is anybody seriously going to tell me that a £5,000 maximum fine for this offence was adequate for those who deliberately, for those who consciously, for those who by choice and not of necessity, for those who wantonly, damage the marine environment, with its threat to the livelihood of inshore fishermen, with its risks to public health, with its defilement of amenity value, and even with its long-term contamination of the sea?
  I will end as I began, by reminding hon. Members of the vested interest we all have in the wellbeing of the environment that sustains us. Apart from ourselves, we also have an obligation to future generations, to leave them with our natural resources not impoverished and exhausted but preserved and so far as possible augmented. The oceans offer us the hope that we can fulfil that responsibility provided we take adequate steps to safeguard the life and health of the marginal seas around this Island. The Bill is a useful beginning, but I emphasise that it is only a beginning.
  I thank the House for its indulgence at this late hour.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: It is always a pleasure for an elder Member to congratulate a maiden speaker. The hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance

  211
  Reed) beat a good man. His fluent and lucid speech underlines his worth, and perhaps explains his being where he is now. Speaking as a geographer, I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman and pay tribute to a good oceanographer. I believe that he is that and that he is an acquisition to the House, particularly in debates like this. I am not uttering a time-worn cliché when I say most sincerely that I and all of us who heard him tonight will listen to him again with much pleasure, particularly on this subject.
  As a Humberside Member I thank the Minister for his kindness and courtesy in Committee and to us on Humberside. He paid us a visit, when he blessed and dedicated the mother ship which is of enormous value to the fishing fleet in my constituency.
  I also want to thank him for what he has done in setting up the emergency measures in the Humber for oil slicks that may develop. The proposal for these originally came from Goole, whose Member, Mr. George Jeger, was a dedicated colleague of ours. We all deplore his passing. I was happy to attempt to do something for my former colleague and for Goole in this matter. The Minister has done more than perhaps he knew at the time, and I thank him for what he did.
  We are all happy tonight and speed the Bill on its way. I hope that the Minister will not mind our saying that it is a good Labour Bill. It would have been a good Labour Act but for something that happened on 18th June. We appreciate the Minister's aplomb, modesty, cheerfulness and willing acceptance of the fortunes of war upstairs in Committee.
  I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for what I did earlier, when I tried to thank the wooden horse opposite that was so helpful in a collective capacity, not for us to gain some kudos in the Committee but to gain for us all the collective benefit of making sure that we had a deterrent for the villains who cast filth and pollution into the oceans. We are happy to have the £50,000 penalty, and I shall not mention the Amendment which spoke of £100,000. We have made an enormous step forward.
  This is in some ways a modest Bill. The Minister said that it was the beginning
  212
  of bigger things. I think that he has another Bill on his mind. I do not know how big it is, but I hope that it becomes bigger and bigger as the months go by. I mean this as a compliment: the hon. Gentleman is a modest man and his behaviour upstairs with this modest Bill endeared him to us. Let us hope that he is less modest in future and has a much less modest Bill to help us in our fight against these villians and pirates on the high seas.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: It us unusual to rise with some trepidation after a maiden speaker. Nevertheless I do so following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed). His assurance on the subject of oceanography was astonishing, and I am sure that we all look forward to hearing him again.
  I welcome the Bill on behalf of the thousands of seaside holidaymakers and especially those who contribute so much to the prosperity of my constituency. With its increased penalties, it is an indication that the Government are really in earnest in their concern with this aspect of our environment. We can only hope that the Government will be equally successful in their pursuit of all who trangress the provisions of this valuable Bill. Here, as we have heard, lies the rub. It is not easy to detect those responsible for oil discharges and one can only urge the Government to make an all-out effort to ensure that the intention behind the Bill, which is to give as much protection as possible to our shores, is fully realised by every possible means within their power.
  Certain provisions apply only to ships registered in the United Kingdom. We would wish that they applied to all vessels using British ports. One knows that there are difficulties, but I hope that the Government will study ways and means of extending the application of the Measure, or a similar Measure, to ships of other nations.
  Many people on our North Wales coast have recently been alarmed by the prospect of an oil terminal off the Anglesey coast, and they will be glad to know that the Bill covers that kind of operation and possible oil discharges from it. We have understood that one alternative to

  213
  having such a terminal is to have cargoes transferred to smaller vessels off our shores, with all the risks attendant upon such operations. Indeed, a great deal of this kind of transferring has been going on in Liverpool Bay recently, apparently successfully and without discharges into the sea.
  Nevertheless, there has been occasional pollution of our beaches in the area. But we cannot be sure of its source. The Bill rightly tries to tackle the problem of the source aboard ship. More has to be done—and I have detected the feeling in the House—to trace back pollution from the beaches, whenever it appears. We have heard—and I can confirm it myself—that it is now possible to identify individual cargoes of oil by their chemical composition, to fingerprint each cargo, as it were, and one hopes that before long it will be possible to trace every discharge that occurs to the ship that caused it, so that we shall not be entirely dependent on the evidence of oil records maintained by the ships' masters.
  The Bill, to sum up, is an earnest of the Government's concern about oil pollution and the Government are to be congratulated upon it. It is limited in its scope to ships registered with the United Kingdom. Let us hope that it will be an example to other countries. It will be difficult, we know, to implement the Bill effectively but I urge the Government to use all the scientific techniques available to trace pollution to its sources and to prosecute those responsible for oil discharges. I echo what has been said—that the Bill is a good beginning to reform. Let us hope that it is not an end.
  10.55 p.m.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I rise, again with trepidation at a late hour, but gladly, first to welcome the Bill and, secondly, humbly to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed). If the speeches of other hon. Members were half as enlightening as his, what a magnificent Chamber this would be! It is rare to find a speech seemingly so short because it was so enlightening and educational.
  I should like to welcome the Bill particularly on behalf of the ornithological public whom the Bill will especially benefit. I refer to the problem of oil
  214
  pollution as it has affected the sea bird population around our coasts and more especially the sea bird population in the Irish Sea. My hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) has referred to the possibility of the development of an oil terminal on Anglesey. We already have evidence of what occurs with the development of the oil terminal at Milford Haven.
  I believe that the severe penalties that the Minister has so wisely, after Amendment, sought to impose will help to alleviate the problem, and the problem is severe. The statistics of the populations of the auk family of sea birds, that is, the little auk, the black and white guillemot, the gannet, the razorbill and puffin, show the most catastrophic decline in numbers, particularly in the last five years and especially in the Irish Sea.
  It has been noted that last summer there was an overall decline of 47 per cent. in the number of guillemots which should have returned to their nesting places in the Irish Sea. I am not suggesting that this is due entirely to oil pollution, but it was certainly a contributory factor. Likewise, there has been a decline of 27 per cent. in the number of razorbills and an 18 per cent. decline in both combined in the colonies to the north, that is, further from the oil terminals.
  This is a problem of the utmost seriousness. The information from which these statistics have been gained comes, ironically enough, from the "Torrey Canyon" Appeal contribution to the Wild Life Fund and the R.S.P.B. and it is significant that money subscribed by the public in response to a disaster as cataclysmic as the "Torrey Canyon" should have gone to analysing the problem.
  We have been promised new legislation and that promise is welcome. The Bill is an earnest of the Government's intent in this matter. Much more work must be done in locating and detecting oil slicks. Secondly, more work must be done in clearing up the menace, not only in areas where amenities are affected, holiday areas for example, but areas where wild life is directly concerned and for which there is no provision under present legislation.
  I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. It has been a pleasure to work in a small

  215
  way with the Minister and to be associated with hon. Members as expert as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East. It has been particularly salutary that places as far apart as Bolton, East and Bradford, West, on either side of the land-locked Pennines should take an interest in this admirable Bill.
  10.58 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Grant: My first task is the very pleasant duty of offering my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) on his maiden speech. I must say that I was rather surprised when he said that it was to be a maiden speech, because we recall his addressing us with remarkable fluency and confidence in Standing Committee. I envied the skill with which he addressed the House on this first occasion and on the way in which he positively dazzled us with science. It is clear that he will be a formidable debater in future. The best that I can wish him is that I hope that he will be as happy in this House as I have always been.
  This has been an interesting, useful and helpful debate, as all debates on the Bill have been. I should like to express my appreciation for the welcome that it has received from both sides of the House. During the Second Reading hon. and right hon. Members opposite claimed that the Bill was theirs. I am glad to acknowledge the part played by the previous Administration in preparing and introducing the Bill. This is a happy degree of unanimity which, I have no doubt, will not always be reflected in my activities.
  The degree of interest aroused by the Bill reflects the strength of feeling about oil pollution, as about other threats to the environment. Examples of oil pollution have been in the public eye while the Bill has been before the House and in our debates and elsewhere proposals have been made for measures to combat the threat to our beaches and seas. Not all ideas are practical but I welcome the thought that has been given to the problem. My Department is giving a great deal of thought to finding the best ways of making rapid and effective progress in an area fraught with complexity. We will look carefully at any idea put forward.
  216
  Our debates have been wide-ranging and they have provided plenty of food for thought, but the object of the Bill is limited. It deals only with one aspect of the pollution problem. I should like to reiterate the importance which the Government attach to it and to its speedy passage into law. Its central purpose is to enable us to accept and bring into force the amendments, adopted in October, 1969, to the 1954 Convention. These amendments will make a great improvement. As it stands, the Convention has been useful, but serious weaknesses were apparent. In some respects it is more a statement of good intention than a practical means of control. With amendments it should become a realistic and effective Measure and this is something for which Britain can claim credit because the amendments resulted from a British initiative. The proposals we made resulted from fruitful collaboration between Government and industry, and I am confident that they take full account of the practical aspects of the operation of ships. They will give us a control which the industry can comply with, using modern techniques, which the Government can enforce, and which is capable of putting a stop to the nuisance caused by deliberate discharges of oily wastes.
  I have stressed that the purpose of the Bill is limited. Other means are necessary to deal with other aspects of oil pollution such as the threat of accidents to large tankers, and we are advancing on a number of fronts at once in this respect. One of these concerns the important question of civil liability for compensation. I repeat the assurance which I gave in Committee, that we shall shortly be introducing a Bill which will give us the powers needed to ratify the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969. It will substantially improve the position of the claimant who has suffered damage as a result of an oil pollution incident or incurred expense in cleaning up the spillage of oil. This will be another step along what I regard as the right road.
  Our next task, on which we are already working, will be to make the necessary regulations to bring the various parts of the Bill into force. Some of these, such as the Sections dealing with penalties and the defences available to those

  217
  charged with offences, can be brought into effect as soon as the Bill is on the Statute Book. We shall lose no time in doing this. Others, particularly those which apply the amended Convention to British ships, will require more time. There will need to be discussions with the shipping industry and other interests on the details. We must give careful thought to the instructions to be issued to my Department's surveyors who will have the task of enforcing the revised provisions. A new manual for masters of ships will have to be published by the time the Regulations come into force. I hope that all this work will be completed in time to bring the Regulations into force before the end of the year.
  But good law and diligent enforcement are not in themselves adequate to beat the menace of oil pollution. However good our detection arrangements, the fly-by-night oil slickers—if I may borrow the colourful phrase coined by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason)—will still find ways to evade the law and escape detection. I believe that these are in a minority and that their number will decline both as a result of the amended Convention and through the pressure of public opinion—that pressure of public opinion which, as we know from the Standing Committee, sometimes had a certain traumatic effect upon myself.
  But, at the end of the day, the complete avoidance of oil pollution, barring accidents, cannot be achieved without the full and willing co-operation of the owners, officers and crew of every vessel. We shall continue our efforts, both nationally and internationally, to bring home to all concerned with the operation of ships that pollution of the sea by oil is one threat to man's environment which, with reasonable care and a determination to follow the best operating procedures at all times, can and must be eliminated.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  CIVIL DEFENCE (POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS)
  11.6 p.m.
  The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I beg to move,
  That the Civil Defence (Posts and Telecommunications) Regulations, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.
  The purpose of the Regulations is simple, and I hope that, at this late hour, I shall not need to detain the House for more than a few minutes. The Regulations continue the policy of successive Governments and they are, I hope, entirely uncontroversial.
  The Post Office, when it was a Government Department, undertook at its own expense, that is, at the expense of the Post Office Fund which then existed, various measures to secure the maintenance of essential public services in the event of hostile attack. The Post Office Act, 1969, changed the status of the Post Office to that of a public authority; it was put on the same footing as other nationalised industries. It was then recognised by the Government of the day that it was essential in the public interest that a Minister should be in a position to oblige the Post Office to undertake necessary work of this sort and to reimburse it—an arrangement which prevails in respect of other nationalised industries.
  These Regulations achieve those ends by giving the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications of the day power to obtain from the Post Office reports about work which is being done, and power to require the Post Office to take such measures as he may specify and to pay grants in respect of that work. The present level of reimbursement which is fixed by the Treasury for other nationalised industries for work of this sort is just over 50 per cent., and these Regulations apply the same rate to the Post Office.
  I hope that this brief explanation will suffice to enable the House to approve the Regulations.
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: As the right hon. Gentleman said, the purpose of the Regulations is uncontroversial, and they are accepted by this side of the House, but I have one or two

  219
  questions to put. One of them is faintly legal, but I am sure that the Minister will have the answer.
  I have looked at the Act under which the Regulations are made. As with various other pieces of delegated legislation coming before the House from time to time, it is necessary to look at about three Acts of Parliament at one and the same moment in order to ascertain what the Regulations are designed to do. I am sure that there is an answer to the conundrum which my researches have raised—perhaps it is just that I have not been able to find it—and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman, or those advising him, will be able to produce it straight away.
  The Regulations are made under Section 6 of the 1948 Act. That gives the Minister a discretion to bring again into force by Regulation the provisions of the Civil Defence Acts of 1939. We are then thrown back to the 1939 Act, which clearly applies to what is referred to as "public utility undertakers". "Public utility undertakers" are defined in the Act as
  "any persons authorised by any enactment or order to construct, work or carry on any railway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, gas, electricity or water undertaking …"
  The one thing not contained in that definition is the magic words "Post Office" I am sure that somewhere the Post Office has been made a public utility undertaking for the purpose of the Civil Defence Act, 1939. I notice that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) is in the course of trying to discover which enactment made it so. I should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman could answer this point.
  The second point which arises from the Act and which I hope is of perhaps greater substance and weight than the purely legal point is this. The Civil Defence Acts of 1939 and 1948 specifically do not apply to Northern Ireland. What is the position concerning Northern Ireland under these Regulations? If there was one part of the United Kingdom in which this power of the Minister would be important and thoroughly desirable for the Post Office Corporation to tell the right hon. Gentleman what it would do in the event of civil conflict to
  220
  try to maintain its existing powers and services, I should have thought it would be Northern Ireland.
  In substance, the Regulations seem to be eminently sensible, but as there is provision in the Regulations for the Minister to make payments
  "out of monies provided by Parliament towards the approved expenses of the Post Office",
  Perhaps it would be as well if, first, he gave the statutory authority for it, and, secondly, we discovered whether the Regulations apply to Northern Ireland.
  There is one small point. Paragraph 5(1) of the Regulations provides that:
  "The Minister may pay out of monies provided by Parliament towards the approved expenses of the Post Office in taking measures … to secure the due functioning of its undertaking in the event of hostile attack grants not exceeding fifty-two and three quarters per centum of those expenses".
  Why 52¾ per cent.? I am sure that there is a very good reason for it, but for the life of me I do not know what it is.
  11.14 p.m.
  Mr. Chataway: These are not the easiest of questions which the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) puts to me at this hour.
  I will check this, but I understand that, since the main Act does not apply to Northern Ireland, it was not possible to make the Regulations apply to Northern Ireland.
  On the first point, I am advised—and it is fortunate that I have advisers and that there is an adequate communications system between me and those advisers—that Section 36(1) of Schedule 4 of the Post Office Act, 1969, lays down that
  "As from the appointed day, the authority shall be deemed to be public utility undertakers and its undertaking a public utility undertaking for the purposes of the provisions of the Civil Defence Act, 1939, other than …"
  certain paragraphs. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman can be satisfied that all is well in that respect.
  The figure of 52¾ per cent. has been arrived at by the Treasury in relation to not only the Post Office but other nationalised industries as a fair proportion for the Government to pay in respect of work of this description which is undertaken. Some of the work which is undertaken by the Post Office, as by other

  221
  nationalised industries in this connection, will be of value to its day-to-day working. Therefore, it would not be right that that should be subject to grant from the Government. There must obviously be discretion in this, and, no doubt, past Administrations have been involved in it. I gather that the figure is acceptable to the Post Office, and it is the same figure which is applied to other undertakings, and so I hope it will be acceptable to the House.
  Mr. Richard: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would say a little more about Northern Ireland. He is quite right, as a matter of law, that if the Act does not apply to Northern Ireland he cannot make Regulations to apply to Northern Ireland, but is it his intention to introduce legislation in respect of Northern Ireland which would give him, as Minister, the same powers in relation to the Post Office in Northern Ireland as he has in relation to the Post Office in England? Northern Ireland is one part of the United Kingdom where, I should have thought, it would be important that these powers should be exercised at this time.
  Mr. Chataway: These powers relate to a situation in which the country is subject to attack from hostile Powers. That is the situation envisaged. It is in the event of a major attack that these kinds of provisions really are necessary. As the Act does not apply to Northern Ireland and these Regulations do not apply to Northern Ireland, clearly I should be trespassing upon your good will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were to go far along the lines the hon. Gentleman invites me to go this evening, but I will certainly consider the point he has raised, and, if I may, write to him about it subsequently.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Civil Defence (Posts and Telecommunications) Regulations, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.

  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Clegg.]

  TRACTOR SAFETY CABS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clegg.]
  11.17 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Mills: I am grateful for this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to a very real problem which agriculture is facing at this moment through the cost of safety cabs and the lack of freedom farmers have to choose the type of safety cab they require, and to bring before the House the attitude of the manufacturers to this problem. Legislation was passed by this House to make compulsory the fitting of safety cabs to tractors, and, of course, safety is of paramount importance, and I hope that nothing I say tonight will detract from the importance of seeing that the toll of injury and death is reduced, but when we passed the legislation no one in this House, I am certain, thought that through the legislation there would be an increase of 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. in the cost of tractors.
  The present position in agriculture is very serious. Costs are rising very fast. It is, therefore, all the more disgraceful and unfortunate that some manufacturers should take advantage of the legislation and increase the cost of tractors by up to, in one instance, £240, when it is quite possible to buy a safety cab for much less money—in the region of £80 to £90. Whatever manufacturers say in their own defence, I believe they are taking advantage of the present situation. I believe they saw a means of increasing their profits. I am speaking very frankly tonight. This is a mean and unpleasant exploitation of the agricultural industry. I have no hesitation in condemning one firm in giving the lead, and that is the Ford Motor Company, this large organisation which builds so many of our tractors. We in agriculture will not forget this action.
  With all the complaints that farmers make about any Government that is in power, I wonder what they would have said if the Government had introduced legislation which resulted in an increased cost of £240 for each farmer. They would have screamed, and rightly so. Yet companies like Fords are doing exactly that. Some firms are being fair about

  223
  this. John Dear and the manufacturers of the imported tractor Zetor have played fair.
  Agriculture looks to the Minister for help. The Minister is aware of the problem. In a sense the tractor manufacturer have given the Minister the brush-off. When the Minister says that it is not much use having further discussions with the Tractor Manufacturers' Association, it seems to me that the association cares little either for the industry or for what the Minister says, and this is serious. I hope that the Minister will be able to say how he will help the industry with this problem.
  What do we want? We simply want freedom to put on a tractor the cab of our choice. Yes, even a very expensive cab if the farmer desires this. Some manufacturers wish to install in cabs radios and even earmuffs. That is fair enough if some farmers wish to have them. Farmers have every right to install whatever they wish, but they equally have the right to have fitted a very simple safety cab or bar to comply with the law. Legislation has been brought in to make compulsory the fitting of safety belts on cars, but at least the car owner has the right to fit the sort of safety belt which suits his need.
  One only has to read the Farmer and Stockbreeder and the Farmers' Weekly to see how annoyed farmers are with the way in which tractor manufacturers have taken advantage of this legislation. Farmers have the remedy of simply not buying Ford tractors until Fords take up a more reasonable and helpful attitude. This is the course which farmers could and should take in present circumstances.
  The restrictive policy of the manufacturers has the effect of increasing the price of safety cabs and means that farmers cannot choose the type of safety cab they need. The owner-occupier who wants just a plain tractor is denied the right to have it. What about the transference of a cab to a new tractor in a year or two's time? Must the farmer always buy a new cab? What about the export of second-hand tractors? Many countries do not wish to have cabs on their tractors, and this could mean a possible loss in the export of secondhand tractors. It could also mean that tractors will no longer be exported to the
  224
  United States. I have evidence to show that this is one of the reasons why the Ford Motor Company does not want the farmers to have the advantage of being able to choose the cab they require or like. Surely the Minister believes in competition and freedom of choice. If this is allowed, I believe it will enable the best possible designs to reach the market at the most economic price.
  This is a serious problem and is a matter of principle. This is the reason I have brought the matter before the House tonight. I believe that the attitude of some manufacturers is "This will all blow over; it is a five or six weeks wonder and then those who are complaining probably will forget all about it." However, I do not think the agricultural industry will forget the attitude of certain tractor manufacturers in the present situation. I believe those manufacturers have been unfair, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he has been able to make some progress in resolving the problem.
  I hope that in future a simple safety cab or bar will be produced which will comply with the legislation and which will not be too expensive. I hope that we will receive from the Minister a full reply.
  11.27 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: I am delighted to take this opportunity to support the able speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). I consider that the action of the tractor manufacturers is utterly inexplicable and out of character. The manufacture of tractors is an important part of British industry. It is an industry which is constantly seeking to improve its product. It is forward looking, it is aware of the changing needs of its customers, and is constantly trying to find out what its customers require. It has a fine export record and has done a great deal of its own free will to improve the safety of tractors. It is in the forefront of British industry. But, in the end, its profit and success depend now, as always, on a large and satisfied home market. It is the British farmers who under-write and nurture the tractor manufacturers. Yet now it is these tractor manufacturers who, by their mean and petty action, have chosen to bite the hands that feed them.

  225
  Let nobody think that their insistence on selling their own cabs is inexpensive. My hon. Friend has quoted the example of the Ford Motor Company. I would remind the House of a reply which I received from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to a Question that I put down on 8th December last. I asked what estimate the Minister of Agriculture had made of the increases in cost to farmers as a result of the introduction of tractor safety cabs. The reply was:
  "No estimate is possible of the precise immediate increase in costs to farmers, but the additional capital costs of purchasing tractors with safety frames might be of the order of £3 million at current prices in a full year."
  The important part is this:
  "If manufacturers were to continue to refuse to supply tractors unless they are fitted with their own cabs, a further £2 million in a full year might be involved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 62.]
  That further £2 million is the degree of exploitation which the tractor manufacturers are setting upon the farming industry. There is no excuse for this extra burden. After all, it is the dealer or agent, and not the manufacturer, who is responsible under Regulations for fitting cabs.
  Nor can the manufacturers claim that manufacture for export is aided or simplified by their action, because I believe that tractors for export, even if ordered with cabs, are sent abroad with the cabs unattached, to save shipping costs. Why, then, have manufacturers taken the action that they have over cabs?
  There is only one conclusion that one can draw: they are using these Regulations for a purpose for which they were not designed—to feather their own nests. In so doing, they are doing an injustice to farmers, in particular to independent cab manufacturers, and they are doing considerable harm to their own good name and reputation. I trust that, if they are not prepared to untarnish their own record, the Government will be able to do it for them.
  11.32 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) has made this subject peculiarly
  226
  his own. This no doubt stems from the occasion when he welcomed the tractor cab Regulations on behalf of the Opposition. He is also well known as one who is interested in fighting tenaciously for the freedom of individuals in many spheres.
  There is nothing that I would contradict or refute in what my hon. Friends have said in describing this sorry saga. As the House knows, I had a meeting with representatives of the tractor manufacturers on 10th November, 1970. We explored this question in depth and at length, but my views and theirs appeared to be as far apart at the end of the discussions as they were when we began.
  Since then there have been Questions asked and answered in this House, followed by a full and frank account of things tonight. Within the last few days I have discussed the matter with officers of the unions representing the agricultural workers, and I should like to place on record the understanding which they have shown of this situation, and of the helpful suggestions which they have put to me. I have also asked for and received the views of the National Farmers' Unions of England and Scotland, and these have been equally helpful.
  I do not want, and neither do my right hon. Friends, to be compelled to ask the House to change the Regulations. For one thing we supported them when they were introduced, and their basic aim which is that no farm worker shall drive a tractor without an approved cab or frame has our wholehearted support.
  I propose, therefore, to invite the tractor manufacturers, now that they have been made aware of the views which have been expressed here and elsewhere, to discuss the matter again with my right hon. Friend and myself. If they will allow their dealers to fit to their tractors a frame or a cab of the type, quality and price which the buyer of the tractor wants—and let me repeat that all types of frames or cabs must carry the approval of my right hon. Friends through the agency of their safety inspectors, before they can be marketed—then we shall not require to take up the time of the House with amending legislation. If, however, they insist on maintaining their present attitude, then we shall be obliged to do so.

  227
  More people are killed on farms, when tractors without safety frames turn over, than from any other single cause. But all experience, both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, proves that a properly constructed and fitted safety cab or frame reduces the risk of death or serious injury almost to zero. It is, therefore, a matter for serious concern that so much difficulty has arisen since the Regulations came into force.
  Given the maximum possible freedom of choice, I am certain that the farming community would willingly have accepted the tractor cab Regulations; recognising—as I am sure most farmers do—the paramount importance of protecting not only the lives of their employees, but their own lives and those of members of their families. Unfortunately, this freedom of choice hardly exists.
  Although firms outside the tractor manufacturing industry make a variety of cabs which have been approved by both Agriculture Departments for the most popular models of tractor, the principal tractor manufacturers in Great Britain either require their dealers or agents to fit only a cab of which they themselves approve or they supply to their dealers only tractors with a cab of their own already fitted.
  But the independent manufacturers of cabs and frames can offer a much wider choice to the consumer in terms of his preferences—for example, whether he wants something that can easily be taken off and replaced—and his pocket. I doubt if many people in the industry would disagree with me when I say that Mr. Alex Duncan of Kincardineshire probably knows more about safety frames and cabs than anyone. It is ridiculous that his contribution to safety, and that of people like him who are his competitors, should be limited in any way, when this particular development has got such a long way still to go. The snags concerning sound problems have been mentioned. My right hon. Friends and I are bound to be seriously concerned about the effects of this situation on safety.
  If our Regulations are to be fully effective they must be accepted by those to whom they apply. No one, least of
  228
  all in the farming community, would quarrel with our objective—that of seeing that a tractor is safe when it leaves the dealer or the agent—but, equally, no one will be satisfied with a Regulation which obliges him to accept the manufacturers' and not his own choice of what he wants.
  So long as this is the position, I believe that the Regulations will be doing far less than they should to promote safety because they will deter farmers from investing their often scarce capital in new tractors. Instead, they will go for good second-hand models, which need not, under the Regulations, have new cabs fitted to them.
  On 8th December last, I told the House that my right hon. Friends were proposing to examine the Regulations to see whether they could be amended in a way that would maintain competition. This we have now done. I want to make it quite clear that we rejected out of hand the possibility that the Regulations should be totally withdrawn. I also want to say that I have informed all those with whom I have discussed this matter of our determination that, in the event of our being obliged to amend the Regulations, we shall make every effort to see that the law, as it would then be, is enforced against any farmer who is found breaking it; and I have been assured of the full co-operation of the various organisations involved.
  My right hon. Friends and I very much hope that the tractor manufacturers will, even now, think again. Their present policies have been rejected by their customers as unfairly restricting their freedom of choice to get what they want at the price they want to pay.
  My hon. Friend has referred to the Answer I gave him about the cost as between frames and cabs. We cannot sit by and be silent witnesses to costs being forced up in this way at a time when costs are already rising so alarmingly in the face of the farming community.
  The views of the manufacturers have been rejected by the Government as discouraging farmers from buying new and safe tractors. I cannot believe that the manufacturers find this isolation enjoyable, and I hope that they will see that

  229
  it is in their own, and everyone else's interest, to end it. I can assure them that I am only too anxious to meet them in order to work out how we can improve freedom of choice and increase competition. This is the course that I should much prefer to the alternative of having to amend the Regulations in the only way possible if our objectives are to be secured; namely, by removing from Regulation No. 4 the provision which makes it an offence to sell a tractor
  "… unless it is properly fitted with a safety cab."
  But I can assure the manufacturers that this is a remedy which we are ready to pursue, albeit with reluctance.
  Mr. John Wells: If my hon. Friend should be looking again at Regulation No. 4, will he consider the problem of the orchards and particularly the hop garden user who is using a tractor entirely on level or nearly level ground, in which case the Regulation is merely an unnecessary extra cost?
  Mr. Stodart: My hon. Friend will be aware that in the case of hop gardens there is already an escape Regulation—
  Mr. Wells: And orchards.
  Mr. Stodart: —and I am perfectly ready to examine other parts of the Regulations at the same time.
  As I have said, we have discussed the matter with the farming unions and with the unions which represent the workers. On the part of each we have found a very ready appreciation of the difficulties and a ready understanding of the reasons that might force us to take the only remedy open to us. But, as I have indicated, the remedy is a pretty drastic one.
  Therefore, I hope that the manufacturers will believe me when I say: "I shall be very ready to meet you at any time."
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Housing, Glasgow
  Housing, Glasgow
  Divorce Proceedings (Legal Aid)
  Divorce Proceedings (Legal Aid)
  Council Houses (Sales)
  Council Houses (Sales)
  Scottish Economic Planning Council
  Scottish Economic Planning Council
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  School Children (Transport)
  School Children (Transport)
  School Dental Service
  School Dental Service
  Edinburgh (Development Area Status)
  Edinburgh (Development Area Status)
  Fisheries
  Fisheries
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  New Fishing Boats
  New Fishing Boats
  Fishing Industry (Cameron Report)
  Fishing Industry (Cameron Report)
  Schools, Glasgow
  Schools, Glasgow
  Public Works (Expenditure)
  Public Works (Expenditure)
  Industrial Development
  Industrial Development
  Lanarkshire (Winter Relief)
  Lanarkshire (Winter Relief)
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Lanarkshire (Schools)
  Lanarkshire (Schools)
  Rent Rebates
  Rent Rebates
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  School Books, Equipment and Stationery
  School Books, Equipment and Stationery
  Housing
  Housing
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Industrial Relations Bill
  Industrial Relations Bill
  Employment
  Employment
  Ibrox Football Ground (Accident)
  Ibrox Football Ground (Accident)
  Scottish Epilepsy Association
  Scottish Epilepsy Association
CIVIL SERVICE
  Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunals
  Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunals
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
ENVIRONMENT
  East Anglia (Infrastructure)
  East Anglia (Infrastructure)
  Land Commission Staff (Redundancy)
  Land Commission Staff (Redundancy)
  Northern Region (Infrastructure)
  Northern Region (Infrastructure)
  William Torbitt School, Ilford
  William Torbitt School, Ilford
  Water Resources Board Desk Study
  Water Resources Board Desk Study
  West Midlands Economic Planning Council
  West Midlands Economic Planning Council
  Erewash Valley Golf Club
  Erewash Valley Golf Club
  Industrial Noise
  Industrial Noise
  A525, Staffordshire
  A525, Staffordshire
  Industrial Development Grants
  Industrial Development Grants
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Tree Preservation Orders
  Tree Preservation Orders
  Dragon Kerb Road Safety Barrier
  Dragon Kerb Road Safety Barrier
  Road Works (Signs)
  Road Works (Signs)
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
  Option Mortgage Scheme
  Option Mortgage Scheme
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Disabled and Handicapped Children
  Disabled and Handicapped Children
  Nursery Nurses
  Nursery Nurses
  Hospitals, Rugby (Nurses)
  Hospitals, Rugby (Nurses)
  Abortion Act
  Abortion Act
  Michael Johnson
  Michael Johnson
  Elastic Hosiery
  Elastic Hosiery
  Disabled Persons (Attendance Allowance)
  Disabled Persons (Attendance Allowance)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigration Applications (Administration)
  Immigration Applications (Administration)
  League Football Grounds
  League Football Grounds
  Lotteries
  Lotteries
  Foreign Nationals and Commonwealth Citizens
  Foreign Nationals and Commonwealth Citizens
  Amphetamines
  Amphetamines
  National Joint Council for Local Authority Fire Brigades
  National Joint Council for Local Authority Fire Brigades
  Au Pair Placement
  Au Pair Placement
  Magistrates' Courts (Matrimonial Jurisdiction)
  Magistrates' Courts (Matrimonial Jurisdiction)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Election of Speaker (Secret Ballot)
  Election of Speaker (Secret Ballot)
  SOUTH AFRICA (ARMS SUPPLY)
  SOUTH AFRICA (ARMS SUPPLY)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fish (Contamination)
  Fish (Contamination)
  Eggs (Exports)
  Eggs (Exports)
AVIATION SUPPLY
  Lockheed Tristar
  Lockheed Tristar
  Anglo-French Jaguar Strike-trainer
  Anglo-French Jaguar Strike-trainer
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  B.O.A.C. Route Transfers (Representations)
  B.O.A.C. Route Transfers (Representations)
  Hong Kong (Students)
  Hong Kong (Students)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Telephone Subscribers' Deposits
  Telephone Subscribers' Deposits
EMPLOYMENT
  Aerospace Equipment Manufacturing and Repairing Industry
  Aerospace Equipment Manufacturing and Repairing Industry
  Sickness (Economic and Industrial Effects)
  Sickness (Economic and Industrial Effects)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  BAC111
  BAC111
  Airlines (Financial and Operational Information)
  Airlines (Financial and Operational Information)
  Air Transport Licensing Board
  Air Transport Licensing Board
  Domestic Air Services (Fares)
  Domestic Air Services (Fares)
  British United Airways/Caledonian (Routes)
  British United Airways/Caledonian (Routes)
  International Air Fares
  International Air Fares
  Industrial Development Act, 1966 (Land)
  Industrial Development Act, 1966 (Land)
  Air Charter Flights
  Air Charter Flights
  Bedford and Kempston (Industrial Development Certificates)
  Bedford and Kempston (Industrial Development Certificates)
WALES
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Industrial Development
  Industrial Development
  Christmas Road Casualties
  Christmas Road Casualties

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

RETIREMENT PENSIONS AND PENSIONERS' NEEDS
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they propose to raise the old age pension for pensioners who have no income above £150 a year.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, no regard is had to private resources in the administration of National Insurance retirement pensions. Consequently the pensioners the noble Lord has specified will receive any increases awarded at the general uprating due later this year.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, may I ask whether the noble Lord would not agree that old age pensioners generally are probably the most impoverished and deserving section of the community and of all the sections of the community are finding it the most difficult to survive? Does he not think on balance that in view of the continuous rise in the cost of living there is probably a stronger case for a rise in old age pensions than for any other increases in this country at the present moment?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I have the greatest sympathy with what the noble Lord has said. We have promised
90
that there will be an up rating in the retirement pensions later this year. In the meantime, supplementary benefit has been increased with effect from November 2 last year. That was originally proposed by the previous Government, but with our full agreement. I may remind the noble Lord that quite recently my right honourable friend announced additional help for the aged with any special heating requirements.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, since the last increase in old age pensions has now been entirely eroded by increased prices, if the review does not take place until October of this year is it not going to inflict hardship upon the old age pensioner?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am aware that the value of the old age pension is not the same as it was when it was introduced. This is one of the fearful effects of inflation. I can only repeat that the supplementary benefit has been increased and has helped some two million pensioners.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that house coal is selling at a pound a hundredweight in the Home Counties, and old age pensioners are finding it absolutely impossible to keep themselves warm at this rate? Will Her Majesty's Government do something about it?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I would remind my noble friend that my right honourable friend announced in the other place on November 26 new fixed levels for weekly payments to old age pensioners who needed them for special heating. I hope that if he knows of any cases he will refer those people to the local security office.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government will consider raising the limit of the amount of money that an old age pensioner can earn before he is called upon to pay income tax
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, that is another question, but I will certainly take the noble Baroness's point.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what "some time this year" means?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it means later this year.
LORD ROYLE: May we have a better definition?
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the cost of electricity is a more serious burden on old age pensioners than the cost of coal?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, that can be so in certain cases, but the extra heating entitlement is still available.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, may I ask whether the new review will include the ex-Servicemen who are disabled?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to ask the noble Lord to put a Question down on that matter. I cannot give an answer now.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, will the Ministry of Social Security issue a pamphlet forthwith giving full details of the additional benefit to which an old age pensioner may now be entitled? On the pamphlet should be printed the name and address of the nearest information officer, and if the pensioner is immobile the officer must go to visit the pensioner on request.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, if the noble Lord is familiar with the pension and allowance book he will know that these facts are contained in it.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I rather disagree with that answer. I have a slip of paper in my hand that comes with the pension book, and it does not clearly state to what a pensioner is entitled. If more information can be put out on an explanatory pamphlet it will be a great help for everybody.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we are extremely keen that anybody who is entitled to extra benefits should get them. That is one of the objects which we have very much in mind. I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord that the information is not contained in the pension book. We could not possibly list all the benefits, for they are varied according to individual circumstances. But there is a note about help with National Health Service charges; there is a note about local health and welfare services; there is a whole page on supplementary pensions, with a form (which is
92
perhaps the one the noble Lord has) which the pensioner can fill up requesting help from the local social security office.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Lord look further into this matter? It is a serious problem, particularly for old people. These forms may make sense to the noble Lord and his aides, but for older people they may prove difficult. If a simplified form could be provided, I am certain it would be of great assistance.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I certainly take the noble Lord's point, but I really cannot see that very much could be done which is simpler than asking someone to put a tick in a box to denote:
"I should like to call at your office to talk it over. Please make an appointment for me to call. Or,
"Please arrange for someone to call at my home to talk it over with me."
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in this weather the problem of keeping warm is the most difficult one for old people to solve, not only for financial but for other reasons? Has he any information of the amount by which the extra concession of fuel has been taken up? If not, can he obtain that information? Also, will he see whether other means can be found to ensure that old people have access to means of getting warm?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords; the conversion to the new levels for those with supplementary benefit who are known to have special needs for heating is proceeding. I cannot give the noble Lord exact figures, but it is going ahead and it is expected to be completed by June.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me whether pensioners are going to receive special rights on public transport?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, that is another question.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many old people died from hypothermia during the cold spell?
LORD ABERDARE: I cannot off-hand, my Lords.

INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION
2.45 p.m.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications is still represented at conferences and meetings of the International Telecommunication Union.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, as the Department of Her Majesty's Government responsible for United Kingdom relations with the International Telecommunication Union, is represented at all conferences and meetings of the I.T.U. which deal with matters involving general governmental responsibility for telecommunications.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he state whether it is still the practice that private operating bodies, such as manufacturers of equipment and scientific organisations, are allowed to attend if they are recognised and approved by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords.

POSTAL MINI BUSES
LORD SLATER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when it is expected that the talks that are taking place with the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Post Office on the question of Postal Mini Buses will be completed; and whether a report on such talks will be given to Parliament.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has standing arrangements with the Post Office to discuss definite suggestions about particular routes as and when
94
these are made. The Post Office is also co-operating with the Department in the current pilot studies in Devon and West Suffolk to provide material for a review of the problems of rural transport.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that the pilot scheme for this particular means of transport was introduced as far back as 1967; that it was introduced in Montgomeryshire, in Wales, and then followed up by the extension of such service in East Lothian, in Scotland? I am given to understand, even apart from the reply which the Minister has given to the House, that there are at this juncture at least six studies. Would the Minister make representations to his right honourable friend to extend this service if it does not involve the Post Office in increased expenditure?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I was aware of what the noble Lord suggested in the earlier part of his supplementary question, and I will certainly make representations. The rural transport studies are going ahead as fast as possible. We will report to Parliament as soon as we have come to a conclusion, which will be before the summer of this year.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that there really are great possibilities of improvement for people living in rural areas, as well as for Post Office economies, in pursuing this plan? Will he invite his right honourable friend to press forward with it with all emphasis?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance. Of course, it is primarily for the local authorities to make the initial move in these matters.

BARDSEY ISLAND: PROPOSED SALE
2.48 p.m.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the Island of Bardsey is to be sold by auction and,

95
in view of its great historical associations, whether they will undertake to secure this island for the nation at a fair price.]
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the proposed sale, but have no intention of buying Bardsey Island.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I refer to him as "my noble friend" because we are compatriots, and as such inseparable, as was demonstrated in the Public Gallery yesterday afternoon—that the last Labour Government bought the Mountain of Snowdon and the surrounding land, including 20 farms, for the nation, and that Snowdon has not the religious associations that the Island of Bardsey has? Is the Minister further aware that Professor E. G. Bowen, who as he knows is the greatest authority on Celtic saints in Britain, has stated:
"The fame of Bardsey Island as the Afallon of Saints is frequently a recurring theme in the hagiological literature."?
Is the Minister also aware that I picked this quotation up from the Highways and Byways of Wales? It reads:
"For many centuries"—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD MAELOR: I am asking whether the Minister is aware of this. Perhaps he has never read the book. The quotation reads:
"For many centuries the island"—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
LORD MAELOR: All right; wait for it !
"For many centuries the island was to Welshmen what Westminster Abbey is to the Englishman—a consecrated place of entombment for the best and bravest in the land".
Now if Westminster Abbey was—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order! Speech!
LORD MAELOR: If Westminster Abbey was offered for auction—and God forbid!—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD MAELOR: Why were the Labour Government able to buy
96
Snowdon, yet the present Goverment are not able to buy this island?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind opening remarks but, fond as I am of him, I would not wish to see myself chained to him. The answer to the basic part of his last question is that the previous Government were able to acquire the land in Snowdonia under Section 14 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which relates only to land in National Parks. This island is not in a National Park.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what practical advantages would accrue to this country if we bought Bardsey Island?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Lord had better ask the noble Lord, Lord Maelor.
A NOBLE LORD: My Lords, where is Bardsey Island?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, with regard to the religious associations of Bardsey Island, can my noble friend say whether the privilege still attaches to the inhabitants of Bardsey Island which was granted by the Almighty to the monks who lived there centuries ago, which was that of dying in order of seniority?
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, does the noble Lord know what it would cost Her Majesty's Government to buy this island?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I have explained that we have no powers to buy this island.
LORD BOOTHBY: Thank God for that!
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, would it not be a good idea to make this island into a National Park? Then perhaps we could buy it. It is worth being a National Park.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it is already included in an area of outstanding beauty. It is some 27 miles away from the nearest National Park.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, the Minister may not know, but the cost of buying this island is £30,000. In reference to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, the inhabitants of the island

97
have another privilege, too—or did have until very recently—that is, they did not pay income tax, and they also had their own king, known as "King Love".

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that at a suitable moment after half past three the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, will be making a Statement on the Ibrox Park disaster, and my noble friend Lord Lothian will be making a Statement on the kidnapping of the British Ambassador to Uruguay.
May I take this opportunity of notifying your Lordships that in future the fact that there will be Statements will be announced over the Tannoy system and there will be a Notice in the Prince's Chamber.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
2.55 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Committee on Procedure of the House be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONSOLIDATION BILLS
The Committee have considered a proposal that there should be a new Standing Order governing the appointment by this House of the Lords members of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
At present the Joint Committee, consisting of 12 members of each House, is appointed afresh at the beginning of each Session and the Committee lapses on Prorogation, in accordance with the practice of Parliament. The reappointment of the Committee each Session involves the passing of a series of Motions in each House, the purport of which is conveyed by messages from one House to the other. This procedure is necessary because the Committee is a Joint Committee and in such cases each House has to agree to what the other proposes before the other can function.
It is now proposed that there should be a new Standing Order in each House on the lines of those already existing for the Appellate and Appeal Committees in this House and the Public Accounts Committee in the Commons. This Standing Order would
98
establish the existence and terms of reference of the Joint Committee on a permanent basis, so that at the beginning of every Session it would only be necessary to move Motions in both Houses to appoint their respective Members and fix a time for the first meeting of the Committee.
It is hoped that a similar Standing Order will be passed by the House of Commons.
The Committee recommend that a new Standing Order should be made by the House to give effect to these proposals in the following terms:
Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
"There shall be a Select Committee consisting of twelve Lords, who shall be appointed at the commencement of every session, to join with a Committee of the House of Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation etc. Bills, to which shall be referred—

(1) Consolidation Bills, whether Public or Private;

(2) Statute Law Revision Bills;

(3) Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949, together with any memoranda laid pursuant to that Act and any representations made with respect thereto;

(4) Bills to consolidate any enactments with amendments to give effect to recommendations made by one or both of the Law Commissions, together with any report containing such recommendations;

(5) Bills prepared by one or both of the Law Commissions to promote the reform of the Statute Law by the repeal, in accordance with Law Commission recommendations, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, whether or not they make other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments, together with any Law Commission report on any such Bill."

2. REPORTING BILLS FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE
The Committee have considered a difficulty which sometimes arises, especially late in the evening at the end of a Committee stage on the floor of the House, when, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, there is no Deputy Speaker available to take the Woolsack apart from the Lord in the Chair.
The Committee recommend that in such circumstances the Lord in the Chair should go straight to the Woolsack as soon as the House is resumed and report the Bill to the House from the Lord Chancellor's place at the side of the Woolsack.
3. ARRANGEMENTS FOR TAKING THE OATH AT THE BEGINNING OF A NEW PARLIAMENT
The Committee have considered the difficulties which arose at the beginning of this present Parliament and especially on the first day in connection with the arrangements for taking the Oath. On Monday, 29th June, 1970, 344 Lords took the Oath and, contrary to recent precedent, there was also the introduction of a new Peer, which took place in the middle of the afternoon under some difficulty

99
and confusion because of the crush of those waiting to take the Oath. It was generally agreed at the time that the arrangements were not satisfactory and should be reviewed.
The Committee recommend that the following measures should be taken to alleviate these difficulties in future:—

(a) In the notice circulated by the Clerk of the Parliaments at the beginning of each new Parliament which reminds Peers of their obligation to take the Oath of Allegiance afresh in each Parliament and informs them of the opportunity to do so during the first three days, or at any subsequent sitting day, it should be emphasised that the Oath may be taken throughout the afternoon and not only at the beginning of the sitting of each swearing-in day.

(b) Introductions should not take place on the first day of a new Parliament.

(c) The practice of the House should be revived whereby the Archbishops, the Party leaders and the occupants of the front benches including those used by ex-Ministers nearest the Bar, may take the Oath immediately after the Lord Chancellor and before other members of the House.

(d) Peers should be reminded of the advantages of remaining in their seats while waiting to take the Oath.

The Committee are of the opinion that Peers should take the Oath of Allegiance before attending the State Opening of Parliament by the Queen.
4. COMPANION SUB-COMMITTEE
The Sub-Committee to supervise the task of revising the Companion has been reappointed as follows:

Chairman of Committees (E. Listowel)

M. Salisbury

E. St. Aldwyn

V. Dilhorne

B. Wootton of Abinger

L. Strang

L. Beswick

L. Amulree

L. Merthyr

L. Henley

L. Brooke of Cumnor

with the Clerk of the Parliaments and with power to co-opt further members.
5. JOURNALS COMMITTEE
The Committee have considered the Journals Committee which is appointed at the beginning of every Session by minute entry. It is the only Committee now appointed without a Motion made in the House, except those appointed under Standing Order 77. It is also the only surviving Committee, consisting of all Lords "who have been or shall be present this Session". From time to time the Committee (which is charged with the duty of perusing and perfecting the Journals) is deemed to make Reports that they have met and resolved that new volumes or indexes of the Journals are ready for delivery; such Reports are deemed to have been agreed to by the House. Apart from these formal entries, there is no trace of any activity by this Committee since 1826.
In these circumstances the Committee are of the opinion that the Journals Committee do not serve any useful purpose and should be discontinued. The Committee recommend that, in future, the Clerk of the Parliaments should be responsible to the House for keeping the Journals and for deciding any questions which may come up from time to time upon their form and content, and that he should be free to consult the Procedure Committee on any matter of major importance concerning the Journals.
6. DIVISIONS
The proceedings in the House on the Second Reading of the Shops (Sunday Trading) Bill of Thursday, 10th December, revealed an ambiguity in the wording of Standing Order 48 which does not state in terms what the procedure should be in circumstances where no tellers are appointed before the lapse of four minutes from the calling of a Division.
The Committee recommend that Standing Order 48 should be amended to make clear that two tellers each for the Contents and the Not-Contents must be appointed by the time that four minutes have elapsed; and that if by that time either side has failed to appoint tellers, a division cannot take place and the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair shall, instead of again putting the question, say the words recommended by the Second Report of the Procedure Committee on 16th July, 1969, and agreed to by the House, as follows:
"My Lords, tellers for the Contents [Not-Contents] have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order 48 and, therefore, a Division cannot take place and I declare that the Not-Contents [Contents] have it."
The Committee are further of the opinion that it is desirable to determine precisely what constitutes the appointment of Tellers, in terms of paragraph 2 of Standing Order 48. Following current practice, the Committee consider that a Teller is appointed when a Lord who offers himself as a Teller is given a Teller's wand by the Clerk at the Table.
The Committee recommend that the definition should be recorded in the revised Companion.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, before I move that this Report be now agreed to, I think I should inform your Lordships that I received representations this morning which show that there is not general agreement in regard to Section 6 of the Report. In view of those representations I take the view that this section requires further consideration by the Procedure Committee. I have not had time to consult the members of the Committee, but I should like to reserve this section, and I therefore ask the leave of the House to move that this Report, with the exception of Section 6 thereof, be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report, with the exception of Section 6 thereof, be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees for receiving representations this morning in regard to Section 6 of the Report. My apologies are specially due to him and to your Lordships' House that although this Report was printed on December 16 last it was only this morning that some of us woke up to the significance of certain of the words. I think we can only put it down to the fact that after some five years of hard work as a successful Administration we were enjoying our first Christmas Recess for that time. I think, too, that one of our difficulties is that there was a fair lapse of time between the meeting of the Procedure Committee, which was a long Committee, and the production and the reading of the Report. In some respects there is doubt in our own recollection of what was agreed and what is put in the form of words in this Report. It may well be that the difficulties we felt in regard to Section 6 can be reconciled after further consideration. I should not like to say anything further about that section.
I wish to say something special in regard to section 3, regarding the arrangements for the taking of the Oath at the beginning of the new Parliament. I think any noble Lord who was present on that first day would have been slightly shocked by what can only be described as the unseemly scene of large numbers of your Lordships pouring forth from the Benches, trying to get into the very narrow passageway in order to take the Oath. The Procedure Committee thought it right and proper to consider whether there were ways of avoiding such scenes in the future. I would not disagree with what has been recommended here, but I must say I still prefer the idea of Members of this House, irrespective of their rank, being treated the same. However, I think the question of the Archbishops and the Leaders of the two Front Benches, and perhaps other senior Members, being in a special position for the taking of the Oath might be considered.
I am not quite certain whether paragraph (d) really reflects what the Procedure Committee had in mind. I think that the Procedure Committee felt that
102
Members of the House should remain in their places but should rely upon the Leader of the House, or some noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite acting for him, indicating which Bench should be next for the taking of the Oath. I do not know whether this is a matter which should have been put in the Report or not, but it is a subject we might have another look at in a future Procedure Committee to see whether or not a further addition should be made to this Report. Having said that, I recommend that the Report be now agreed to.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, as a comparative newcomer to this assembly I should be grateful to the noble Earl if he would clarify the position in regard to what has been referred to in the Report on Procedure as a senior Member. Will he define what is meant by a senior Member, who apparently should have privileges not accorded to other noble Lords? The noble Earl will be aware that in the other place over the years there has been considerable controversy about the privileges accorded to Privy Counsellors, and I understand that it has now been decided to abandon those privileges and that Members are to be treated on equal terms. May we understand that such is to be the position of this assembly in the future?
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I wonder whether I may have one word on Section 3, referred to by my noble friend, Lord Shepherd. It was always the custom in another place that on the days of the taking of the Oath the Speaker of the House called certain sections from certain Benches in turn. I am not sure whether that applies to-day, because I have not been there for some years, but it always worked very satisfactorily. I cannot understand why it should not be possible for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to say, "I will now take the Benches on the Government side above the gangway", as an illustration. I must say that none of us was very proud of the scene on the first day in this House. It does not seem right for noble Lords to be in that position, and I think, supporting my noble friend, that the method adopted in another place could very satisfactorily be adopted here.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, may I reply to the questions that have been asked by the noble Lord,

103
Lord Royle and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell? In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, I would say that I think the Committee agree with him that the experience that the House had on the first day of taking the Oath in the present Parliament, which was uncomfortable and I consider unseemly, should not be repeated. That is the purpose of the recommendations in Section 3 of this Report. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked me two questions. One was whether there is any seniority for Privy Counsellors in your Lordships' House, and the answer is, I think, that in the past it has not been the custom of this House, as distinct from another place, to give any priority to Privy Counsellors. The other question he asked was what is meant by "senior Members of the House". I think that what is meant by that phrase in subsection (c) of Section 3 is ex-Ministers nearest the Bar: in other words, the former Ministers who sit on the two front Benches nearest the Bar of the House.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I have further clarification about two points? First of all, I did not make any suggestion about Privy Counsellors in this Assembly having any privilege, because that custom has now been abandoned in the other place, and, in my opinion, it ought not to be revived here. On the other point, I am not quite clear what is meant by Ministers sitting below the gangway or above the gangway. I am not sure which is above and which is below. Perhaps I might be informed about that. I notice that occasionally Members sit near where the Cross-Benches are. Are those the Members who have been Ministers in this Assembly, or Members who have been Ministers in the other place? We need a little clarification about that. May I make it quite clear, in case there is any misunderstanding, that I have no desire to occupy a privileged place; I am quite content here.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, one of the most fascinating characteristics of Committees, in my experience in Government, is the different impression that Members have when the Minutes are forthcoming the next day. Certainly my recollection is different from what is contained in the Report here. I was of the view that we had accepted the suggestion put forward by Lord Royle, that there
104
should be guidance from the members of the Government opposite or from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to the order in which Peers should take the Oath. There was no question at all of anyone having seniority over another. It was a matter of having proper order and for the convenience of us all that we should have some system about it, which might be indicated on the day by a responsible Member of your Lordships' House; I agree with my noble friend Lord Shepherd that subsection (d) of Section 3 might well be looked at again. There is one other point I should like to raise, and that concerns Section 1, dealing with the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. We had a very long discussion on this item, but it was wholly on the point as to how the Committee should be composed. Certain proposals were before the Procedure Committee. I remember that I ventured to make certain other suggestions, and I was of the view that the proposals before the Committee were to be somewhat revised. I notice that there is absolutely no mention here of how the Peers from this House, members of the Committee, should be nominated. I wonder whether the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, would give some indication as to what interpretation we should, in his view, put upon this section as far as the composition of the Committee is concerned.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is correct to assume, from what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick has just said, that the members of the Committee had not seen the Report before it was laid on the Table of the House, even though it has been there since before Christmas? Would it not be wise another time for the members of the Committee to see the Report before the time of the House is taken in considering their deliberations?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I will do my best to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. So far as guidance to Peers who wish to take the Oath is concerned, whether it be from the Leader of the House or the Lord Chancellor, there is nothing in this Report to preclude such guidance, and if the noble Lord cares to raise the matter at another meeting of the Procedure Committee I

105
am sure that it will be carefully considered. So far as the noble Lord's suggestion about the method of appointments of the Members from this House to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills is concerned, I think that is a matter for the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, but I would willingly go into it with him in the light of the views which I know the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, holds and let him know the result of that consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier asked about opportunities being given to Peers to consider this Report. It was ordered to be printed on December 14 and has been available for some time in the Printed Paper Office. Nevertheless, I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has said. It suggests that a large number of noble Lords had probably not seen the Report until we returned yesterday from the Recess—I said a large number; I did not say all noble Lords—and that is certainly regrettable. But there are certain matters in the Report which are urgent, and for that reason we thought that it should be brought before your Lordships for your approval in the first week after the Recess.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I shook my head, not because I was contesting what the noble Earl said about the availability of this Report, but because, as I understood what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier said—and it was a very wise suggestion—on an important matter of this kind the Committee really should agree upon the draft Report before it is printed. I suggest that that is a practice we might very well consider.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I agree entirely that it is an important matter, and I hope that the noble Lord will be good enough to raise it at an early meeting of the Procedure Committee.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in the six years since I have been here, when we have seen the names of the members of the Committee at the beginning of each Parliament they have always seemed to be the old gang: new Members never get a chance. It seems to me that the people who get on the Committee are nice to the Establishment on both sides, and other people never get a chance.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I am sure the Committee will bear in mind what the noble Lord has said.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if the Committee decided in favour of some arbiter as to who should be chosen, it might well be that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would have a built-in prejudice against Cross-Benchers—and I should not blame him altogether. I should like to make quite sure that Cross-Benchers will get their proper turn in taking the Oath, if it is all to be arranged.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL SAVINGS BANK BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the National Savings Bank, with amendments to give effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. I beg leave to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

ROAD SAFETY
3.11 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER rose to call attention to the Annual Report of the Road Research Laboratory, Road Research 1969 and to the continuing problem of road safety; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would not venture to initiate a debate on road safety in your Lordships' House if I did not sincerely believe that such debates make a valuable contribution to the study of the problem. This House is a near perfect forum in which to discuss it, and I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name. Not only are your Lordships motorists—and most are very experienced drivers—but many serve on county councils and other road authorities: a number are magistrates, and some have advanced technical and

107
professional qualifications: indeed, a body of articulate individuals with a wide range of interest in and knowledge of the subject.
I think I am safe in saying that all your Lordships are actuated by compassionate concern for people. It is, therefore, unnecessary to dwell at any length upon this scourge of our generation, unless it be to say that perhaps future generations may look back on our road casualties with unbelieving horror—as we look back on public executions and the like. It is odd to contemplate the strictness of our laws and our regulations safeguarding workers from machinery in manufacturing processes and mines, while millions of people, night and day, use our roads in conditions of peril from moving machinery which would never be tolerated in a factory.
The recent disaster in which 66 people lost their lives at the football match at Ibrox—concerning which we shall hear more later in the day—sent a wave of horror, and rightly so, throughout the country; yet twice as many people (many of them children) die violently before their time on our roads every week, and something like a thousand (again, many children) are injured, some grievously, every day. Without wishing in any way to belittle the Ibrox tragedy, one is tempted to inquire whether we ourselves, the Press, the broadcasters and even perhaps the Churches, have reached such a state of resigned acceptance of road casualties that our sense of proportion has been completely blurred.
Setting aside the cost in anguish, pain and bereavement, which cannot be measured in money terms, it has been estimated that road accidents in 1968 cost the nation close upon £250 million; in which year the related cost to the National Health Service, under the existing formula, was £13 million. My information is that the Government are in the course of revising, these formulæ, and it would be interesting if the Minister could expand or revise such figures as I have given, applying them to, say, 1970. Incidentally, there are some interesting details on the subject on the cost of accidents at page 38, in Part I of the Road Research Laboratory's Report. This is not the occasion for me to make any extended analysis of these costs, but
108
we all know that the figures unfold a terrible story of carelessness, folly, selfishness and ignorance. I expect your Lordships agreed with the Minister of Transport when he stopped the publication of "holiday" casualties out of context with the grim toll throughout the year.
The Civil Estimates disclose that in 1969/70 the Road Research Laboratory's operations cost some
£3½million. I wager that these operations have saved many times that sum.
While I have been preparing for this debate, the Royal College of Physicians' report on cigarette smoking has reactivated another train of thought; namely, the duty of Government to protect the public weal against expense which is thrust upon it by the carelessness or neglect of the individual. Surely the burden of road casualties on the public purse justifies not only intense research but even imposes on the authorities a duty to press on with measures to reduce its impact, because the National Health Service figure I have quoted is not by any means the only item of public expenditure which is involved.
To turn to the incidence of insurance on the matter, the insurance industry is addressing itself to the whole question of adjusting premiums to known risks arising out of the responsibility, or the irresponsibility, of individual drivers. After all, the insurance industry bears the brunt of the outlay in repairing the mechanical and physical damage which takes place, and it is studying the matter very closely. However, this is a very complex matter to which I do not propose to make further reference, although it has a direct bearing upon the road accident consideration. In general terms, it is safe to say that increased flexibility over premiums is to be welcomed. Great Britain has the highest number of motor vehicles per mile of metalled road in the world; and a fact upon which we can congratulate ourselves is that, relative to the density of traffic, the incidence of road casualties in this country is lower than in any other country. But this is not enough.
My Lords, it is not my intention to make a long speech—I could go on and on—but I will not do so as there are many in the list of speakers who are better qualified than I am to be specific.

109
Therefore, I will refer only briefly to the Road Research Laboratory's Report, and concentrate on Part Two, Chapter 2, headed "Safety Division". I believe that Mr. Lyons and his crew are to be congratulated on the Report. It ranges—and I take two headings at random—from "Driver Abilities" to viscoelasticity in tyres. Having followed these Reports for some years, I am struck by the increasing complexity of them. The Report is really now an advanced scientific paper—and the science is becoming more exact. In fact, it is almost a series of scientific papers to judge by the headings of the various Parts. On page 60, we see:
"…it would appear that the relation between the number of accidents and the square root of the product of the flows is not linear—which is different from previous thinking."
The lay mind boggles at what the previous thought might have been. But, joking apart, I think we can accept that the Laboratory's end product in terms of practical recommendations and guidance is clear evidence that the scientific approach is being applied in a practical way. The Director's chief problem must be decisions as to priorities in the lines to be followed. These must be legion, and I venture to suggest that the record of this debate may assist him in that respect.
Of course, the Laboratory is not alone in its efforts, and it is satisfactory that so much co-ordination exists between it and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Motor Industry Research Association, the tyre people, the British Medical Association, the British Insurance Association, the motoring organisations and, of course, the police and the road safety officers. The success of the 1967 Act is undoubted, and the introduction of the breathalyser has unquestionably had a beneficial effect upon driver behaviour.
I believe that your Lordships can look back with some satisfaction upon the part that this House played in respect of that Act. I sometimes feel that enough credit has not been given to Mr. Tom Fraser, who prepared the ground for it when he was Minister of Transport, and the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, who spoke on his behalf in this House. It may be fair to say that an outstanding development in the last few years is the
110
improvement in the safety of vehicles—their brakes, their tyres and their internal design. The recent "turn-up" in the United States' automobile industry has stimulated interest in the subject and, incidentally, has shown how much the U.S industry could learn from our own.
I have one criticism of the Report to which I shall turn later but, to continue in general terms, the Road Research Laboratory, which was originally under the Ministry of Technology, although so highly technical is now part of the Ministry for Transport Industries, under the ægis of the Department of the Environment. This grouping is a conception which has received a fairly general welcome. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 30 of the White Paper on The Reorganisation of Central Government, which sets out the approach to road safety. Bringing together the interests of the Transport Ministry and the local authorities is a great advantage. The Department of the Environment, which we all hope will reduce paper work, is a very sensible organisation. Some flippant wag has said that the D.o.E. is where the buck stops.
It is to be hoped that the Minister will sound a clarion call throughout this whole system for collaboration in regard to road safety. At the top, it will be more than ever possible for him to measure the enormous cost of road accidents not only upon the State but, through the insurers and the insured, upon the entire community. He can then set that "outgo" against the outlay required to make all roads, old and new, as safe as can be. What is more, he can emphasise the need to speed up paper work, cutting out red tape and ensuring that, at all levels, individuals in the Department are conscious of their responsibilities in this respect. As the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, as President of RoSPA, said at the recent annual conference:
"Let there be diligence in removing hazards."
The new Highways Bill saves me from taking up more of your Lordships' time on the Department. The Minister for Local Government and Development in introducing the Bill in another place, said:
"Anyone embarking upon even a modest measure of highway reform would wish to achieve five objects. First, to make the highways safer; secondly, to build the highways

111
quicker; thirdly, to keep the highways better; fourthly, to make people's participation in the planning of highways simpler; and, fifthly, to make compensation for adjoining owners fair."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 8/12/70, col. 273.]
By the way, the Bill does not extend to Scotland and it will be interesting to know what the Government's intentions may be as regards Scotland.
The Minister's fourth and fifth points bring me to what I regard as the main burden of my speech. I hope it is not being a burden, but your Lordships know what I mean. I trust that your Lordships will bear with me if I dilate upon what is a rather bird's eye view of the future of road safety. Where does our civilisation stand in its attitude to the motorcar, the machine? We can accept that the speeding up of the provision of well-designed roads and the by-passing of towns and villages have a direct bearing on reducing accidents, especially to pedestrians and children. Traffic density is so important a factor in the incidence of accidents. There have been some interesting articles by Mr. Graham Jenkins in the 1969 issues of Housing and Planning Review on this wide subject.
But how is pressure to be taken off our roads and streets? Is the number of private cars to increase, portending in addition pollution of air and environment—a veritable Jaganath's car? One remedy is the segregation of traffic, and what does that mean? Does it mean the development of pedestrian-only precincts? Does it mean the expanded use of the public service vehicle, if not by compulsion by force of circumstances? In the A.A.'s publication Drive for the New Year, the Transport Minister is reported to have said:
"We are facing a steadily-growing vehicle population. It is inevitable, therefore, that some form of restraint, apart from the natural one of congestion, will have to be employed in many of our cities. All have their own particular problems and it is for city authorities to decide for themselves on the best measures to take."
That is all very well, but the ability of city authorities to decide must surely be circumscribed if no orbital highway exists to by-pass a city's through traffic. Take, my Lords, the City of Edinburgh. The orbital highway, which has been planned for years but not completed, does not come under the City's authority at
112
all, except for short lengths. That is the sort of factor which the D.o.E.—assuming that the Highways Bill will apply to Scotland—will help the authorities to straighten out.
Another method of traffic segregation is some measure of return to the use of the railways. In balancing the cost of accidents against possible preventive expenditure, is it going to be possible to redevelop railway services by reduced short-haul fares and freights, with day return and season tickets at rates competitive with the motor vehicle? Might not subsidies to this end be cheaper, not only in money but also in social terms, than some of the vast roads which threaten our land? One of the comparisons which I have been given is that a mile of motorway costs £12 million and a mile of Tube costs £5 million. With motor taxation amounting to £1,600 million a year, and road expenditure at, say, a third of that figure, is the balance being fairly allocated?
In conclusion, I should like to turn for a moment to my criticism of the Road Research Laboratory's Report. In my view, more weight might be given to the stationary vehicle and other obstructions as contributing to road accidents. I can leave speed limits, crash barriers, safety belts, headlights, eyesight tests, level crossings, driver training, dimensions of heavy vehicles, drivers' working hours, the need for additional police and so on, to be developed in the course of the debate. But I have a bee in my bonnet about stationary vehicles, and I propose to let it buzz. Collisions with such vehicles or collisions caused by avoiding them are killers, and more strenuous efforts by Press and broadcasting and publicity media should be brought to bear on the subject. Stoppages due to mechanical failure or, worse still, adverse weather conditions; stoppages for the delivery of goods; the travelling shop, or simply the inconsiderate halting on bends or blind rises, do not seem to be regarded by the offenders as the deadly risks which they are. I sometimes think that the patrols of the motoring associations might do more to help by drawing the attention of offenders to their iniquity. I gather from a report that Government regulations are in preparation for improved distinctive painting and rear lighting of commercial

113
vehicles, and perhaps the Minister can give us an indication of what he has in mind.
So far so good. This also covers the possibility of the red triangle which can be put out when a vehicle is stopped, and which is obligatory in Italy, at least. But there are other lethal obstructions, of which hole-diggery is one—a lovely word which I have culled from the B.B.C. in Scotland. Hole-diggery is bad enough, and it is to be better controlled under the Highways Bill; but can something be done now to make it incumbent upon persons who put up temporary signs "Road Works", "Traffic lights ahead" or the ubiquitous exclamation mark (a very satisfactory one)—to take them down or to obscure them when the danger ceases to exist, even temporarily? As it is, these signs are brought into contempt. Far too many are left in position when there is no danger.
The other stationary obstacle of which we shall hear more, I have no doubt, is the pile-up in fog—expensive, but not proportionately lethal; and I refer your Lordships to page 45 of the Report, which was a little bit of a surprise to me, I must say. Despite the fog warning lights on motorways, these multiple accidents seem to continue, and one suggestion I have received from a correspondent for whose skill and experience I have the greatest respect (and, what is more, he is a master mariner) is that the police might be equipped with a pyrotechnic flare which they can set off in the event of a pile-up to create a red glow up through the fog which would be visible for many miles in all directions. This need not be, of course, at the focal centre of the pile-up, which it is often impossible for the police to reach easily.
However, my Lords, whatever the technical artifice, whatever the road safety device, it remains that the ultimate responsibility for road safety rests with each individual driver; and I would end with an apposite tongue-twister from another correspondent with wide and inter-continental experience. I quote him:
"Do not say to yourself, 'I shall overtake now because I cannot see anything coming'. Let it be, instead, 'It is safe to overtake now because I can see that there is nothing coming'".
My Lords, I commend the Road Research Laboratory's Report to your Lordships'
114
notice, and I look forward to this debate confident, as I said when I began, that the proceedings in your Lordships' House will make a significant contribution to the nation-wide consideration of this desperately important problem. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.34 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, having regard to the length of the list of speakers I propose to confine my observations to one topic only, which happens to be the penultimate topic of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier—the spectacular multiple crashes on motorways in fog. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord say that these were expensive but not proportionately lethal. However lethal is the multiple crash in fog, it certainly needs to be dealt with, and I believe there is one way of dealing with it. I believe that the civilian population in peace time would readily accept that discipline which was imposed upon Service vehicle drivers in wartime when faced with the problem of driving their vehicles through the wartime blackout—which, after all, was not all that dissimilar from the problem of driving through fog.
There was a perfectly simple rule imposed which every soldier could readily understand. It was simply that you had to drive your vehicle in such a way that you could stop within the distance which you could see in front of you. If you ran into something in front of you, whether a stationary obstruction or a vehicle which you had been following which was slowing down, you were charged with an offence, and it was a serious offence. It was not an offence as to which your commanding officer had power to deal with you: it was automatically a court-martial offence. It was very nearly automatically a court-martial conviction, too, because the number of total brake failures on vehicles is infinitesimally small; therefore it was almost certainly a court-martial conviction if you ran into something in front of you.
My Lords, by that token, whenever at the present time 70 vehicles have a pile-up on a motorway in this country, I should like to see 69 prosecutions, and I believe there would be 69 virtually certain convictions by the magistrates. I would not go further and say that there should be 69 swingeing and savage penalties imposed, because I do not believe

115
that is necessary. I think that by the time he has smashed up his car and lost his no-claims bonus, has given himself a very bad shaking, and probably somebody else, too, if not worse than that, the average person has probably learnt his lesson; but I think there should be 69 disqualifications from driving for a period, because this is the punishment which people go to really great lengths to avoid. The wealthy man is not really very concerned with the prospect of a fine, however heavy; but a disqualification, which interferes so much with their social as well as their working lives, is what people really go to great lengths to avoid. If this discipline were begun to be imposed upon the civilian population to-day, as it was in war time, in the blackout, on soldier drivers, I believe it would go a very long way towards ending this appalling holocaust of multiple crashes in fog on the motorways.
3.38 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for introducing this Motion to-day, and for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this very important subject. The problem of road safety is one which, quite rightly, lies outside the sphere of political controversy. There is no dispute about the aim of containing and reducing the horrifying toll of accidents and casualties on our roads, and, though opinions differ on the policies we should pursue, differences are practical rather than ideological. My right honourable friend the Minister for Transport Indus-ties is at present undertaking a review of road safety measures, including proposals made in the past and new ones put forward. I can assure noble Lords that any suggestions which may be made will be drawn to my right honourable friend's attention, and that he and his Department will give them the most careful study. I thought it might assist the House if I confined myself to looking at the pattern of accidents—who gets hurt, when and where—and to saying something about what has been and is being done to tackle them. My noble friend Lord Sandford, who will be speaking later, will try to look to the future and to deal with questions which noble Lords have raised.
116
First, to look in more detail at the accident situation, no one could deny its gravity. Last year, 352,894 people were injured on the roads, 7,365 fatally and 90,719 seriously. As the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has said, public opinion was rightly horrified by the tragedy at Ibrox Park. I have no wish to minimise that catastrophe, but I, too, should like to point out that more people are killed on the roads in four ordinary days.
A minimum estimate of the economic cost to the nation of road accidents is £320 million a year, and it is increasing each year.
What are the underlying factors? First, there is the inexorable rise in the number of motor vehicles. There are now about 6 million more vehicles on the road than there were ten years ago—a rise of no less than 74 per cent.—and motor vehicle mileage has risen by some 88 per cent. Casualties, too, have risen but less sharply: deaths in 1969 were 13 per cent. higher than in 1959 and casualties of all kinds were 6 per cent. higher. The fact that accidents have increased more slowly than traffic is due to an appreciable extent to the changing composition of traffic, particularly a decline in the use of motorcycles and bicycles. Though these are very useful vehicles when ridden with proper care, the fact remains that their riders are very vulnerable. A motorcyclist is, mile for mile, about twenty times as likely to be killed as a car driver (even allowing for age he is something like five times as likely to be killed), and a pedal cyclist is about ten times as likely to be killed. The switch from motorcycles and cycles to cars has thus by itself brought about an improvement in the level of accidents, but it is not one than can be expected to continue indefinitely.
A major feature of the casualty figures is the increasing proportion of young people who are killed or injured. Ten years ago, people under 25 accounted for 21 per cent. of all casualties. Last year, the proportion was 35 per cent. To some extent this is because of the trend to a younger driving population and because more young people to-day own or have access to a vehicle than was the case ten years ago. We may expect this trend to continue. But it is disturbing to note that all the indications are that young drivers and motor cyclists have a

117
higher propensity to be involved in accidents than do the middle-aged, and that their injuries are more likely to be fatal or serious.
I must draw attention also to the problem of pedestrian casualties, which in number are second only to casualties to car users. Last year, 83,000 pedestrians were injured, 27,000 of them fatally or seriously. No less than 40 per cent. of fatal and serious pedestrian casualties last year were under 15 years of age and, of all pedestrians, children between the ages of five and nine run by far the highest risk of death or serious injury. Last year, there was a welcome drop in child casualties, but the fact remains that 866 children were killed and over 15,000 seriously injured. Until last year, the number of children killed or seriously injured had risen continuously for eleven years.
Two final points. The upward trend of casualties was checked mainly in the last three years after the Road Safety Act, 1967, came into operation—and, in fact, casualty levels are still below what they were in 1966, even though traffic is some 10 per cent. higher. This reduction is due in large measure to the drink and driving provisions of the Act, which are still working well. During the last complete year of the operation of the Act (October, 1969— September, 1970), casualties between the hours of 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. were still 18 per cent. below the level in the last corresponding period before the Act came into force. Second, the problem of road accidents is common to every modern society. International comparisons in this field can be misleading, because of the very different conditions in each country and the different bases on which countries produce their statistics. But it may serve to put matters in perspective if I say that taking one basis of comparison—deaths per 1,000 vehicles in 1968, which is the latest year for which figures are available—Great Britain, with 0·49 deaths per 1,000 vehicles licensed, had the lowest rate in Western Europe.
I turn next to the measures which have been taken or are in hand. These fall into three main categories, in so far as they apply to roads, people and vehicles. Any programme which is designed to make the best use of our resources must involve measures of all three kinds,
118
though the balance between them needs to be kept under continuous review as the pattern of accidents changes and new advances become possible. To take vehicles first, standards of safety in design and performance have risen markedly in recent years: for example, lighting, brakes, tyres, and driver visibility are better on to-day's models than on those of ten years ago. Both manufacturers and Government have contributed to these improvements. For instance, since April, 1968, all vehicles have been required to have tyres with a minimum tread depth of 1 millimetre. Further improvements are continuously being studied and brought into effect. From the beginning of this year, long lorries are required to carry two spaced amber reflectors on each side. From November this year, heavy vehicles will be required to have new reflective yellow and red fluorescent rear marking, which should reduce the risk of vehicles running into the back of these lorries. This point has already been made in the debate. On the so-called secondary safety measures, draft regulations have recently been published which would require seat belts to be so designed and fitted that they can be put on and adjusted with one hand.
In addition to vehicle requirements there has been, particularly in more recent years, a wide range of maintenance requirements laid down by the Government. In recent years the Government have in some cases led the industry by requiring the fitting of features designed to protect vehicle occupants from injury (for example, seat belts) which would probably not have become standard fittings as quickly if no more than commercial considerations had been taken into account. This departure from the criteria of commercial interest where new features can be costly puts a high premium on the ability to assess the cost-effectiveness of proposed new measures. The Department is continually trying to improve its techniques for making this kind of assessment, and draws on research, at the Road Research Laboratory, in industry here and overseas.
Next, there are measures to make the roads themselves safer. Improved roads unquestionably make a major contribution to a reduction in road accidents. Dramatic improvements can of course be

119
obtained from major schemes: the injury accident rate for motorways is less than one-third, and that for dual carriageways one-half, that for rural Class "A" roads carrying two-way traffic. But small improvements at selected sites can often produce very favourable results at low cost. Traffic management schemes can often be just as useful in helping to solve safety problems as in reducing congestion, and properly designed schemes can help the pedestrian as well as the motorist. The Department's area road safety units continue to make it their main task to assist local authorities in assessing the contribution that any of these measures may make to accident prevention on the basis of local knowledge and of detailed analysis of the local accident situation. In due course it is hoped that all major authorities will undertake accident investigation and analysis as an integral part of their planning of expenditure on roads.
Third, and most difficult of all, is the education and training of the road user. I am convinced that this is the area where most attention will be needed. The road users' problems are becoming steadily more complex: roads are busier; street parking, particularly near junctions, makes the pedestrian's life extremely hazardous. Traffic management schemes help to reduce accidents but require new knowledge on the part of the road user if they are to be fully effective. As the road environment becomes more demanding, it is essential that there should be a corresponding improvement in our skill and attitudes and in the extent and quality of road safety education and training.
The responsibility for child safety lies, obviously, mainly with parents. It is a depressing fact that last year no fewer than 3,991 children aged five or under were killed or seriously injured on the roads. One wonders what these children were doing and how many of them could have been saved by adult supervision. We have to accept that this is not an easy area in which to work, and not one where significant advances are likely to be made in the short term, particularly since for some children there is no alternative playground than the street. But I should like to see much more done to bring home to parents their responsibility.
Schools provide the right atmosphere and facilities for inducing an understanding
120
of the wide range of road safety problems that a child must face. Much has already been achieved in the primary schools through the work of road safety officers and the police, with the support of the Department and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. An increasing number of secondary schools (now more than 10 per cent.) are providing pre-driver or driver training for their pupils. Pre-driver training is normally directed at 14 to 15-year olds, and generally includes theoretical tuition in driving skills and techniques; instruction in traffic signs, traffic law and the Highway Code; explanation of the problems facing motorists and common accident situations; and possibly some off-the-road practical driving. It is aimed mainly at inculcating responsible attitudes to driving and helping the pupil to acquire the background knowledge he will later need as a driver.
Driver training, on the other hand, centres on practical instruction in the car, both off the road and also on it, and naturally has to be directed at 17–18-year olds. To help headmasters and others who are thinking of beginning pre-driver and driver training courses the Department issued a booklet in 1969 called Driver Training for Young People. My right honourable friend's Department is helping to support a research project at Salford University designed to evaluate this pre-driver and driver training. So far as I am aware, this is the first attempt in any country to conduct a proper evaluation of this kind of training.
Another most promising development has been the National Cycling Proficiency Scheme started in 1958 by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents at the request of the Department, both as a means of making child cyclists safer on the roads and also teaching them the road user skills they will continue to need in later life. The scheme operates through local authorities. Police officers, school teachers, members of voluntary organisations and individual volunteers serve as instructors, the standard of training being supervised by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. The children are given practical training in simple cycle maintenance, riding control and the Highway Code. Films and other training aids are available and the Society produces a wide range of literature, both for instructors and children. The estimated number

121
of children enrolled for training his risen from 150,000 in 1959 to 272,000 in 1969. The number of children passing the approved test on completion of training has also increased steadily from 100,027 in 1959 to 181,326 in 1969. During the 11 years in which the scheme has been in operation the numbers of road casualties among child cyclists, which had been increasing in the 1950s, have fallen appreciably. We consider that training should now be made freely available for children of 7 and 8 and that they should be encouraged to train again under the existing scheme after they are 9. The number of children who will in the next few years become eligible for training will require a progressive expansion of the scheme to a target of over 500,000 by 1974, but I am sure that this investment will prove to be well worth while.
Training for older road users can also be valuable. Motorcyclists are an example. As I have already said, the motorcycle is essentially a much more vulnerable machine than a car. The rider must constantly maintain his balance; he has no protection other than his clothing in the event of an accident; he is exposed to weather which may make it difficult for him to see, and his machine is not easily seen by others. Attempts to make the machine safer are continuing; and it is encouraging that about two-thirds of the riders now wear crash helmets. But, even so, motor-cycle riders sustain nearly as many fatal and serious injuries as car drivers, although there are about ten times as many cars licensed as there are motor-cycles and the motor-cyclists' share in total motor vehicle mileage is now only 2 per cent. Comparatively few new riders take any training before venturing on to the roads, and we are anxious to see more of them do so. The Royal Automobile Club and the Auto-Cycle Union has for many years, with the help of a Government grant, run a joint scheme which is based on motor-cycle clubs throughout the country, and I believe that very great credit is due to them for undertaking this work.
Driver standards—by which I mean not only technical competence but behaviour and attitudes—are of vital importance. A good deal of progress has been made. For example, a new and searching test has been introduced for drivers of heavy goods vehicles. This sets a standard,
122
which was often missing before, at which the industry's driver training schemes now have to aim. Ordinary driving tuition has been given a shape through the Ministry's Register of Approved Driving Instruction, inclusion on which is now compulsory for all professional car-driving instructors. This involves passing written and practical examinations about driving and tuition techniques and subsequent checking by my right honourable friend's Department.
Again, in 1969 the former Ministry of Transport published its manual, Driving, which I am sure many of your Lordships will have read and which is full of sound advice aimed at improving and maintaining driving standards. And to support the various training and educational measures my right honourable friend's Department has for the last three years undertaken a sustained publicity campaign designed to increase the road user's knowledge of hazards and how to deal with them and to introduce a more positive attitude to road safety. It has included such features as care in overtaking and turning right, pedestrian safety and the wearing of seat belts.
Finally, I should mention the organisational side of road safety activity. The Government's role in road safety is primarily to get the right framework of law and regulation, the allocation of national resources to research, making the environment safer and encouraging the individual to become a better informed and a safer user of the road. I should like to stress the importance of creating the right environment. Many accidents occur because our town and city centres were not laid out to cope with the volume and type of traffic which has descended on them. Properly planned redevelopment can do a great deal to remove the conflict and danger which are such a common feature of urban life.
Local authorities have a large part to play in this process. The primary planning responsibility is theirs, and as much responsibility as possible for traffic and safety regulation has been, or is being, given to local authorities, subject to the overall responsibility of my right honourable friend to ensure high standards. The creation of the Department of the Environment under my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to unify Government functions which affect

123
people's living environment indicates the importance which the Government attach to a co-ordinated approach. The Department and its regional organisations—the Divisional Road Engineers and the Road Safety Units—are ready to help with guidance and advice; and, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, will certainly give any clarion call which is necessary. But, of course, many other bodies are involved—the police, schools, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the motoring organisations, the Press and broadcasting authorities, as well as the voluntary efforts of industry, chambers of commerce and individuals. I would pay tribute to the many organisations and individuals who have contributed to what has been achieved and whose co-operation and enthusiasm will be so much needed to meet the problems of the future. We all use the roads, and a safety programme will get nowhere without the understanding and cooperation of the public.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he would agree that the number of deaths on the roads in 1968 was for the first time higher than in 1934, omitting the war years, despite the 700 per cent. increase in vehicles since that date? I know that the figures are shocking, but I merely wanted to get the facts.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I cannot comment on the figures which the noble Earl gave for 1968; perhaps my noble friend Lord Sandford will be able to do so later.

IBROX FOOTBALL GROUND DISASTER
4.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat, in his own words, a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about the Ibrox disaster. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission I should like to make a statement about the tragic accident which occurred at Ibrox Football Ground, Glasgow, on January 2
124
which all Members of the House will have heard of with deep shock. Sixty-six people lost their lives and a further 145 required hospital treatment for their injuries. At present 5 people are still in hospital. Most of the other injured made a quick recovery after treatment.
"I saw the site of the disaster on the following day when I also visited some of the injured in hospital. The accident occurred towards the end of the traditional New Year match between Rangers and Celtic, when spectators, who had been very well behaved, were leaving the ground. It took place on a stairway leading down from the terracing at the east end of the ground and there a considerable number of spectators fell.
"The exact cause or causes of the accident have not yet been established, but the Lord Advocate has already set in motion the procedure for a fatal accident inquiry into the circumstances surrounding it. The inquiry will begin its hearings as soon as possible and they will be held in public before a sheriff and a jury; it is intended that the Sheriff of Lanarkshire should preside.
"In the meantime, Ministers have had discussions with representatives of the football authorities on both sides of the Border and have asked that clubs should make an urgent review of safety arrangements at their grounds. The public attending many matches in Scotland last week were asked to exercise care and patience when leaving grounds, as this is a simple way of helping to reduce crowd pressure, whatever kind of situation may develop. This advice is being conveyed to all football clubs and is to be repeated regularly through suitable media. Together with the Home Secretary and the Minister responsible for sport, I shall be giving consideration to measures which in the longer term may be necessary to improve safety arrangements at sports grounds generally. We shall take into account the information obtained from football clubs in England, Wales and Scotland. This was asked for by the Home Secretary and myself in November, 1970, as we wished to take practical steps to implement the recommendations of the Lang

125
Report; and we shall of course also take into consideration the results of this fatal accident inquiry when they become available.
"I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life-saving work done by the various services involved and by members of the public. Despite difficulties of access due to the very large crowds leaving the area of the ground at the time, the emergency services acted with commendable promptness. Some doctors were in attendance almost at once; and the fire brigade turned out with resuscitation equipment. Ambulances carried out a constant shuttle service to the hospitals, whose staff were able to treat most of the patients by the early evening. The police rendered all possible assistance and organised a central information bureau to deal with the many inquiries received. I should like to thank also Glasgow Corporation Social Work Department, the mortuary staff and the Salvation Army who did so much to comfort and care for relatives of those who died.
"I am sure that the House would wish to join me in conveying our deepest sympathy to the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives in this disaster."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement made by my right honourable friend.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Baroness for repeating to your Lordships the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I should like to associate myself with the thanks expressed by the Secretary of State to all those who took part in the rescue work which followed this terrible disaster. The impression I get is that what took place showed the City of Glasgow at its very best, and Glasgow at its best takes a good deal of beating. I am sure that all your Lordships would wish to be associated with the Members of another place in expressing our sympathy to the relatives and friends of those who died or were injured in the disaster.
The Statement refers to the inquiry being held by the Sheriff of Lanarkshire. I have no doubt that the Lord Advocate will ensure that this inquiry has the widest
126
possible scope. I think that what was done immediately by Ministers in asking that advice be given to the public at football matches to exercise care in leaving grounds was right and probably the first thing that could be done, but obviously some time will elapse before decisions are taken, following the inquiries already conducted by the Ministers and the inquiry to be held by the Sheriff of Lanarkshire. Advice of this kind when repeated match after match, begins to lose its effect as time goes by, because people forget the tragedy and are more concerned with immediate events. It is important, therefore, that the long-term solution of the safety problems should be tackled as speedily as possible.
I want to avoid any reference to what might be considered by the sheriff's inquiry, because they will have much greater opportunity of looking at the problem than I have and it would be wrong to anticipate what they might do. But should like to suggest to the noble Baroness, for the consideration of her right honourable friends, that when the football clubs are asked to review their safety arrangements, it is important—because many of these clubs are not as well off financially as they would like to be—that they should not be limited by what they think they can afford. Their view should be along the lines of what is necessary and it should be for the Government, the Football Association and the clubs to consider, if major works are necessary, where the money is to come from. The noble Baroness may wish to comment on that point. Finally, may I say—and I am quite certain that the Ministers accept this—that it is important that there should be the earliest possible implementation of any recommendations which may prove to be desirable as a result of the inquiries which are going on.
4.8 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we on these Benches certainly wish to be associated with the expressions of sympathy to the bereaved and injured and also with the tributes paid to the emergency services. One is entitled to ask why we in this country never seem to learn the lessons of these tragedies. The report on the tragic disaster in 1946 at the Bolton Wanderers' football ground referred to inadequate means of ingress and egress to

127
the ground and suggested licensing and expert inspection. The Lang Report published in November, 1969, repeated these recommendations and added a number of others. It called for periodical inspection of ground structures, for certification by a qualified person, for the need for police to be on the terraces, for better communication systems throughout the grounds and a number of other things.
I should like to ask the Minister whether it is right to ask the clubs and the football authorities to inspect the safety arrangements. In all these reports it has been stressed time and time again that it is a matter for experts, for qualified people, perhaps for local authority technical services. I really do not think it is a matter of a certificate from the club, unless they have somebody highly qualified in ground structures and who can carry out a really expert inspection. The blueprint for action is the Lang Report, and so long as that is not implemented, every week-end hundreds of thousands of people are at risk. I would ask the Government, in the light of what has happened, whether they could take some action now, even before the result of the inquiry is announced.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the way in which he associated himself with the sympathy extended to all the relatives and all those concerned, and I would certainly agree with him that the City of Glasgow was seen at its best on this occasion. He also asked whether the terms of reference of the fatal accident inquiry were as wide as possible. They are very wide. As I have already described, the inquiry will be held before a sheriff and a jury, and it will be charged not only to establish the facts, but also to consider the evidence to find whether negligence is attributable to any person or persons, and whether the accident might have been avoided.
On the more long term question to which both noble Lords drew my attention, while the Report in 1948 following upon the Bolton football disaster recommended the licensing of football clubs, the Lang Report did not. The two main recommendations of the Lang Report have been accepted by football clubs
128
throughout the country. They were, first, that the memoranda which were sent out originally in 1948 regarding security and crowd control on football grounds should be brought up to date and reissued; and secondly that periodic inspection of ground structures should be carried out by a qualified person and the appropriate certificate sent by the club. with its annual return, to the association concerned.
So far as the larger question of structural alterations and the finances involved is concerned, this will certainly be considered when we have analysed all the replies to the questionnaires which my right honourable friend sent out in November to all football clubs, and which have only just been received.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would the Minister take note that it is important in this immediate review to ask clubs to use qualified people to carry out the inspection?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, that is already done.

KIDNAPPING OF BRITISH AMBASSADOR
4.12 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in another place. This is the Statement.
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a Statement on the kidnapping of the British Ambassador to Uruguay.
"Her Majesty's Ambassador in Montevideo was kidnapped on his way to his office on January 8. I know the whole House will share my anger and dismay at this barbaric and senseless act and will join me in expressing the deepest sympathy for Mr. Jackson and his wife and family.
"We have been in the closest touch with the Uruguayan Government from the beginning. A Foreign and Commonwealth Office security expert flew

129
to Montevideo on January 10 to help the Embassy. Last night Mr. Oliver Wright, a Deputy Under-Secretary of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, left for Montevideo. He will review the position urgently with the Uruguayan Government and will also assess the needs of the Embassy.
"A communiquéissued by the terrorists on January 11, which is thought to be authentic, stated that all the hostages they hold were in good health. There is no news of Mr. Jackson's whereabouts. As is usual in such cases, various conflicting anonymous messages have been received. We are examining these very carefully but have so far no evidence that any of them is authentic.
"The Uruguayan Government are continuing an intensive search, and have instituted emergency powers for a period of forty days.
"The terms which the terrorists may demand for Mr. Jackson's release are as yet unknown. It would be wrong for me to attempt to disguise from the House the gravity of the situation. Her Majesty's Government will of course do everything they can to help secure Mr. Jackson's safe release."
My Lords, that is the Statement.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Marquess for repeating this Statement. I am certain that I am speaking on behalf of noble Lords on all sides of the House when I say that we wish to join with the Government in expressing the deepest sympathy to Mrs. Jackson and her family, and to hope that Mr. Jackson will be returned to his family as soon as possible.
I am quite certain that the Government have made it clear to the Government of Uruguay that the return of our Ambassador there, and his safekeeping, is their responsibility. I have no reason to believe that the Uruguayan authorities do not understand this, and I am sure that they are doing what they can to secure the return of Mr. Jackson. We must face the fact that we cannot provide 100 per cent. security for any of our officials overseas. On the other hand, I really wonder—and I suppose Ministers themselves must be wondering—whether all that could have been done has been done to give security to our officials. I know that there arise questions of costs
130
and other matters. While recognising the fact of growing anarchy throughout the world, and the increasing risk to representatives of all countries serving overseas, I should like the noble Marquess to consider, with his right honourable friend, whether other steps cannot be taken to afford security to our officials, and also to their families. Irrespective of what may be the cost of such security, I am quite certain that Parliament would support it.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, while sharing the general horror of the latest instance of the barbarity of the young delinquents of Latin America, and expressing the deepest sympathy for Mr. and Mrs. Jackson (who happen to be personal friends of mine), may I ask her Government whether they will consider the possibility of withdrawing our entire diplomatic Mission in Uruguay, with the exception of what I believe is called a chargés des archives? Thus, all business with that country—in which the safety of our representatives clearly cannot be ensured—could be carried on through the Uruguayan Embassy in London, coupled with occasional visits by businessmen on matters concerning specific contracts or other business matters. When and if the unfortunate Ambassor is released—in good health, of course—a resumption of the normal diplomatic relations could be considered, but perhaps on a very reduced scale.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for echoing the sentiments which we all share in this tragic business. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the Uruguayans are fully aware of their responsibility in this matter and are certainly doing all they can to bring about a happy result. As to the matter of security, this is something which the Government are taking very seriously indeed. It is one reason why Mr. Oliver Wright has gone to Montevideo. There are difficulties of cost et cetera, but I can assure noble Lords that the safety of our Missions is of prime importance.
The interesting suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is something which can be considered as a last resort, but I feel he will agree that other measures

131
should be taken first. However, I am grateful to him for what he has said.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether the kidnappers have made any demands, either for money or for the release of prisoners? Further, is it the case that the Uruguayan authorities refuse to negotiate with these kidnappers?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the answer so far as Mr, Jackson is concerned is that there have been no demands at all. We have heard nothing from the rebels except what is said in the Statement; namely, that the prisoners in their possession are in good health. It is perfectly true that originally when the first two prisoners were kidnapped the Uruguayan Government refused at that stage to release political prisoners.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether or not it is a fact that the Ambassador was accompanied by guards and that those guards were dragged out of the car and ignominiously hit over the head? If that is so, may I ask whether they were armed; and if not, why not?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly right. That is exactly what happened to the guards. The guards were not armed. Mr. Jackson himself had been very much conscious of the security risks and had decided that he would prefer to have unarmed guards—I think bearing in mind the tragic case of the German Ambassador in Rio, whose guards were armed and two of whom were killed, although even that did not prevent him from being kidnapped.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I do not want to labour the point, but with regard to what the noble Marquess said I must say that I do not want my suggestion to be regarded as a matter of last resort. Have we to wait until all our representatives in Uruguay have been captured? A gesture such as I have suggested would have a very salutary effect on the whole situation.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that two other diplomats of different nationalities have
132
been in the hands of the Tupamaros for some five months and it is alleged that it is so long because their sponsoring Governments do not appear to have bothered very much about them; they have not been regarded as of sufficient importance. What extra measures and other pressures are Her Majesty's Government prepared to put on the Uruguayan Government on behalf of Mr. Jackson?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government would prefer to await the assessment and report of Mr. Wright, who has just gone to Montevideo, before coming to any further conclusion in this matter. But I can assure the House that we are taking it very seriously indeed.

ROAD SAFETY
4.23 p.m.
Debate resumed.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, out of a very long list of speakers, I note that I am the only woman down to speak. I hope that this has nothing to do with women drivers. It may well be that I feel so strongly about road safety because I have seen so many people suffering from the after-effects of many road accidents. Sometimes the injury need be only a fracture of the cheek-bone because a person was not wearing safety straps, but that can cause double vision and the whole of that person's life may be changed. Only last week I heard of a case where a person was otherwise unharmed apart from having both eyeballs burst by the rim of a steering wheel. If people who are "had up" for dangerous driving were taken and shown some of these cases it might be impressed on them how valuable road safety is and how tragic and unnecessary many of the accidents are.
I spend a great deal of time in my car and drive thousands of miles a year, much of it on motorways. I find one of the most dangerous stretches of road, where there is room for improvement, is the stretch of A.1 between Burough-bridge to just North of Scotch Corner. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray of Stourton, may remember this road as he used to live nearby. The road has a dual two-lane carriageway throughout its length and there are five roundabouts

133
and many intersections. The road runs straight and level and invites fast driving. It is situated between two motorways: the Doncaster by-pass and the M.1 to the South, and the Darlington by-pass and Durham Motorway to the North.
I have a personal abhorrence of the intersections on this road, having experienced how dangerous they are. Some years ago I was travelling North. One must drive in the fast lane to cross the A.1 at an intersection. It was in the summer and there was a good deal of traffic. I slowed down, indicating that I was going to turn right, off the road. Looking in my mirror I realised that the car immediately behind me was travelling too fast and had not comprehended what I was about to do. When it was nearly on top of me the driver realised what I was doing. He jammed on his brakes, but behind him a car travelling at about 70 m.p.h. was not so quick to realise the situation. He crashed into the car behind me. The door of one of the cars flew open and a dog jumped out and ran across to the other side of the dual carriageway, very nearly causing another accident. That is typical of some of the accidents concerning intersections. I have been saying my prayers ever since, and I have never used that intersection again.
That road is one of the country's major traffic arteries, linking, as it does, Scotland and the North-East with the Midlands and the Home Counties, and the amount of traffic using it is increasing year by year. People drive on it as if it were a motorway—in fact, it looks like one. The two cars which nearly crashed into me both came from the Midlands, and the drivers said they did not expect a car to turn off the road and thought I had left my indicator out in error. I feel very strongly that some of these most dangerous intersections should be closed. There are also many unofficial crossings along this road. These also should be reviewed and their numbers greatly reduced. It would be a great deal safer if the necessary intersections were well signed and had marked lead-ins. The roundabouts on this road cause numerous accidents. One's view to the approach and the signs is often obscured by tall lorries in front, and in fog, which we often have in Yorkshire. One can be on top of a roundabout before realising one is there. More lighting would be bene-
134
ficial, and warning studs on the road would be most helpful. As this road is so like a motorway, the erection of crash barriers might save life. Also, a hard shoulder on to which drivers could pull in emergency would give a firm base for jacking and dealing with all breakdowns.
Because of the seriousness of casualties on this road, a pilot scheme operated by the local doctors, police, ambulance service, and the fire and hospital services, entitled, "Road Accident After-Care Scheme", was instituted to reduce the seriousness of casualties by more expeditious first-aid treatment. This was introduced on October 23, 1967. It is a flying-squad doctor service with volunteer general practitioners. A doctor is always on call in each area. The general practitioners, who are regularly called out by their local police or ambulance service to road traffic accidents, are fully equipped with special medical equipment, and all safety precautions are taken. Their cars have flashing lights and are marked, "doctor". The doctors also wear fluorescent jackets marked "doctor". They work for the speedy mobilisation and co-ordination of rescue services and for the prevention of multiple accidents on the road. They hope to save life sometimes, to relieve suffering often, and to give comfort always. A film will soon be available, and I am sure some of your Lordships will be interested in seeing how this scheme works. The doctors in the North Riding of Yorkshire have had full local support. That is shown by the fundraising efforts and donations which have financed the scheme. The scheme is developing in other parts of the country, and world, but many of us are proud that it started in the North Riding.
In my local area of the York and North-East Yorkshire police authority, during 1969 120 people were killed on the roads. In 1970, 163 were killed. Over 350,000 people were injured. There is no doubt in my mind that when the roads are adequately patrolled by police cars people drive with extra observance to the rules of the road. Therefore one way of helping to solve the problem of road safety would be to bring the police force up to full strength.
4.30 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, the noble Baroness who preceded me started her speech by saying that she hoped that the

135
fact that she was the only woman taking part in to-day's debate had no connection with women drivers. I should like to begin by saying that I have come to the regretful conclusion that women drivers are, as a whole, much better than men. May I express my great gratitude to my noble friend Lord Ferrier for having introduced this debate to-day. It is well over two years since we had our last debate on this subject.
My noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton gave the figures for the year 1970. But the figures for 1969 were 7,383 deaths and 90,715 serious injuries. Those figures prove that this is a subject of great importance. I am afraid that we have never really got down to tackling the subject seriously. I do not want in any way to belittle the work done by former Ministers of Transport. Mr. Ernest Marples was the first to get road improvement really going, and Mr. Fraser was the first to have the great courage to tackle the urgent problem of drinking and driving. But the fact is, as the figures show, that neither of these two causes has proved to be the major cause of accidents.
I read a notice in the Daily Telegraph last July which said:
"Road casualties during June were the lowest for the month since 1958. There were 528 fatalities, 2 per cent. fewer than in June, 1969, while the 7.296 people seriously injured represent a 3 per cent. reduction."
My Lords, that could be very misleading. People might think that driving standards were improving, or that the roads were becoming safer. But it means nothing of the sort. Marginal variations can be caused by nothing more than perhaps a change in weather conditions. They have no relation whatsoever to driving standards. The fact is that if everyone who uses the roads—and I include pedestrians and cyclists as well as motorists—were to use them with due care and consideration there would be no accidents. That is a millennium which I do not think any of us is likely to live to see but we can at least start moving towards it.
How are we to tackle this problem? I believe that the opinion that I have held for many years is being proved right; that is, that the chief cause of accidents is not any one thing, such as drink, mechanical failure or dangerous roads,
136
but is really what I might term human error. In other words, lack of care, courtesy and consideration for others, lack of technical skill, lack of concentration, bad teaching, or perhaps a combination of them all. Incidentally, my Lords, lack of concentration raises an interesting point. I have often wondered whether it is wise to allow radios to be fitted in cars.
I want to make it quite plain that I am not placing the whole blame on the motorist. Pedestrians, particularly children, can do foolish things, and so can cyclists. I should like to consider the whole subject under four main headings. My first is fitness to drive. As things are at the moment, one does not have to produce any medical certificate before obtaining a licence. One just answers various questions on the back of one's application form. The only actual test which one has is that of eyesight, and even that is of the most rudimentary nature. In fact it was only a short time ago that I learned of a peculiar affliction from which some people suffer, which makes them act almost as if they were wearing blinkers. They can see perfectly well straight ahead of them but can see nothing at their side. This is rather significant, because the number plate reading test would not reveal this defect. But it is vitally important for a motorist to be able to see what is at his side as well as what is ahead, particularly if a car is in the act of overtaking him. Therefore, I should think that one should have to produce a full scale medical certificate, which should include a comprehensive eyesight test, before receiving one's full licence—or perhaps even before receiving a learner's licence.
There is also the question of age. I would be the last to deny that many people of quite advanced years are perfectly fit to drive and are very good drivers. In fact my noble friend the late Lord Howe was a very distinguished driver practically until the day of his death. But they are exceptions, and therefore I think it would be a good thing to fix some arbitary age—I am not going to suggest what it should be—after which a medical certificate would have to be produced each year for the renewal of one's licence. I have one last point apropos these medical certificates. I feel most strongly that they should be paid for by

137
the candidate and should not be issued under the National Health Insurance.
I now come to the second of my headings, education. This has already been touched on by my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton. It is the opinion of the Director of Tests of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, Mr. George Eyles, that the present statutory test is adequate, but on one condition only; that is, that it is made quite clear to the candidate that the passing of the test is not the end of his education but the beginning. The trouble is that too many young people, having passed their test, are quite convinced that they know all that need be known about driving, and it is a great pity to let them learn the hard way that that is not so. That is why I should like a system adopted in this country for which I have pressed very often in your Lordships' House, which was adopted, I believe, by Ulster in 1968 and was followed by France, and later Australia. That is a dual system by which the candidate who has passed his first test is given for one year a restricted licence, as it is called, under which he can drive at 45 miles an hour but no more, and which stipulates his car must carry "R" plates. Australia, I believe, makes it three years. That is a matter for argument and discussion. He must hold that licence without committing any major driving offence, and at the end of the period he is automatically given a full licence without any second test. That obviates the difficulty of extra manpower for test examiners, and so on. If we were to adopt that system here I believe that it would have a very beneficial effect on our driving standards.
That leads me to my third heading, which is penalties. My Lords, fines have been found to be utterly inadequate as a deterrent to bad driving. The reason is absolutely obvious. If a man can afford to drive a car at all, he is not going to worry very much about having to pay £5 or even £10 for some driving offence. Recently we introduced suspension of licence, a matter which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, but even that has its disadvantages, because if a man is a bad driver when he is taken off the road he will be an even worse one when he comes back in a year's time, owing to lack of practice. So I feel that the licensing system which
138
I have just described would give some new deterrent which would be very effective. The holder of a full licence could be made to revert to R-plates for a year, and the holder of a restricted licence, if he committed some driving offence, could be made to go and take his test again.
Your Lordships may think that this is a very trivial way of tackling the driving offence, but the reason why these methods would hit the motorist so hard is that they would strike at his pride. The motorist's pride is an extraordinary thing. One does not often stop to think how deep it goes. Have your Lordships ever considered the fact that you can tell a man, with perfect impunity, that he is badly dressed, that he smokes too much, or that he is hopeless with his children; but call him a bad driver—that is not a thing I would dare to do to my most intimate friend.
Now I come to my last heading, which is engineering. Vast sums of money are being spent on road improvement every year, and owing to the enormous growth in density of traffic I should be the last person to say that it is unnecessary. None the less, one must bear in mind the saying, if I may quote Mr. Eyles again, that:
"The roads are as safe as the people who use them, no more and no less."
The truth of that is surely borne out by the motorways, which have recently had a very bad reputation for accidents, but in fact they are the safest roads one can possibly have. They are dual carriageways over the whole of their length, with three lanes in each direction; they have no cross roads, and there is no point on them where one cannot see for at least a mile ahead. Why is it that they have this bad accident reputation? It is not due to the roads themselves; it is due to the people who use them. Incidentally, apropos of that, I would keep the restricted licence holder off the motorways.
A large amount of research has also been done in the United States in producing "accident proof cars", as they like to call them. My Lords, such cars never existed and never will exist as long as human beings drive them. None the less, there are some points which I think might be adopted here, perhaps

139
even made compulsory. One is the provision of anti-locking brakes, which reduce the skid risk to an absolute minimum. The other is installation of the dual braking system. In these days, when every car has hydraulic brakes, it is only too easy for the braking system to spring a leak. If one has a dual system, that does not matter. But there is an important point here, and that is that there should be some visual indication on the dashboard to show that each individual system is working, otherwise one system might fail and the driver could go happily on, not realising the fact until the second one failed too. But I must emphasise that none of these things is going to be of any use until we can raise the standard of driving. I would thank my noble friend Lord Ferrier once again for having introduced this debate to-day, and I sincerely hope that the right honourable gentleman the Minister will take note of everything that has been said in your Lordships' House to-day.
4.47 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, was here and took part in our debate to-day. Not only did she enliven things and make the debate far more bright than it otherwise would have been, but looking down the list of 24 names and seeing there only one other noble Lord from this side of the House, my noble friend, Lord Winterbottom, I think that without the noble Baroness it would have been a very poor debate indeed. I, for one, am glad that she was here and took part.
I do not intend to speak for very long, because of this long list of speakers and because, unlike most other speakers here to-day, I want to speak mainly on road safety in my own county, the County of Norfolk in East Anglia. There are other speakers from East Anglia who, I am sure, will be able to say much for the whole of the area; but I am particularly interested in Norfolk, because for the past 18 years I have been a member of the Norfolk County Council and its important Highways Committee. Early this year the electors decided to have a change and I lost my seat, and I have wondered since then if it was because the Norfolk County Council in the past had not spent as much time and money
140
on road safety as they should have done. Great improvements have been made on many of our roads in Norfolk—improvements made to roads which people often did not think were necessary. Bends have been straightened out and motorists enabled to drive much faster and, if they are fortunate, to get to their destination sooner. But, in my opinion, not enough has ever been done about road safety. Most of the great improvements to the roads in Norfolk have been made to the A roads and the trunk roads. These improvements are very welcome indeed. But, to get back to this debate, I think much more should be done to those same roads to enable drivers to drive more safely. In the past I have often thought that the Norfolk County Council and the Ministry have had their priorities in the wrong order: that it would have been better had more been spent on road safety. Many drivers complain that too much is now spent on making roads too fast. I am inclined to agree with this view.
In recent years, the closure of a number of railways in East Anglia has thrown much additional traffic on to the roads, making them less safe than they were previously. This is particularly so in areas where a large acreage of sugar beet is grown. The beet is carted by lorries to the factories for processing. Often the roads in the factory areas are literally filled with large vehicles, and are anything but safe.
It is not surprising that to-day so many Members of your Lordships' House wish to speak on this subject. Other speakers will wish to concentrate on road safety in a wider aspect. I have mentioned sugar beet factories. There are in Norfolk at least three of these large factories; a number of others border on the county. All of them bring a large volume of extra traffic on to the roads, and I am anxious that much more money is spent in the future to improve our roads, and also to make them more safe. This aspect should not be overlooked, because I believe that making the roads safer will have the same effect as spending large sums of money on improving them.
I have already referred to the attention paid in the past to improving trunk roads and A roads, and I hope that in future more money will be spent on road safety. Most of the roads in Norfolk come into the category of minor

141
roads. Many of these small roads are in a very poor state indeed, especially so far as road safety is concerned, and frequently they appear to be overlooked. I understand from the Norfolk County Road Surveyor, Mr. Deavin, that from the road safety point of view the biggest problem in Norfolk is to provide a new Norwich ring road. He regards this as being the greatest need in the Norwich area, and I hope the Ministry will agree to support Norfolk County Council's application for such a road.
Other speakers in this debate will be able to give figures relating to the number of accidents and vehicles involved in recent years. According to the most recent information available, East Anglia now receives a very small grant per mile of principal road, whereas the traffic flow on prinicipal roads has overtaken the national average in the same period. National casualties have decreased, but in the same period in Norfolk, casualties have increased. During 1967 to 1969, expenditure on principal road improvements in Norfolk fell to half the national average. In recent years a number of things, including the breathalyser test, have helped to reduce the number of road accidents, but I suggest the best way to reduce them further is for those responsible for the roads to spend more time and money in making them safer than at present. Last weekend at least three people were killed in road accidents in Norfolk. One, a lady, was crossing the road to attend church. Surely that is a harmless occupation; people ought at least to be able to cross the road in safety to go to their church.
4.56 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has allowed me to intervene out of turn for five minutes because I have engagements elsewhere. I have passed the age of being a driver of a motor car, but I have had a good deal to do with it in my life. The main observation that I wish to make is a very short one; namely, that all those who normally drive a motor car should, before they begin the drive from their house, put to themselves the question, "Can I be quite sure that I have been kind to everybody else?".
I do not know whether people like to hear such things, but in my own case
142
I would put in what is really a prayer before starting to drive. It reads:
"From domineering driving, from the vanity of power and the infection of speed, good Lord deliver us.
"From carelessness and indifference, from the demon of impatience and the tyranny of time, good Lord deliver us.
"From ignorance and ungraciousness, from harsh judgment and the flood of invective, good Lord deliver us.
"From inattention and monotony, from the delusion of drink and the obscurity of fatigue, good Lord deliver us.
"Grant us, good Lord, a divine courtesy to all. Awake in us an abiding care for the slowness of age and the rashness of youth. Let our vehicles become instruments of thy purpose, bringing happiness to all who travel with us and leaving no man weeping at our passing. This we beg in Christ's name. Amen."
That little prayer can be read over while you are warming up the engine before starting your drive. As soon as that is done, off you go. You are thinking of that all the time, instead of thinking what horrible people there are. As I explained, I wanted to put that point forward, although I do not myself now drive a motor-car because I am too old.
5.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I want to make a brief speech and to concentrate on one of the broader issues of this very distressing and often emotive subject. I am doing this because it is rather important to try to face some of the broader issues more honestly than we sometimes do. Therefore, I should like to say at the start, and I shall probably say it again at the finish, that my own view of the whole of this problem is, I hope, a great deal more balanced than the speech which I intend to make now.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, has said, the serious injuries which are often permanent are even more distressing than the deaths, because they represent at least 12 times the number of deaths. We are all deeply concerned about this aspect, but it is not true to say, as a Minister once said in this House, that he would do anything to prevent them. What he meant was that he would do anything reasonable which did not cost too much, and I think we must always face that rather unpleasant fact which applies to most areas where safety is of concern. When we look at

143
this from the Government's point of view, they also have to consider how far they can reasonably go with the support of public opinion.
One very simple step which we could take, which would have far more effect than anything else on the number of injuries and would cost virtually nothing, is to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory for drivers and passengers. We ought seriously to consider that point and wonder why it is that the drivers themselves do not use them even when they know the risks. I can suggest some reasons, but one may ask whether it is right to force people, knowing the facts, to do what they do not want to do. We are frequently doing this to-day, and when one takes into account the cost of the accidents, some of which falls on the nation through the National Health, such a measure would probably be justified.
With our modern technology it is possible to take this a stage further and say, "Let us cut out accidents as far as we possibly can." Broadly speaking, we only have to take three steps. First of all, we have to make cars crash-proof up to, say, 30 m.p.h. That is not very difficult, but the driver and passenger must wear seat belts. We then have to have an absolutely rigidly enforced 30 m.p.h. limit. Finally, we fence all our roads and allow pedestrians to cross only by under- or over-passes. That will virtually solve the accident problem. If we want to carry the matter even further, reductio ad absurdum, there is of course the man with the red flag.
What I am really saying is that somewhere down the line we have to decide what is reasonable having regard to what we can spend and what people are prepared to accept. It is extremely important occasionally to view the problem from that sort of angle. Very often in the past Governments, faced with unpopular and expensive measures, have tended to blame the motorist and to increase restrictive legislation and penalties. That does not cost anything and shows that the Government are doing something. But one is not always sure that what they have done is justified by results. I therefore very strongly support the Road Research Laboratory, because most of these issues need to be looked at quite dispassionately on a cost-effectiveness basis. At the
144
moment there is a demand for putting crash barriers along the motorways. That would undoubtedly save lives, but if we have only a limited amount of money is it the best way of reducing accidents, or should we concentrate on putting down a better road surface at accident black spots?
It is almost certain that the cause of the bulk of accidents is not hotted-up Minis or sports cars, though they have the worst record. As the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said, the real cause is driver error due to a number of factors—inattention, selfishness and the rest. I have seen people do really dangerous things, such as overtake on the crest of a hill which they could not see over or cross a white line. This has nearly always been done by an inattentive or slack driver. He has sat behind the car in front for ten minutes or more, missing four or five good and safe passing places. Suddenly, he has decided to speed up and, without looking, has either gone over the white line or over the top of the hill.
We can do something about driver error. We can exhort drivers, we can give them more training in their youth and so on. But I am afraid that human error will always be with us and it is no good trying to say otherwise. We must take facts as they are and deal with them. This applies very much to the question of accidents in fog. I do not necessarily disagree with the solution of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, but the plain fact is that the people involved are not all criminal lunatics. There are far too many of them drawn from average motorists to conclude that they are exceptional. They are driving too fast and they are driving when they cannot see. But there are several good reasons why they do so, and it is only now that people are beginning to find out why. I recommend that any of your Lordships who are interested look at some of them, but I shall mention only one or two.
When you are in a fog, at whatever speed you are driving, you do not have much visibility, and even at 10 m.p.h. it is questionable whether you will stop in time if there is something parked in the middle of the road. You are frightened, but there is a red light in front and you feel safe. You follow the red light and it gives you a sense of location, but as the fog gets thicker, you

145
get closer and suddenly you are too close. There are several other reasons for such accidents. People misjudge speed in fog, they misjudge the distance of vehicles, and so on. This is something which should be studied.
I should like to talk for a minute about punitive sentences. The modern tendency is to consider that severe deterrent sentences are ineffective and that everybody should be given a second chance with suspended sentences. We really ought to consider whether the very severe sentences which are being passed on motorists—not for dangerous driving in the sense that it is deliberate, but because of driver error—are producing any useful deterrent. If not, we ought not to impose them and this should be rather carefully investigated. I know that somebody is going to say, "Yes, but what about the totting-up principle?" That has been applied to so many minor offences that I do not regard it as a "let up" in the more serious offences for which people are taken to court.
Broadly speaking, if there is an accident the attitude of the police is that somebody must be to blame. Usually, the simple answer is that both people have made some error which has been cumulative and has resulted in an accident. But do we necessarily want to pass severe sentences on them? If one thinks rather carefully about one's own driving experience—and I would say that for 38 years I have driven fast cars fast and have never made a claim against an insurance company—one will know that periodically, either through inattentiveness or some other error, one has put oneself in a situation where, if one had been unlucky and something had been coming the other way at that precise moment, or the woman with the pram on the corner had moved, or what-have-you, something serious would have happened. One also knows, I think, that one is constantly checking, or ought to be checking, one's driving. You find that you develop a little error which could get worse and could be dangerous and if one is a good driver one is constantly watching this. But I put in the plea that we should not go on, without good cause, chiselling away with tiresome and punitive legislation on things which are not necessarily going to produce any useful
146
saving in the number of accidents. If we must legislate for goodness sake let us be certain that it is worth while.
To conclude, my Lords, I would once more emphasise that I have taken a rather specialised point of view to-day. I do not disagree overall with a great deal of the legislation which has been introduced, but I think that before we make life for motorists harder we ought to be jolly certain that there is a real benefit to be obtained from any further restrictions which we place on them.
5.12 p.m.
LORD STRATHCARRON: My Lords, through the years I have listened to and taken part in many road safety debates in your Lordships' House. In the past, most speakers would rise to condemn drunken drivers and speeding, without a true appreciation of the many other important factors involved in making the roads safer. I believe most strongly that more accidents are caused by defective eyesight than by drink or speeding, and I would draw your Lordships' attention to the recent publication of the Optical Information Council called The Eyes of the British. From their research it has been estimated that there are more than 300,000 drivers who could not pass the number plate test. I find this very frightening. Probably because having defective eyesight is a respectable failing, not to be compared with drunken driving, nobody seems prepared to do anything about it.
When I raised this point in the form of a Starred Question I was told by the spokesman in the previous Government that as it was an offence to make a false statement on the driving licence application form no further action was needed. However, there are many drivers who genuinely may not know that their eyesight has deteriorated. I know that the police have powers to order an eyesight test after an accident, but I have never heard of this being done. I would venture to suggest that many accidents which appear to be an error of judgment in overtaking could well be because the driver is unable to see well enough to assess accurately the speed of an oncoming car. It is compulsory to pay for a Ministry of Transport test on a car more than three years old before it can be taxed. Sensible people do not begrudge this fee. A driving

147
licence now runs for three years, and I see no reason why a driver should not have to take a simple eyesight test for which an optician would be entitled to charge a certain fee. The driver would then have to send in a certificate with his application. If it is thought that owing to the very large numbers involved it would be far too formidable a task, then let us start with a proper eye test for learner drivers.
Many accidents are caused by frustration, and risks are finally taken perhaps to pass an underpowered, overladen lorry, particularly if it is emitting clouds of unpleasant diesel fumes. I know it is an offence to run a vehicle in this condition, yet the police seldom stop offending vehicles. A simple solution would be to make the fitting of vertical exhaust pipes compulsory, as it is in several other countries. When I asked a Starred Question on this subject I was told that this would not be feasible because smuts from the vertical exhaust might fall down on to vegetables being carried to market on an open lorry. I was so flabbergasted by this reply that I forgot to mention that farm tractors have vertical exhausts, presumably to take the exhaust away from the food on the ground!
Motorway driving in rain is a difficult and unpleasant task owing to flying spray. Mud-flaps, which are compulsory in Sweden, would do much to eliminate this problem, particularly in the case of lorries. I believe that there is an argument against mud-flaps on the ground that the spray is not really reduced but is thrown out sideways. However, whatever the theory, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and there is no doubt in my mind that mud-flaps do make driving easier for following traffic. I should also like to see legislation to alter the lighting regulations, so that the shape and size of a lorry is obvious to other road-users. In this respect, I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton mentioned the fluorescent paint which was going to be applied to the rear of lorries. There have been many terrible accidents caused by lorries leaving transport cafés on dark and rainy nights and being invisible when pulling out. Lights along the length of a lorry and at each corner would help to eliminate this type of accident.
148
Before speaking on the subject of windscreens I should first declare an interest, in that I have a business association with a safety glass manufacturer. More and more countries are turning towards laminated as opposed to toughened glass. Laminated glass is already compulsory in America, Canada, Italy, Sweden and Norway. It is compulsory for saloon car racing, and is in most cases fitted on very fast tourist cars. With the older type of laminated glass there was a danger of being thrown through the windscreen and severely lacerated. Nowadays, the inter-layer is made twice as thick, and there is no doubt that the latest laminated windscreen is much safer than the toughened one, which can be shattered by a sharp stone flying up from a passing vehicle, causing shock to the driver and severely restricted vision. The only reason why laminated glass is not more widely used in this country is the cost factor. It costs a motor manufacturer two or three times as much to fit a laminated windscreen as a toughened one; but I do not think that the question of cost should necessarily be the ultimate factor.
On the subject of speed limits, I was pleased to see that the urban limits are under review, with the possibility that speed limits on many stretches of road which are now 30 miles an hour will become 40 miles an hour. That is perfectly sensible, bearing in mind that the 30 miles per hour limit was originally introduced in 1934, when, by modern standards, the steering, brakes and springing of popular cars left much to be desired. I was disappointed that the Minister of Transport has decided not to raise the 70 miles per hour speed limit on motorways. I have never believed in it; nor has anyone produced figures to prove that the 70 miles per hour limit has reduced accidents bearing in mind that central crash barriers and the ban on lorries using the fast lane were introduced at about the same time. I should like to see a 90 miles per hour limit tried out on, say, 50 miles of motorway for a given period of time. This would prevent the selfish driver from cluttering up the outside lane of motorways and refusing to move over because his speedometer reads 70, whereas, due to the usual degree of instrument error, he is actually going at only about 65

149
miles an hour and is therefore causing an obstruction.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Somers that because the roads are now so congested we might well introduce a system of restricted licences, as has been done in Northern Ireland and France. An advantage of this is that other road users can show greater consideration to the newer driver. Those who drive in the larger cities abroad will appreciate the smooth flow of traffic in London by comparison. I should like to see traffic lights at selected junctions during off-peak periods such as the early hours of the morning replaced by yellow flashing lights in both directions to urge caution, as is done with success on the Continent.
While death on the roads must always be a matter of grave concern, it must be kept in its proper perspective. A person was more likely to be killed crossing a road in London 68 years ago, mown down by a horse and carriage, than he is by a motor car in 1971. Road deaths account for only about one third of accidental deaths, and you are more likely to be killed in your home than on the roads. However, if you are killed on the M.1 you are national news; if you fall down the stairs or slip getting out of the bath, you are not. Yet I have not yet heard of any organisation campaigning for non-slip stair carpets or baths. We have one of the lowest motor accident rates of any motoring country, and that is due to the skill, care and courtesy of the much-malgined ordinary motorist. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will feel that at least a few of my suggestions are acceptable and will take action accordingly in the interests of safety on the roads.
5.22 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, without disagreeing with anything that any previous speaker has said, I should like to move from the people aspect of road safety to the vehicle aspect—with one exception: that of commenting upon a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, when he was discussing the education of the road user. I would suggest that road safety instruction and hints given on television might perhaps be better timed. A number of such
150
television advertisements or T.V. "spots" that deal with matters which are for children are shown very late at night, when the children, by rights, will have been asleep for some four hours.
I do not have an interest to declare in anything that I am about to say concerning motor vehicles and their condition. May I set the scene by reminding the House that at almost any time of the year in various parts of the country checks and tests are being made by all kinds of bodies and organisations. I have three reports of such tests; one of them, held in my own county during December by a motoring organisation, being a check on vehicle lighting. Of 9,987 cars checked, 9,329 were found to be faulty. Earlier in the year, in another part of the country there was a particular test on brakes and braking. The check on brakes, as set down in the annual test, is really very modest: brakes have to show 40 per cent. efficiency at 20 m.p.h.; hand brakes must show 35 per cent. efficiency at 20 m.p.h. These standards are not very high. Yet in that particular check 658 motor cars out of 1,521 were found to have faulty brakes. In a general safety check in the Midlands, again towards the end of last year, one-third of the cars checked had steering faults, one-quarter had brake faults, one-quarter had tyre faults and one-fifth had lighting faults.
Against that semi-technical background, against the background of the figures of injuries and deaths of which we have already heard, I believe that we can quite quickly and significantly make a contribution, not perhaps to the reduction of the existing levels of accidents but certainly to the reduction of the increasing number of accidents, if we can make those people who deal with motor cars—the manufacturers, users and repairers—much more aware of their responsibilities. In the 1969 highway statistics, the census of private car and light van users was put at 11½ million, and probably the usage later in 1970 was nearer 12½ million of which about 7 million will have been licensed in the years prior to 1966; that is to say, around 7 million motor cars will be four years old and older.
Currently, the annual testing scheme embraces only those cars that are three years old; and currently the test, while

151
setting down certain standards, leaves many areas of testing to be determined purely by an expression of opinion. We must not forget that the tester and the testing station has already been examined and certificated by the Ministry of Transport's own inspectorate, so presumably (perhaps, I should withdraw the word "presumably" in favour of "without doubt") they have satisfied an independent inspectorate of their ability to conduct such tests. Yet I should find it difficult to find three experienced testers agreeing, as an expression of opinion, as to the amount of wear in, for example, the front steering swivel pin, the steering box or other parts. Those parts can be measured. It is quite a simple thing to do but it takes a little time and therefore costs money. I believe that the existing test—carried out as it is by the garage industry and carried out reasonably well—should be considerably more stringent; and that firm and fixed standards of measurement should be set down from which there need be no departure. I assure the House that many a motor car is offered for testing at one station and refused on the grounds of an expression of opinion; whereupon the owner goes to another garage where the expression of opinion will perhaps be a little more liberal. I do not believe that if the test is to be worthy of its purpose it should be left to arbitrary considerations that should be the criteria between "pass" and "fail".
If we take tyres, tyre regulations are really quite simple; but they do not include any inspection of tyre valves. The tread, the walls, the bulges and so on are all to be examined. The "pass" factor, apart from cracks and bulges, is that the tread pattern is one millimetre deep—and this, on the most popularly-used tyres, is just slightly less than one-eighth of the total. I do not think that this is a sufficiently wide margin of safety. Incidentally, on commercial vehicles the same minimum tread depth is required, and this represents slightly more than one-twelfth of the total. Surely it depends on the use to which the tyre is to be put. A light family saloon car may perhaps be driven with that minimum tyre condition; but another motor car, which is being driven at the maximum permitted speeds on motorways, would require a
152
larger margin of safety. I have known owners change car wheels and tyres from one vehicle to another for the purpose of a test, and I do not think it impossible to relate tyre serial numbers to vehicles and enter them in the log book, as we do with engine numbers.
As I have said, I can find nothing wrong with the basic concept of this type of test and the method by which it is carried out; but I should like to see the test strengthened considerably and one or two items added to it. I should like to see firm standards laid down, and probably a greater amount of expertise and the use of measuring instruments demanded of the tester and test station. We have had eight years of vehicle testing and have learned a great deal from it, but I do not believe that we have covered what is perhaps one of the most dangerous features of the modern motor car, which is popularly called corrosion damage. I will come back to the subject of corrosion damage in a moment. I am suggesting that we should move to a two-tier test system—I use that description for want of a better term: it is easily recognisable because of the two-tier system of postage and other things that we have come to accept.
I suggest that the first tier should be the existing test, supported as I have outlined, and that would take place in the second year of the car's existence. The second tier of the test would follow in the third and subsequent years. This test would include all the points included in the first test; but also the removal of various parts of the motor car for examination. For example, the brake drums could be removed, because when a vehicle gets older it is not sufficient to take a motor car on the road or on a rolling road and apply the brake meter test without having a look at the condition of the brake drums or the brake wheel cylinders. I do not wish to be technical, my Lords. Please accept from me that these are things which you cannot measure without sight and without removing them.
I turn now particularly to corrosion damage, the menace of rust, which is taking up a tremendous amount of the time of the Road Research Laboratory, manufacturers and other bodies because it is so vitally important. I have seen motor cars which were four years old where the rear axle anchor points were in imminent danger of breaking away should the

153
vehicle hit a kerb or a rut in the road, there being no material left because it had rusted away. The two-tier test system would include what I believe the Swedes call the ice-pick test, where a little hammer is used to find the weak points. There are people who, wittingly or unwittingly, cover up these points with bitumastic or other anti-rust products. It may well be that these anti-rust preparations would have to be stripped away to enable a full examination to be made, and so we could develop the points which may have to be looked at in the second tier of the test.
I think it essential that a time scale should be attached to these tests. With the existing test it is sufficient only for the tester to say by the issue of a certificate, "Yes, this car conforms to the regulations and is roadworthy at this particular moment of time." When we are looking at rust corrosion or brakes or very many other things—the propeller shaft universal joint—in a two-tier test system I think that the examiner should be permitted to express a professional opinion—I stress that it would be a professional opinion. In effect, he could say, "Yes, I have examined this car and in my opinion it conforms to the regulations and is roadworthy for"—a certain period, not exceeding 12 months; or perhaps two or three months— "because" (and here he would refer to a certain condition, rust in the rear wheel arch, or wear on the front swivel pin) "and I shall require this car to be re-examined because of this at" such-and-such a period.
I accept, my Lords, that this test may take more than the 42 minutes permitted and agreed for the existing test. I agree that it may cost an owner considerably more than the 23s. 9d. that he is required to pay now to a testing station, plus 1s. 3d. to the Ministry. It may well cost him £5, but I do not think that would be very expensive, because again I would emphasise that there are nearly 7 million motor cars running round the roads of Great Britain to-day which, potentially, are extremely dangerous.
If such a test were adopted, I believe that before there was a change of ownership every motor car should be subjected to that test. There is certainly recourse to a dealer by a purchaser if the dealer sells a car which subsequently, in two or
154
three months, is found to be in a bad condition. There is no such recourse in respect of a private individual who says to a potential buyer, "You can have my car; I want £x for it. Here is the log book. Goodbye." However, if every motor car underwent the two-tier test, a buyer would be assured about what he was buying. I admit that there are other safeguards. Motoring organisations run inspection schemes and so on, and continually advice is being poured out about where to buy a motor car. But I would quote the President of the Motor Agents' Association who, just before Christmas, said in a speech, "One of the menaces of the roads to-day is the below-par car." I do not think that it would be impossible to see this menace removed by putting cars through a two-tier test.
I now come to the question of the body with authority for taking motor cars out of use, not arbitrarily but by measurement. It is essential that there should be uniformity of testing, strict impartiality and, although I would not wish to over-emphasise the point, the removal of all commercial considerations from the tester's decision of pass or fail. It would be in the best interests of car owners and therefore of road users and of road safety in general and of the industry in particular, if such a test were carried out at a Government testing station, a station similar to that now testing commercial vehicles with such undoubted success. I do not believe anybody would deny that the commercial vehicle testing and plating centre is anything but an unqualified success.
If the car population grows and the problems associated with such a growth increase, I do not believe that we can fight them with restrictions. We cannot restrain a man from wanting and buying and using a motor car. I say that the adoption of some of the points that I have suggested will make him more aware of the responsibility he is undertaking by the ownership and operation of a motor vehicle. I do not think that that price is too high to pay.
I should like to turn—because looking at the list of speakers I do not believe that anyone else is likely to turn—to the topical but vexed question of car repairs and repairers. This has a bearing on road safety. There are three classes: fleet users, the do-it-yourself car

155
repairers and the industry itself. The growth in do-it-yourself repairers has been quite staggering. I deplore that growth. I am also frankly very afraid of it. Many people come to me, even on Saturdays and Sundays, and they may say, "Look, I have taken the brakes apart, put new linings on and tightened them up, but tell me, does the spring in the wheel cylinder go at this end or that?" I will say, "I am sorry, I do not know that particular model intimately", to which they will reply, "Oh well, never mind. I will put one on one way and the other on the other way and we'll see which one works the best and then we will know." You cannot repair motor cars in that fashion. It is potentially dangerous. You cannot just take a steering knuckle joint off and push another one on. There are measurements and adjustments to be made. You cannot just take a tyre and ram it on a rim. There is a right and proper way of doing it, with the right and proper equipment, and the do-it-yourself motorists just do not have it. Neither have they the intimate knowledge of particular makes and models which the repair industry ought to have.
I read the other day that one of the leading United Kingdom petrol companies is proposing to set up do-it-yourself workshops, where tools and parts will be available. But these leading fuel suppliers have also said: "We urge such operators to take out an insurance against any accident that may occur as a result of using the tools and machinery and of faulty workmanship." We cannot encourage people to do this kind of work, although they may be encouraged to do many types of jobs on their cars.
I do not think it would be fair if I did not refer to the garage business, the retail motor vehicle repairing industry, in which, as your Lordships know, I have spent many years. The industry carries out some 1¾ million repair jobs every week. Lamentable though it may be, I think it is hardly surprising that some errors and omissions occur. I do not think that any good purpose would come from my setting out some of the reasons for any of the shortcomings of the industry. Sufficient, I think, to say that the manufacturers have a responsibility
156
here and that certainly the industry have a responsibility, which they recognise and which I believe they are currently tackling very hard indeed. But as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said, the number of motor cars and the number of miles covered shows that we have a business of such magnitude that Her Majesty's Government cannot beg the question any longer. If they are as sincere as the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, would have us believe, it is necessary for them to take some more positive step in the field of motor vehicle maintenance and repair.
Some 25 months ago, I suggested a way in which this could be done, and I repeat the suggestion: that all businesses engaged in motor vehicle transportation should be licensed. This is not an impossible task. After all, everybody selling petrol is licensed and there are inspectors to see that they abide by the conditions of such licences or their licences are taken away and they are put out of business. Why should garage repairers not be licensed? A reply given in another place on November 16 suggested that the National Economic Committee for the Motor Distribution and Repair Industry was to examine this problem and report. I do not believe that it is sufficient for Her Majesty's Government to encourage quasi-official bodies to examine their own shortcomings and report. It is necessary for a Government Department—obviously a section under the Minister for Transport Industries—to take the leading role in setting up a standard for those engaged in the trade and issuing licences, maybe long-term licences, embracing not only qualifications of skill and competence but also financial ability and professional expertise. In that way there will be a real urge for the industry to maintain their standard, otherwise their licences may be withdrawn, they are out of business, and they will be unable to set up round the corner in some other guise.
5.50 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I venture to address your Lordships for only a few moments. In considering the subject of road safety we must realise that we are talking about people. We are not concerned merely with a number of cars, but with many people travelling in

157
a number of vehicles. Anything we may do to try to improve our road safety must be related to the people in the cars. It is true that no two people are alike: but people fall into a number of categories which are certainly to be seen on the roads. One finds very good tempered drivers, and very bad tempered ones. Then, there are the most appallingly impatient drivers, those who in order to get somewhere are prepared to do anything to push people out of their way. Then one discovers ten minutes later that they were endeavouring to get to a cafe, or something like that. There are people who cannot wait for three seconds behind another car, although probably they wish to turn off only 300 yards further on.
Thinking of road safety in terms of people, you have also to think of how to cope with them. First, I would implore Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation which people can understand and which they can obey. One of the most fantastic of things to be seen is the exodus from London during the rush hour. You go down a three-lane, 40 m.p.h. motorway, and you consider that in travelling at 40 m.p.h. in the left-hand lane you are behaving like a perfect gentleman. But there are people passing you at 50, 60 and 70 m.p.h. You look at these people and you wonder why this was made a 40 m.p.h. motorway. This happens not just on one occasion, but on every night of the week. There is not a policeman in sight. If there were, I would not give him two pennyworth of a chance of dealing with the situation which exists. I feel that when revising speed limits one must bring to bear on the point what people think is right, and that which will be obeyed purely by reason of the intelligence of the person using the road.
I do not think there is anything in the way of road signs or communications on which you can improve at the moment. Modern road signs are magnificent provided that people understand them. A newcomer on the road must feel rather as I did in the first half at Eton, when invited to learn all the house colours in ten days flat. The variety of road signs that one has to understand now is enormous. But I must confess that they are extremely good. Consideration might also be given to direction indicators when you come to roundabouts, indicating turnings off the roundabout. As you arrive at
158
the roundabout you see a sign which looks like an inverted cow's udder, with white things sticking out all the way round. Sometimes it is very difficult to see which of the turnings is the road that you want to take, particularly if you do not know the area. Something should be done to try to improve the visibility for people who want to read these signs in a hurry and when they are travelling fairly fast.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord who introduced this debate with regard to the following point. I am sick and tired of seeing road signs left up by people who have been working on the road but which bear no relation to what is now happening. One of the most difficult things in the world is to get drivers to respect signs if they mean nothing. It is quite ridiculous to see a sign which says that there are traffic lights ahead when in fact the traffic lights are no longer there; they have been taken away because the people who were working on the road have gone home for the day. Or you might see a sign indicating men working. You slow down and find nothing there. You also get occasions when the sign is pat up but the work has moved three quarters of a mile further on, so one thinks that there is no work going on at all. It would be excellent if the Government, when overhauling their legislation, could ensure that whoever puts these signs up positions them at a minimum distance from the work which is taking place, and could lay down requirements that they be taken down again when they are no longer needed. It is one of the most difficult things in the world to make people take any notice of anything if the method employed to make them take notice is misused.
Unlike the noble Lord who has just sat down, I do not think very much of the Ministry of Transport test certificate. It is a most fantastic performance which takes place. You can go to three different garages, and you will get three different results on a car. One garage will pass it, two will not; but the two who do not pass it will say that it cannot be passed for different reasons. On getting the certificate, however, you can licence your car. When you go to licence it again four months later although the car may be a wreck by then it does not matter, you can licence it because you have the test certificate

159
in your hand. You can temporarily patch it up, sell it to somebody else and say: "Here is the Ministry of Transport test certificate", and a person may buy the car in genuine, good faith. He can go down the road and take the car into a garage which would then discover that the gear box was only held on by a piece of wire, but the owner still has the M.O.T. certificate and the law has not been broken in any shape or form by putting that car on the road and licensing it. The car could be re-licensed four days before the certificate expired and that would be legal, although the car may be a complete wreck. If this M.O.T. certificate is to be of any value at all it should be renewed each time a car changes hands. I do not think that to be able to sell a car which is not fit to go on the road is something which can be permitted to continue much longer.
I do not wish to take up any more of your Lordships' time. I wish we could approach this matter with the feeling that we are dealing with people. The man driving a big lorry down the road at 40 m.p.h., with a two-mile long stream of traffic behind him, may be infuriating those people behind him, but he is merely doing his job. One of the most important matters to get over to people travelling in cars is that everybody is using the road for a reason, and while the reasons may not please them, they must use self-control in their driving. It is only by getting that over to people that we shall improve the accident rate on our roads.
6.0 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, we must all be grateful in thanking my noble friend for introducing and, furthermore, insisting on this very important debate this afternoon. On such a wide subject one felt one must confine oneself to one or, at the most, two aspects. After a little thought by the last speaker I came to the painfully obvious conclusion that, whatever suggestions for improvements would be made this afternoon, none could be carried out without drivers' behaviour being paramount; although I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who made a most illuminating and technical speech unparalleled by any other speaker in this House. I said that drivers' behaviour was paramount, but I begin to think again. There can surely
160
be no other subject, except possibly the weather, that is discussed so widely as road safety or, anyway, driving. At any rate one is not so universally criticised, yet in a large proportion of cases it is the pot calling the kettle black.
I should now like to draw your Lordships' attention to the Road Research Laboratory Reports on drivers' behaviour written by Mr. Quenault and his team. The reports are, for the record, R.R.L. report, L.R.70, entitled "Driver behaviour"—safe and unsafe drivers; R.R.L. report, L.R.167, "Age Group and Accident Rate"—driving behaviour and attitudes; and R.R.L. Report, L.R.212, "Dissociation and Driver Behaviour". These reports, I am happy to say, have been written in reasonably simple terms but with extremely technical and scientific appendices. I am afraid that time does not permit me to comment very fully on all their implications. I shall just pick up one or two points. Therefore, I suggest that your Lordships study them yourselves in greater detail because they are very worthwhile studies.
The first report on safe and unsafe drivers was derived from a sample test taken from two groups: one the C group—in other words, careless group—which contains drivers with one or more convictions for driving without due care and attention; and the R group for which drivers were taken at random. For the purposes of making it easier, they have put drivers into four classes, the first being the safe drivers. Your Lordships will all know what the meaning of "safe" is, but I should like to repeat how they explain it. They are those drivers who are fully aware of all the relevant presented information as they drive and who react to this information in such a way as to reach their goal without carrying out unnecessary manoeuvres, taking risks or causing near accidents or accidents. The second class are injudicious drivers. They are equally with the safe drivers fully aware of all the relevant presented information as they drive, but they from time to time make a false judgment of the relevant presented information that results in the occurrence of a near-accident or accidents.
We come on to the third and fourth groups, which are the dissociated groups. If certain noble Lords were here they would probably ask for a definition of

161
the term. I have not come across it before. I suppose it is in the Oxford English Dictionary, but it is somebody who is not thinking quite as straight as he should do. I will now repeat the Road Research Laboratory's explanation of a dissociated action driver. He is a man who drives with a complete unawareness or neglect of some aspects of the relevant presented information. Such thereby causing near accidents or accident. In thisg roup, to give a typical example, is them an who will charge out, overtake two or three cars and nip in on a bend, and tend to be rather edgy and frustrated.
The last group is on a parallel with and similar in some ways to this driver, but he is called the "dissociated passive driver". They are the drivers who show an incomplete awareness, again, or neglect of some aspects of the relevant presented information as they drive. From time to time, because of their method of driving, they find themselves in situations with which they cannot cope in the time and space available, and hence near-accidents or accidents ensue. I will give your Lordships an example of these: a fellow is bumbling along, probably quite happily, at 30 or 40 miles an hour and suddenly he sees parked cars. My noble friend Lord Ferrier talked on the matter of parked cars, but here is the driver who sees a parked car and an oncoming car. For no reason at all, instead of waiting and letting the oncoming car come by, he goes on, thereby causing a near accident or an accident.
Having explained the types of driver, I will now explain the terms of the test on which the experiment took place. The C group drivers drove on average twice the mileage of the R group, and used their cars for business and pleasure rather than for pleasure alone and had three times the amount of reported accidents as R drivers. All drivers picked at random lived near a large town in Buckinghamshire and had to drive over a set course with two observers in the car with them, one sitting in the front and one behind. It was shown strongly that a higher proportion of the dissociated drivers came from the careless group. Apart from the driving test, each driver had to do a pencil and paper test in the laboratory. But there were no
162
significant differences between the groups of drivers; and also on the question of what is termed in the report "neuroticism", which means introvert or extrovert drivers, there was no significant difference between them on that score.
The next report was on the age group and accident rate—driving behaviour and attitudes. Here a sample was taken from the under twenties and the over sixties and tests were made. The results were more or less what one would have expected. The younger driver liked showing off; he drove faster, he overtook rather more than he was overtaken; his reactions were quick and he liked driving for driving's sake, for the pleasure of power behind the wheel—as you can see, in other words, a cocky fellow. But the older driver was more cautious; he drove slower, his reactions were slower, but he was probably able to cope. He enjoyed driving more for the scenery than for manoeuvring the vehicle.
Your Lordships must surely be asking yourselves: where does all this lead us? How will accidents be reduced by these methods? Is this not an appalling waste of time? Well, of course, this is not a waste of time. It is very important to get a grasp of the real need. There is a need to attempt to establish the real nature of the lack of awareness or neglect of part of the relevant presented information—I am sorry to repeat that phrase quite so often, but I think it is important—on the part of dissociated drivers as they drive and to correlate this with behaviour. Is it really a lack of awareness or a neglect of items of information perceived? Could it be due to a lack of integration of items perceived and not to neglect in the drivers' seat? Research of this kind requires rightly scientific techniques and at this stage can be long and involved. The question we must try to resolve is that both the dissociated active and the dissociated passive driver ignore or fail to integrate the information to the same degree and in the same fashion.
Does dissociated driver behaviour appear in a complete form after drivers have passed the M.O.T. test, or does it develop over a period of years? Then, more important, we ask ourselves: can this behaviour be trained out of a person? Does it vary from day to day, week to week or from month to month?

163
As I have said, there is already some concrete evidence where dissociation in drivers can lead to more road accidents than occur among drivers not so affected. Research is still in its early stages.
One question I asked the Road Research Laboratory was: was there any evidence of good and bad driving as between men and women? My own impression is that there is always a sex war on the roads. Whereas a man will behave in a perfectly normal manner, like standing up when a lady comes into the room, and observe all the other common courtesies, when he gets on to the road he behaves quite differently. If a lady in front of him is approaching a crossroads he will think that she might hesitate or take hours to get across, so he will nip in front, thus causing a near accident. I should have thought that the Road Research Laboratory might well look into this matter further.
Another point that I thought was true, but I am told there is no evidence of it, is that a man is different when he is in a car than when he is out of it. In fact he has a split personality. I know myself that on odd occasions I have been thoroughly ashamed of behaving in an off-hand and peculiar way on the road, but at the moment I gather there is no evidence to support this. Here again, I suppose some people are always equable while others are very pleasant in their own homes and a fiend at work, or vice versa.
I should like to ask the Minister one question: do the Government, when introducing new legislation or new regulations, correlate the evidence of patterns of drivers' behaviour, and if not will they do so? One thing that I am afraid is all too true is that nearly every motorist considers himself to be an expert. I am sure that Government posters do much good work in alleviating accidents by showing the horrors on the roads, but I feel they should do more.
Before I sit down I should like to draw attention to a point mentioned to me by my noble friend Lord Vivian. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, mentioned this point, and also the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, from the point of view of corrosion. My noble friend and I were surprised that the question of mud flaps on vehicles was not included
164
as a hazard in the Road Research laboratory report. I am sure we have all had experience of filthy windscreens caused by dirt thrown up by heavy vehicles that do not have mud flaps. Questions on this subject have frequently been asked in this House, and I can recall recently a Question asked by my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley which was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom. The answer given by the noble Lord was that rubber flaps can cause tyre heating and therefore they cannot be insisted upon, but surely in 1971 something else could be found from which these flaps could be made. Do not let us be fobbed off, but let us find an answer to this problem.
6.12 p.m.
LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for putting down this Motion to-day. I see that it is just over two years since your Lordships debated the subject of road safety. It is with regret that the debate is being held with the knowledge that the provisional total number of deaths for the first nine months of 1970 is 1·2 per cent. up on those for 1969, and the figures for that year were 8 per cent. up on those for 1968. Also, in the first nine months of 1970 1·6 per cent. more children were killed than in 1969, compared with a drop in the figures for 1968–69 of 2 per cent. Let us not forget that an average of 172 children were injured on our roads every day in that year. My Lords, why, after two years of declining figures, have we an 8 per cent. increase in road deaths, when the actual accident rate is the lowest since 1959? Is it because people are less concerned about the breathalyser test, or is it because people drive faster, or is it because there is more traffic on our roads? Or could it be that the driver is not being educated to drive properly? I think it is a combination of those things, and probably a lot more.
It appears that the effect of the law against drinking and driving is wearing off and could well be given a new lease of life. As for the speed and increase in traffic. I would quote from ROSPA'S 1969–70 Annual Report, on page 4 of which they say:
"Speed in the right conditions is not inherently dangerous. But excessive speed in the wrong conditions, whether of road, vehicle or driver, is bound to have more

165
serious results. Increasing traffic with its inevitable delays has been seen to result in more aggressive attitudes from drivers. Such attitudes are highly detrimental to road safety."
My Lords, the condition of our roads is improving all the time. Soon all our motorways will have crash barriers down the centre and we hope that they will all have three lanes. Our trunk roads also are improving with the aid of all the new ideas that come from the Road Research Laboratory, which I had the privilege of visiting just before Christmas. Here I should like to thank them for an interesting day, as well as to encourage them to carry on the fight for better roads and all that is connected with road safety.
I mentioned education of the driver. That is something which I feel could be improved. It would give him a better sense of road safety. In particular, he ought to be told and shown how to drive on a motorway, be it with simulated or in actual conditions, as I do not think it is right for a person to pass his test and then a day later to drive on a motorway. He is endangering not only his own life but also the lives of other people, as he cannot have the experience or skill to drive a car at 60 to 70 miles an hour, let alone on a motorway. The standard of driving on motorways is extremely low. The biggest offender is the fast lane squatter, who causes frustration on the part of the other motorists, resulting in overtaking in the middle lane, similar to weaving down a ski slope. I feel that we should give new drivers a better education, just as children are being given a better education in regard to road sense by the police and by the Tufty Club, to whom we should give a great deal of credit.
My next point is directed to the manufacturers, and in particular the brake manufacturers. I am thinking of the anti-skid brakes: if these could be made a commercial proposition driving would be just a little safer. In a national paper just before Christmas it was announced that Mercedes-Benz cars are to be fitted with these brakes. It is claimed that in normal conditions, in a crash stop from 60 miles per hour, a car with standard brakes will pass by at 25 miles per hour, when a car fitted with the new system of anti-skid brakes has stopped. On wet roads stopping distances would be reduced
166
by up to 40 per cent. At present these brakes cost £200. That amount is not much more to pay on a car costing £4,000, whereas the same sum on a family car costing £1,000 would be a big extra which few could afford.
There are five questions I should like to put to Her Majesty's Government. First, do they propose to strengthen the law against drinking and driving, and, if so, how? Secondly, what plans have they to increase the police patrols on our motorways? Thirdly, when will there be crash barriers on the M.40? Fourthly, have the Government any plans to widen the M.1 near Watford, where it is at present two lanes? Fifthly, would it be possible to make the driving test stiffer, with a written test as well as simulated or actual motorway instruction? I feel that if we could do just a few of the things that have been mentioned here to-day we could save a lot of lives, the country a lot of money, and—who knows?—we might even save the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, from putting down a Motion in a year or two.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I should be glad to put down a Motion again as soon as this debate is over. This Motion was first put down on December 15, 1969. It has come on more quickly than the one I put down before. I suggest to your Lordships that perhaps the stage has been reached when we can rely upon the Front Bench to organise a debate of this nature perhaps more often than a Back Bencher can arrange one.
LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has a point.
6.20 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I was just thinking of the Test Match; I cannot think why, but when you are not even twelfth man on the batting list in the order of speakers there is very little left to say which has not been said. If I do err in the direction of repeating what has been said, I am sorry. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for once again introducing this subject, which is obviously of tremendous concern not only to all of us in your Lordships' House, but to everyone outside. It is a sad fact that road accidents have become

167
commonplace and accepted by some as just one more item on the bill for mobility. We must face up to the fact that accidents will never be totally eliminated, owing to the human element, but we can, in my opinion, make a sustained and determined effort to hold the accident rate in check. This will never be achieved, however, with a flood of rules and regulations, which in my opinion only confuse and anger the motoring public and force some people to ignore them because in their opinion they are not justified by reason of lack of realism.
Before the last war, driving a motor car on the public roads was a comparatively simple task; the roads were empty compared with the ever-increasing millions of vehicles, some 15 million, on the roads to-day. Driving has now become a highly skilled operation needing maximum concentration, steady nerves and hours of practice before one is really qualified to handle what some have described as a lethal weapon. At the same time, designers and manufacturers of the modern motor car have produced for us all a wonderful machine, so developed mechanically that its manoeuvrability has improved beyond all measure, capable in skilled hands of doing all the driver asks and more; improved suspension, disc brakes, tyres to stand the roughest treatment, far better lighting systems and seat belts, to mention just a few things, and road-holding which will cope with increased speeds from the modern internal combustion engine.
The noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, referred to anti-skid brakes. I think he meant anti-locking brakes. This is a magnificent device. Mercedes-Benz have developed this device until now it has reached the stage that it will soon be in production. The only thing is that, as fine an improvement as it is, unless it is made universal it is dangerous. If you are in a car with anti-locking brakes and you make use of those brakes and stop, what happens to the poor chap behind you in his Cortina or Mini which has not got the device? It is important to produce them at such a price as to make them universal.
My Lords, I come from a motoring family. My father, who was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, just
168
now, and I myself were and have been involved in motoring and motor sport for many years, and experience taught us that not only the simple rules of the road but education in the art of driving is needed more than ever to-day to produce someone who is safe, courteous, considerate and skilful in his or her motor car. Therefore, the sooner pre-driver training starts on a national basis where facilities exist, the better. Catch them young and they are less likely to make mistakes later on. I ask Her Majesty's Government to place more emphasis on the education of motorists to a higher standard of driving.
On this theme I urge the Government to encourage pre-driver training in schools as an extra-curricula activity, the subject of road safety should be integrated with the work of the school. It has been my privilege, and will be again in a few weeks' time, to present certificates to senior pupils in schools on passing their preliminary driver training, both theoretical and practical, so that when they leave school they will have a good chance eventually of becoming expert drivers, and passing the M.O.T. driving test will not be the nervous ordeal that it is to many people, including the instructor. It is not good enough to be taught to drive by a parent, for obvious reasons; instruction must now be given by a registered driving instructor. That is fair enough.
A pilot scheme was organised last year at a county secondary school for boys within the High Wycombe area of Bucks. Six senior pupils took part and all qualified for certificates; these students were given a responsible attitude towards motoring and road safety before they left school and received formal driving instruction. I hope that this scheme will be expanded, and that, with pressure, other schools with facilities will participate. Auto-simulators are also an invaluable aid to safe driving. I should like to see more of them around. They enable drivers to learn the basics of safe driving in complete safety. The I.D.T./Link trainer system is another method, but rather too expensive for local education authorities to purchase.
Motoring in many countries has shown me that others have adopted measures which will, I am sure, increase road safety. Only last year, driving about

169
South Africa in a small Alfa-Romeo sports car, I noticed that vehicles over a certain unladen weight and most trailers, have by law to be fitted with reflective rear marker plates consisting of red and yellow chevrons. For years, with different organisations, I have pressed for such a system; I feel it is long overdue. It shows up with startling clarity by day and night to following motorists. Much use is made of that reflective material Scotchlite. This material shines through fog and water, reflecting the headlight beams of following traffic, doing a great deal to prevent the all-too-frequent shunt in the back. There may be some reason why this material is not pressed by Her Majesty's Government. It is expensive here; it is cheap abroad. A great deal of it is used in other countries. I think we could well afford to do the same.
We are soon, I hope, to have crash barriers down the central reserve of motorways. I hope they will be included in the specification for all new motorways. Again this is long overdue. In America these ARMCO barriers are painted yellow on fast bends considered to be dangerous. This fact certainly attracts attention. I sometimes feel that we are too inclined to say, "Anything you can do we can do better". I would be the first to say in many cases that is perfectly correct. But it is not always so, and I feel that it does no harm to copy others and improve on their ideas as necessary.
My Lords, I cannot let a debate on road safety slip by without some reference to the present speed limits. Many years ago, together with people like Graham Hill, Denny Hulme and some others, I was asked to take a petition by some 280,000 people to Mrs. Castle when she was Minister of Transport. This petition was signed by people who objected most strongly to the 70 m.p.h. speed limit. We did not get very far with it. But shortly after I became a Member of the House, I raised the matter in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, very courteously told me to sit down. I go on a bit too long. I can not help saying that I was surprised earlier this afternoon, at Question Time, to hear these privileges given to a Welshman when I, descended from the Irish, have had no chance at all.
170
Statements have been made by respective Governments that speed limits must be realistic. I think that all of us are from time to time thoroughly frustrated by a speed limit for which it is hard to find justification. I refer, of course, to the limit of 70 m.p.h. on the motorways. We are lulled into a false sense of security by this particular limit. I had hoped that, with a new Government, a new motorway policy would give us a realistic speed limit on motorways and a more realistic view of speed limits in general. I see few signs of this happening so far. I am not referring to the 30 miles an hour limit, which I think is a very good limit in towns and villages, and I am surprised to see that it is considered that possibly it should be raised to 40. I do not know that I am in entire agreement about that. I am sure that many police officers will agree with me that 80, or even 90 miles an hour—90 is preferable—on the motor-ways would be a realistic and sensible speed for these roads and, what is more, this would, I believe, receive the cooperation of the motoring public, which is very important indeed. The mass of traffic shuffles along to-day at a speed of 65 to 70. Only a small proportion travel at more than 70 miles an hour anyway. They are probably well qualified to drive at over 70, and have suitable cars and know how to handle them.
Nobody wants to break the law. The motorist is not a criminal, but if intelligent people see no justification for it, and the police are unable or unwilling to enforce it, I am afraid that continued frustration, causing accidents, will force the motorist to commit the technical offence of exceeding the limit. In doing so the motorists know that they are getting away from a potential accident zone caused through bunching in convoys, and as they go faster their concentration and alertness is far greater. It is true to say that the safest place on any road to-day is as far away as possible from another moving vehicle, and those who drive a great deal know this only too well. Motorways—and this has been said by one noble Lord this afternoon—are the safest roads.
Fog and ice are other special problems which must, I feel, be dealt with through education and motorists' refresher courses. I frequently use Western Avenue from

171
Buckinghamshire, along the West Way into London, and for years I have been amazed at the speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Invariably cars are driven along at a speed nearer to 60 miles per hour, but the limit still remains at 40. Further along Western Avenue one comes to the new West Way, where after a speed limit of 40 miles per hour for a short distance the limit suddenly becomes 60, then 50, and finally 30. I have just come out of a 70 miles per hour zone on to Western Avenue, and it seems to me that it is confusing to motorists to have these various speed limits; indeed, it is perfectly stupid. I hope that a more realistic speed limit—again I say "realistic" of 50 miles per hour along the whole way could be used, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will pay some attention to this.
Too much reliance should not be placed on statistics. Advice should come from people who use the roads day after day. An independent body of experienced motorists would be the best approach to an admittedly controversial problem, but one so much concerned with road safety. I hope that the Minister responsible will place far more emphasis on raising the standard of driving through education, and that policy on road safety will always follow discussions with the big motoring organisations representing all the motoring bodies.
LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I say that he is quite right. I did mean anti-locking brakes and not anti-skid brakes. I apologise to your Lordships.
6.34 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for enabling us to debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon this most important subject of road safety. There is much evidence to show that one of the most effective ways of reducing accident rates is to improve the roads. The publication entitled Research on Road Traffic issued in 1965 by the Road Research Laboratory says this in Table No. 16(1) on page 491. The publication gave an impressive list of the reductions in accident rates resulting from many kinds of road improvements, both large and small,
172
and on all classes of roads. These included, for example, a 95 per cent. reduction following the major realignment of lengths of road; an 80 per cent. reduction as a result of the improvement of visibility and alignment at isolated bends; and a 60 per cent. reduction following the staggering of crossroads. It is therefore important in the interests of road safety that the Government should continue to make adequate funds available for the carrying out of relatively small road improvements, and that the principle of concentrating upon the large-scale comprehensive improvement of trunk roads and the construction of motorways, however desirable that may be, should not be applied to the exclusion of smaller improvements on principal roads and the more important non-principal roads, which can yield a substantial benefit in reducing accidents.
The greatest benefit in accident reduction will clearly be derived from major schemes, and particularly from the construction of motorways, and it is important that the major road improvement programme should be accelerated. I was therefore glad to know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the House of Commons on October 27 last that Her Majesty's Government proposed that expenditure on the main road programme, including motorways, should rise to £552 million in the financial year 1974–75.
May I say how grateful I am to the Minister for his recent confirmation of the order establishing the route of the Newmarket By-pass. It is the earnest wish of all who live in Newmarket and of all who travel on the trunk roads A.11 and A.45 which run concurrently through Newmarket High Street that work on this important scheme will soon be put in hand. There is no doubt that the provision of a much improved East-West highway from the Midlands to East Anglia will make a substantial contribution to the reduction of accidents, particularly having regard to the growth of traffic on this route to the East Coast ports which of course carry a lot of container traffic.
The need for the construction of the by-passes of Cambridge, of Bury St. Edmunds and of Stowmarket, and the completion of the Norwich ring road—which has already been mentioned by a

173
noble Lord—which are already planned, is equally urgent in the interests of road safety. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give high priority to the improvement of the important roads in East Anglia, now that the improvement of the Great North Road, A.1, and large schemes of this kind in other regions, have almost been completed. East Anglia has waited long for its appropriate share of the funds made available for road improvement works, and as the main roads in the region are becoming rapidly overloaded the need for their improvement is becoming more urgent every day.
Although little large-scale improvement work has yet been undertaken in East Anglia, it is gratifying to know, from inquiries I have made of the county and county borough surveyors in the region, that such very limited improvements, including adequate street lighting, as they have been permitted to carry out in recent years have had the effect of reducing accidents and of preventing a rise in the accident rate, despite the continuing growth in the volume of traffic. It is therefore vitally important that further small improvements designed to remove dangerous road conditions, including the by-passing of towns and villages, should not be neglected, since it has been amply proven that such works improve road safety. These improvements can generally be carried out quickly and bring immediate benefit, whereas the large-scale improvements are usually long-term projects which must, of necessity, take some years to complete. The smaller improvements can eventually be incorporated in the larger.
There are many such improvements awaiting attention, not only on trunk roads but on principal roads and on the more important non-principal roads where, for a relatively small expenditure, a significant reduction in accident rates could be achieved. There appears to be a recent trend, when dealing with reductions in public expenditure, for Her Majesty's Government to think in terms of restricting road improvement works on roads other than trunk roads and motorways. In the Report on the Rate Support Grant Order 1970 (H.C.172) published on November 26, 1970, it was stated that:
"the level of expenditure on non-principal roads reflects the restriction announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Command 4515
174
in the allocations for capital works by local authorities on minor roads where the general standard is considered to be good."
There is no doubt that the allocation of available funds to the improvement of major roads and the construction of motorways is the right policy. But I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not carry this too far, and that they will still continue to make available, by way of specific grants for principal roads and by way of the rate support grant for non-principal roads, adequate funds for the removal of accident black spots and other improvements of the kind to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, all of which make so great a contribution to road safety.
In conclusion, my Lords, may I say that there is much local anxiety about the serious accidents that continue to occur on the three-lane length of trunk road, A.11, between Newmarket and Stetchworth roundabout. For a modest expenditure this length of road could be provided with a divided carriageway. This would result in an immediate reduction in serious accidents and would continue to serve a useful purpose after Newmarket by-pass has been constructed, because this length of road will always carry a substantial volume of traffic, particularly on race days. This is the kind of small improvement which, in my view, ought not to be deferred. There are many such improvements which would yield an immediate benefit and ought not to be delayed because of a future long-term comprehensive improvement which may not be completed for some years. In this matter of road safety, where lives are at stake, we cannot afford to make the best the enemy of the good.
6.42 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I have instructions from my two noble friends beside me to get on with it and not be too long. I wish to speak only very briefly in support of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, regarding the road safety programme in East Anglia. I appreciate that we should not be too parochial in a debate of this kind, but we all know the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, in conditions in East Anglia, and your Lordships must blame him for thinking that

175
this debate was an opportunity not to be missed for bringing our points to bear.
Road safety in East Anglia is a problem which is greatly accentuated by the acute shortage of money. Your Lordships will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, say that, compared with the average of all English counties, East Anglia is now receiving a very small grant per mile for improvements to principal roads; in fact, I believe the figure is a little under half the national average. But the average traffic flow on principal roads in Norfolk alone is now greater than the national average, with the consequence, according to figures given to me, that while the national figures for road accidents and casualties dropped by 10 per cent. in 1967–68, Norfolk's figures rose by 4 per cent.; and whereas in 1968–69 the national figures remained relatively constant, Norfolk's rose by a further 7 per cent.
People are now appreciating what a delightful place East Anglia is in which to live and they, together with industry, are moving in at a steady rate. We are expanding and business in our ports is increasing. All this is causing far greater road congestion, with all its attendant safety hazards. May I give an example of this? The A.47 road is one of the principal roads linking us with the industrial Midlands and the North. In the event of our entering the Common Market, it could become the No. 1 road to the North Sea and possibly, therefore, one of the busiest in the country.
I was travelling along a newly-constructed piece of that road between Dereham and Norwich shortly before the Recess. I was in a queue of cars proceeding slowly behind two slow-moving lorries. A car came up from behind and the driver was obviously in a hurry. He passed me and then, one by one, passed the cars immediately in front of me. But of course the inevitable happened and about half a mile up the road he hit an oncoming van. Your Lordships may say that that is another example of inconsiderate or bad driving, and it undoubtedly was. But it was brought about by the sheer frustration of someone who was, probably justifiably, in a hurry.
Surely, the point is that, on a newly-constructed by-pass on a major road such
176
as that, the possibility of an accident of that nature should have been completely eliminated. A dual carriageway would have avoided this. The land was available, as is evidenced by the wide verges on either side. It is apparent that, notwithstanding all the improvements which have been made to the A.47 within this area, it is still inadequate to ensure the fast and free flow of the type and volume of traffic with which it has to contend. So how much more inadequate will it be in the future? We cannot blame the planning authorities. They have to do the best they can, and they are only able to cut their coat according to their cloth. But, surely, the constant pruning of costs is false economy.
I could go on with other similar examples, such as the proposed, and indeed sorely needed, by-pass around East Dereham. The proposed route for this road, which has been envisaged for some considerable time, appears to be not too well planned in the light of the very considerable residential development which has taken place, and it appears now to be a proposed through-way, rather than a by-pass. It is all a question of money, and it is estimated that it would cost a further £250,000 to take a wider route around the town.
I shall not elaborate further, but I humbly submit that in cases such as this the cost should not be of paramount importance. The future wellbeing and safety of people should be at the forefront of our deliberations. May I implore Her Majesty's Government to give careful and urgent consideration to the possibility of a larger grant allocation for road improvements in East Anglia, and Norfolk in particular? Will they consider bringing up the figure at least to the national average, in order that improvements may be planned which will be completely adequate and safe for all future usage?
6.48 p.m.
LORD GRAY: My Lords, although I, too, have a home in East Anglia, I shall not pursue that regional interest in the same way as the two previous speakers. Had not my noble friend Lord Ferrier included the phrase, "the continuing problem of Road Safety" in his Motion, I might have been frightened out of an intervention by the highly technical

177
nature of the Road Research Laboratory Report, which we are considering. A wheel fell off my car yesterday when I was on my way here—apparently it was due to metal fatigue—while driving along in the central lane of the A.1. Perhaps I am fortunate to be here and perhaps the Fates have thus made my decision that I ought to take part in this debate.
We have had a wide-ranging debate, and I shall confine my remarks under two headings. The first is the road safety education of children.
"Road accidents to children are a matter for concern."
That is certainly a statement of the obvious, and perhaps, in view of the quite terrible statistics which my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton quoted earlier, I should call it an understatement of the obvious. But the wording I used is not mine. It is the opening phrase of the selected highlights chapter in the Report headed "Survey of Road Safety Education in Schools." This is a very welcome survey, and that the work is to continue is equally welcome; but I suggest it does not mean that we should not consider what action should or could be taken now to help our children further meet the difficulties of what my noble friend Lord Ferrier referred to as the scourge of our generation.
Such statistics as are quoted from the survey in the Report suggest that there is scope for improvement. I must at once say that I am not for one moment denigrating the excellent work already being done by class teachers and head teachers in many schools, or by the various organisations concerned with road safety; nor yet the very valuable contributions made by police and road safety officers and others. But, my Lords, the survey found that among the primary schools which answered the questionnaire which was sent out—and here I quote:
"There was a planned programme for teaching road safety in one-third of the primary schools. Time was specifically set aside for road safety teaching in one-sixth of the primary schools."
In fairness, my Lords, I should add the following—and I again quote:
"Two-thirds of all schools had taught kerb drill, or had held discussions about road safety, during the term in which they received the questionnaire. One-quarter had had demonstrations in the playground".
178
This does not alter my impression that there really is much which could be done. I know the good which is done: I have three children presently at primary school. My eldest daughter, in the junior department, recently passed her cycling proficiency test, and because the pin on the badge she received was faulty I am currently under instructions to write to Lord Beeching to ask for another one.
Of course parents must exercise responsibility for training and supervision; of course children should be taught the basic rules, or such basic rules as they can comprehend and use before they first arrive at school—and there will always be discussion as to the extent that the responsibility falls on the home or on the school. But to my mind this in no way detracts from the proposition that basic instruction must be universal; nor does it call in question the desirability of such basic instruction being uniform in content, thorough and consistent in quality, or the need for its repetition and for its being built up with added and more sophisticated information throughout a child's schooltime. We all know that neither kerb drill practice nor all the teaching in the world will ensure that little Johnny or wee Jeannie will be accident-proof. This is all too sadly not the case. The unexpected will happen: a child will just once forget. Had I or your Lordships needed any proof of this, I received a timely reminder just before Christmas, when my own six-year old son was struck by a car outside the school gates because he had failed, just that once, to pay attention to the crossing-keeper. Thanks to the very swift reactions of that lady crossing-keeper, he was, thank God! saved from serious injury.
But, my Lords, even given that nothing will ever afford entire protection and that parents must ultimately safeguard their own children, I hope that, with the survey results now available, perhaps the Ministry of Education will get together with those responsible for transport within the Department of Environment—perhaps they have already done so—and, drawing on the experience and resources of all those currently engaged within their own Departments and outside in promoting and teaching road safety in schools, will draw up and institute a programme that will have a full

179
place alongside the "three Rs" in all schools, and that this may be done soon. It is interesting to note, my Lords, that the report, quoting from the survey, tells us that in the case of primary schools 55 per cent. of head teachers felt that there was a need for some guidance in helping schools on how to teach road safety. That parents should be involved goes without saying, and they must be kept advised of what is the nature of the instruction which is being given in order that they can help the children to use it, and augment it. As a start, next time there goes out from any organisation a leaflet which is taken home to parents, it might be helpful if, for instance, it could contain something on the dangers of restricted visibility and hearing which stem from the use of hooded garments, such as duffle coats and anoraks, very popular to-day, which, on a dark and cold morning when a child has his head down, really do create an added danger, welcome though they may be in keeping the child warm.
As to references in the report to the use of television time for putting over to children, in cartoon form, information on road safety, and also to where they tell of experiments in more sophisticated learning systems for children who can read fluently, these are all welcome and I wish them well, but I still believe that the school must bear the major burden of this instruction. There are all too few steps which we can take to afford physical protection at all times, and perhaps it is only when the child is on its way to school or is coming home from school that we can really do anything. I should like to suggest that there are one or two things we might consider. During the time that the children are going to or coming away from school, could a flashing red light be switched on atop the familiar "Children" triangular sign which is sited near schools, as an added warning to drivers to take particular notice of that sign at that time? I should also like to ask whether, since parents persist, despite warnings (it may be that they have to sometimes), in sending their children out so that they arrive at school before the gates are open and before the patrols are manning the crossings, we should not urgently ensure that all crossings outside schools and the areas immediately outside schools are
180
adequately lighted in dark or foggy conditions. And is there perhaps not a case for doing for all schools what is done for some schools, that is, the placing of a barrier just outside the school gate? I have seen these barriers in operation. They may not be the whole answer, but they sometimes stop a child from rushing out that much more quickly.
I said that I would confine my remarks to two headings. I will try to be briefer on the second matter to which I wish to draw attention. I know that I am not alone in being concerned about the use of minor roads as through routes by unsuitably large and heavy vehicles. My noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton will perhaps remember that on November 10 last I raised this matter in a supplementary question. On that occasion he was good enough to say in reply—and I quote from the Hansard of November 10, 1970 (column 601)—
"Yes, my Lords, I think I have already said that the Government are considering proposals to restrict the size of certain traffic on certain roads."
I raise this question again because one does not need the statistics for axle loads in the Report that we are now considering to tell us of the damage done on roads—not on little country lanes but on roads often classified as B roads—by vehicles which are entirely unsuited to them, damage left after they have passed, damage done as they are passing. I need not fill in the details; I am sure that many noble Lords as they journey about will have recognised this damage. One particularly realises it if one is cycling or walking or pushing a perambulator. Outside my own house in Essex on a road classified with the prefix "B", if two of these leviathans meet they have to stop. It is on a corner. Should one day any of the people who live near be walking or pushing a child in a pram or be cycling at that spot at the moment that the two meet there will be a more than nasty accident.
I hope that perhaps I may hear that the Government have gone a little further with their thinking to-day; or if that is not possible, they will perhaps say so soon. I believe that on the ground of safety alone the case can be made out for finding some way of restricting really heavy vehicles to heavy roads. I think a case can be made out on amenity

181
grounds; and if these alone are not enough, I refer to the Report of the Committee on Highway Maintenance, the Marshall Committee, to which the Report we are to-day considering draws attention. It was not published at the time that the Report we are discussing was but I think I am fair in quoting from it. In Chapter 12, following up economic arguments and dealing with road maintenance generally, they make some recommendations. They recommend:

"a. that the Ministry of Transport should promote any changes in highway authorities' liability for non-feasance necessary to enable them to maintain only a specified network of roads in a state suited to all traffic;

"b. that all local highway authorities should explore the possibility of using traffic regulation orders as a means of confining heavy traffic to a specified basic road network.

"c. that the Ministry of Transport should look into the possibility of national legislation to confine heavy vehicles to major roads."

I apologise for being perhaps overlong; but the subect is a serious one. I have, I hope, kept within reasonable time bounds in what I wanted to say.
7.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, the speech we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Gray is surely the latest of many which, by reason of their constructivity and thoughtfulness, have gone farther than is necessary to justify the action of my noble friend Lord Ferrier in initiating this debate. With him, I think it is a subject of vital importance. I am grateful to him also for giving me the opportunity of trotting out a few of my own hobby horses—and I was surprised to find that hardly anybody else had trotted them out. My particular subject has to do with the design of vehicles—the interior design—with two objects in view, both of them to do with safety. The first object is to prevent or to make it more possible to prevent accidents from happening; the second is to minimise the effect of accidents when they do happen.
I shall suggest, perhaps at times rather in the tone of Dr. Strabismus (whom God preserve!) of Utrecht, some slightly way-out ideas and some not so way-out. All of them I hope may receive some attention from somebody. These ideas include one or two which I hope to see in the new car that I want to buy in about ten years' time. The first is five
182
wheels—or a fifth wheel. The fifth wheel is a smaller one, constructed on the principle of a castor, or a trailing wheel on a trolley or on the tail of art aeroplane or on the front of Lady Masham's chair: the kind that revolves when the machine carrying it reverses. This I want to see fixed somewhere under the middle of the back axle, near the differential. This wheel can run in the forward or backward plane only so long as the car behaves normally. When the car reverses, it swivels and runs the other way. The only circumstance in which the wheel can run roughly at right angles to the car is when the car skids.
I hope that some engineer will apply his thoughts to the problem of transferring that lateral spin energy of the wheel to the task of causing a brake to come on the road from the car, a metal brake which will stop it from going sideways, or to activating a device to spray sand under the wheels. It is a question of using a lateral wheel to transfer the sideways energy into producing vertical energy upon the road. That wheel is a small one and it will have one thing in common with the other four: it will be solid-tyred. I want them all to be solid-tyred. We want to get back to the early days of motoring, and get away from the idea of pumping air into a tyre in the certain knowledge that if it bursts all the air will come whizzing out and there will, as likely as not, be an accident. In the present state of rubber technology, surely it is possible to fill the tyre not with air but with synthetic rubber of some kind and thereby prevent, above all, the risk of great crashes through burst front tyres on high-speed roads.
I come now to the question of fog, and I am still talking about the prevention of accidents. There is a passage in the Report on page 45 to which my noble friend Lord Ferrier referred by saying that he was surprised to read it. It deals with the statistics in fog. It says that thick fog reduces the traffic flow by an average of 21 per cent.; that is the average reduction in thick fog of all traffic on all classes of roads.
"On days with thick fog, the number of fatal and serious injury accidents and casualties were not significantly affected …"
This is perhaps what surprised my noble friend. But those are the numbers. It is the numbers of accidents that have not

183
gone down, although the amount of traffic has gone down by 20 per cent. Therefore the number of fatal and serious accidents in proportion to traffic volume has gone up by just over 25 per cent. In the statistics referring to minor accidents one finds that their number has gone up in dense fog by 50 per cent., which means that the proportional increase (that is, accidents to traffic flow) has increased by 75 per cent. I think there is a tendency in this paragraph to belittle the effect of fog; it is not intended, but it bears out the advice of my noble friend Lord Howe not to pay too much attention to statistics.
On my car—but perhaps not so much on my own car as on other people's cars—I want to see double rear lamps, another pair, brighter than the ordinary ones, which can be switched on in fog and which will flash. I see no reason why they should not be fitted in addition to the fluorescent labels mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton and others. Nor do I see why those particular fluorescent attachments should be confined to lorries; stop lights and so on might well be applied to all cars. Big vehicles—this has been mentioned before—should have lights all down the sides, and once the rear lights have been fitted there must be no projection beyond them. I see no reason why any lorry should be allowed on the road with its tail-board sticking out behind the rear light. There is no technical or practical need for that and it should be forbidden. In fog, and on the motorways in particular, it should be forbidden to have any load projecting beyond the back lights of a vehicle unless there are extra lights fixed on the back of the load as well.
Some time ago a report appeared in a newspaper of words alleged to have been spoken by an A.A. or, it may have been, an R.A.C. spokesman. He said he was mystified that people found it difficult to judge the speed of a vehicle in fog. I think it perfectly appalling that any motoring organisation should allow such a man to put himself up as a spokesman. He may not have been properly reported, but the statement implies that he had never driven in fog. I am sure that no-one will contradict me in saying that to judge speed in a fog can be attempted in only two ways: one is by
184
looking at the speedometer and the other is by looking out of the window. When driving in a dense fog you do not look at the speedometer if you can avoid doing so, because you have afterwards to refocus your gaze; it is dangerous and difficult, and also you are dazzled. As for looking out of the window, there is nothing to look at, particularly on a motorway. When driving in a dense fog on a motorway a driver has no means of knowing how fast he is going, unless he looks at the speedometer.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend, surely there is a third way—by listening to the note of the engine.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Yes, my Lords; if one is a motorist of the calibre of my noble friend, it is quite possible that there is a third way. But I do not think that more than one motorist in a thousand could calculate from the engine note (and the engine note changes in fog) to within 50 per cent. of his speed if it be less than 30 or 35 m.p.h. So I would not accept that as being a method by which speed may be judged.
What can we do about this? What can we provide for the driver to look at? It all comes down to the speedometer. What is the speedometer? It is a circular dial with a light on it. You have to look down at it, and it dazzles you. There is another kind of speedometer which is arranged rather like a horizontal thermometer, where a tape creeps along from left to right and the calibrations are marked horizontally. I would like to see this kind of speedometer used, but that the glass in front of it should be coloured so that when the "mercury", so to speak, appeared, it would show whatever colour you like (say green) until the speed reached 20 m.p.h. then it would change, perhaps, to red or another inconspicuous colour; and, when the speed reached 30 m.p.h. the colour would become orange or white. This would have two effects: first, it would be easier for the driver to see, because the light would attract his attention whether or not he was looking directly at it. In fog, when it became white, it would dazzle the driver, and automatically he would slow down.

185
Regarding protection in the event of an accident, I want all vehicles to be fitted with low bumpers. There should be no projecting loads and no lorries without bumpers; so that a small car could not be driven under a big lorry with the roof of the car and the passenger's head being sliced off. To protect the occupants of a car we have to keep them in their seats; and the general object would be to prevent collisions between the human body and those portions of the car which might inflict damage. There are two ways to do this. First, you must try to keep a person in his seat. Up to a point this is already done by the use of seat belts. I see no reason why there should not be side pieces to each seat. The outer side pieces of the front seats could be fixed to the doors, and when closed the doors would hem in the driver on one side and the passenger on the other. In that position, and wearing a seat belt, they would stand more chance of staying in their seats if there were a collision.
The other way to prevent a collision between the occupant and portions of the car which might inflict damage on him is to remove such portions of the vehicle. First of all there is the dashboard or fascia. Why is it there? When cars were first invented a steering wheel was stuck on a column—or rather they first used a tiller, which I think might have been better—and then, in front of it, there was placed a piece of wood on which there were oil gauges and switches. They have remained in that position ever since. The dashboard may sometimes be padded. Various expedients have been thought up by the Road Research Laboratory and others, such as producing inflatable gas bags from underneath the dashboard and all kinds of things. But surely the proper thing to do is to take away the dashboard. It is not necessary. Everything that is put on it could be put somewhere else and the dashboard could be replaced by a quite ornamental cushion padded in the front and underneath. If possible, it should be placed nearer to the occupant of the car than is the present dashboard.
Coming back to the speedometer, this is the one instrument which it is necessary for the driver to have in front of him. If it is to be effective, it should be possible for the driver to see the speedometer without removing his gaze
186
from the road; so it must be high up and as near as possible in front of the driver. Ideally, it should be reflected in the windscreen; above all, it must not be in front of this new kind of dashboard, but should be as far away as possible. Again, ideally it should be embedded in the top of the scuttle and reflecting upwards. Then, whatever might happen to the driver, he would be unable to dash his head on the speedometer.
There are in the Report some statistics relating to the windscreen. It is stated that the majority of major injuries—which form some 41 per cent. of the total—are caused by pieces of glass being stuck into a person's head when it goes through the windscreen. As has been mentioned—although I forget which noble Lord mentioned it—laminated glass is more effective than toughened glass, but is three times as expensive to make. In my own car I should like to have a sheet of transparent plastic, rather larger than the windscreen and with a rubber frame, fitted inside the windscreen, with an inch and a half of space between them. This would have two effects. It would lessen the need for a demister, on the same principle that one sticks a demister on the rear window of the car; and secondly, if a passenger were to be thrown forward and dashed his head against the windscreen, the plastic sheet would come unstuck, and, when his head went through the windscreen, he would already be wearing a kind of plastic "helmet" provided by this inner windscreen and would not get glass in his head or in his eyes.
Above all please may we say goodbye to the steering column? This is a legacy of the very first motor-car, even of the first child's hobby-horse. Why is it there? Surely it could be done away with. Here is the Road Research Laboratory carrying out the most elaborate and expensive research to find out what is the best angle for the steering column. I must say that I part company with the Laboratory in the paragraph where it says:
"Though it has not yet been possible to determine an optimal loading for the chest, it has been established that for high-angle steering wheel and column assemblies one that yields at 6.2 kN"—
I do not know what that is, I must confess—
"is considerably less harmful to the chest than one that yields at 8.5 kN (Plate 9)."

187
The elaborate and expensive research that went into that must have been considerable, but I am in the happy position of being able to provide the R.R.L. with information here. I know what the optimum load for the chest is—it is nil, and it is achieved by doing away with the steering column. Not the steering wheel—that stays where it is, but it should be fixed on an arm that is horizontal, the end of which is attached to the car somewhere near the front edge of the driver's window. The connection between the wheel and the end of this arm may be, for all I know, a couple of cogwheels and a chain and from there on downwards it may be linked with the front wheels by hydraulic linking—but that is up to the designers. The column is now gone and there is no need for a dished wheel. There will be nothing dangerous to hit the driver. The middle of the steering wheel may be occupied by a leather pad or by a cushion, and the steering wheel becomes a protection rather than a danger. I have spoken long enough. Probably the most constructive suggestion of all was that put forward by my noble friend Lord Aberdeen in the litany he presented to us earlier this afternoon.
7.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am completely breathless from my noble friend's new inventions, but I do not intend to follow him technically, particularly in relation to a fifth wheel on the car. We all welcome this Motion. We are all, in this House, in Parliament and in the country, aware of the appalling accident rate. Various figures could be produced which would show that we were either better or worse than other countries, but from our point of view the figures are bad. Before continuing, I should like personally to pay tribute to the Road Research Laboratory. Last winter they put me through the night clear test, as a guinea pig, and I could not pay higher tribute to the arrangements they made for me.
I should like to start by dealing briefly with driver training. While not in any way wishing to criticise the examiners who pass drivers through their test, we are all aware that when the ordinary driver has just passed his test he is not a very experienced driver. I should like
188
to endorse what my noble friend Lord Somers has said in connection with a probationary period. I am a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists and to my knowledge the Institute endorse this idea, which has been adopted in Australia, Northern Ireland and in several other countries. It is very simple. If you have an "L" plate as a driver under training, you pass your test and then have a period of six months or a year as a probationary driver. In Northern Ireland, you turn the plate over and there is a "P" to indicate that though you have passed your test, you cannot take Daddy's Mark X Jaguar on to a motorway and do 120 m.p.h. I want to endorse most sincerely the point my noble friend Lord Somers made in connection with this probationary period.
When I was working in Canada I had to do three driving tests: first of all a reaction test, then a written test, and it was not until then, on a very snowy day, that I did my practical test. I understand that in this country staff-wise this is not possible. I think it is a great pity. In Canada you are not actually put on a motor car by the examiner until you have done a reaction test on something rather like a link trainer.
I should like to make one or two other suggestions, which I think have already been referred to. When I was at the Road Research Laboratory, they were testing a device for realigning the headlamp beams of vehicles according to the load carried. This is referred to in page 63 of their 1969 Report. This means that if you have a mini and put two sacks of coal on the back, your headlamp beams will tilt up two degrees, which means that as a driver you do not have such good vision and you are also dazzling somebody else. When I was there, it was indicated to me that the only people who were interested in this were one or two foreign motor manufacturers, and I should like to learn from the Government whether there is a possibility of incorporating such a safeguard in the regulations for motor manufacturers to be put into force later this year, as has been mentioned earlier. I saw this under test and it worked extremely well.
The Institute of Advanced Motorists has endorsed the suggestion of luminous strips on the backs of lorries, and the

189
suggestion that there should be regulations to enforce their use is excellent. My noble friend who has just sat down mentioned the subject of double braking lights. Whether that is reasonable or not, I do not know, but I should like to ask the Government to look at the question of whether the wattage of braking lights and tail lights on lorries and cars could be increased.
My last point is this. There is a comprehensive report by the Road Research Laboratory on air pollution by road traffic, No. LR352. It is an extremely interesting report, and as we are all concerned with the subject of pollution, I think that reference must be made to it. According to paragraph 82 of the report, we have legislation in this country, though I have not checked it, to deal with the emission of exhaust smoke, both diesel and internal combustion engine smoke. The figures given in the report of the number of vehicles observed and checked are dated 1965. Most of us who drive know that in the case of A roads, particularly those to and from Scotland the emission of diesel smoke is an immense hazard. I cannot comment on the health aspect, except that the smoke smells filthy, but on occasions I have been behind three lorries with incorrectly adjusted exhausts which have given off a smoke so dense that I could not see whether to overtake or not. I put that down as a safety factor, leaving out the subject matter of health because I am not competent to talk about that. Therefore I would be glad if the Minister who is winding up the debate could say whether there are any later figures regarding the enforcement of the law concerning the excessive emission of fumes.
7.30 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, the 20th speaker in a debate—especially when not on the list—is, by definition, extremely unpopular, and, accustomed as I am to unpopularity, I would not put myself in that position except that I am concerned at the very small representation of the Labour Benches in this debate. I should not like it to be thought that we were not deeply concerned with the problem which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. I therefore wish to say only two things. At the beginning of this debate we had some valuable statistics quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and we
190
were almost blinded by equally valuable statistics produced by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton.
I thought it might be useful if I put two of the figures into a slightly more dramatic form. The other day The Times reported the number of American soldiers who, from the beginning of 1961 to the end of last year, had been killed in the war in Vietnam. The figure was 53,000, plus a small unspecified addition. From the year 1961 to the end of 1969 (we do not have the figures to the end of last year) which is a one year shorter period, the number of persons killed on the roads in this country was 65,000. That is 12,000 more than all the American soldiers killed in Vietnam in a period which was one year shorter.
My second interpretation of the statistics is one that I have used before, and I am glad to say that this time when I use it it is slightly less depressing than it was before—but it is quite nasty enough. Your Lordships are accustomed occasionally, I have no doubt, to attend meetings, lectures or concerts in the Albert Hall. If you were to hire the Albert Hall and place in the hall the corpses from one year's road casualties, namely, the year 1969, the number of vacant seats would be one in 13.
7.33 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, when he opened this debate, stressed the importance of your Lordships' House as a forum for the discussion of a major social issue such as this one is. This is a cause very close to his heart, and he has instigated a number of debates in the past on this subject—always very interesting and agreeable occasions. May I say, as someone who is, once again, taking part in one of his debates, but from the other side of the looking glass, that this is equally interesting and stimulating—and perhaps more so. To-day's debate has been extremely interesting and valuable.
A debate in this House on a subject based upon the Road Research Laboratory's Annual Report is, in a sense, a compliment to that excellent organisation. It means that its work does not go ignored by Parliament. Those of us who visited the Laboratory—and I had the good fortune to do so officially

191
three or four years ago—will realise that it is a most lively and stimulating centre of intellectual excellence. It is not only national in its nature, but international. Those who have visited it will remember the interesting international collaboration on the collection of research on to computers—formerly on a Pegasus computer, and now on one of the latest I.C.L.s—which at the press of a button will give a printback on all research in this particular field. The noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, nods his head to this because he has had direct experience of working with this organisation. Noble Lords may not know this, but if things are as they were three years ago, any one of us may go there and take part in their traffic flow investigations, and get paid for it. I do not know whether the noble Earl was paid when he went there, but he should have been. This is a very interesting way of passing an afternoon. It is an excellent organisation, and its work should not be ignored by Parliament.
When we look at the problem of road safety, of course we are all in favour of safety and against carelessness and danger. The subject that really interests me is the reason why we somehow cannot take sufficiently seriously the danger that we face when we go on the roads. All of us are fatalists, and there is a large spectrum of ways of dying which we accept as normal: smoking cigarettes, getting killed in motor cars, and so on. But our reaction when an unusual way of dying occurs—such as the terrible accident at Ibrox Park—is to get very concerned. Yet my noble friend Lady Wootton has illustrated the point almost poetically in a tragic sense. Travelling on the road is much more dangerous than going to war. Let us face this point quite clearly. It is a tremendous killer, but we accept it. Therefore, taking this fatalistic view, what do we do about it? This is costing us a great deal of money. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, pointed out that the estimate is £320 million a year (if I have that correctly) and that is quite a few pennies on the income tax.
How should we tackle it? We can do so, as I see it, in three ways. First of all, there is the application of human intelligence to the problem, which is what the Road Research Laboratory is doing.
192
There is the better design of roads, and the motorway figures have been given. Also, there is the better design of vehicles; a general analysis of safety with regard to communication and the vehicles that travel on the roads. That is one way of approaching it. The second way is discipline. This has proved very successful. There is the drinking and driving legislation; the Traffic Safety Act. Proper vehicle testing is tremendously important.
Perhaps at this point it might be worth while to mention to the House the extremely important publication by Which? on the subject of the efficiency of the service stations which are supposed to check our vehicles. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, made a most interesting and informed speech on the subject. Unless the people who check our vehicles are doing the job competently, what can we do? We have to depend on those people, for most of us do not have the time, even if we could do the work, to get under the car and check it properly. The suggestion that garages and vehicle testing stations responsible for certifying vehicles as being safe should be licensed is one that appeals to me very much indeed.
As a final comment on the subject of discipline—which has had its effect—I was very much attracted by the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, drawing attention to the use of an "R" plate. Someone who has driven without care and attention would not suffer the penalty suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, of having the right to drive taken away from him, because that would lead to an alteration in a good deal of other legislation, but he should in fact have a dunce's cap put on him. For a limited period he would be banned from using a motorway, but that would not stop him from earning his living. However, it would make the business of travelling about on his everyday affairs more difficult and less pleasant. That proposal is eminently possible and sensible.
I should like to touch on a matter which is not a generally discussed subject, but is, nevertheless, dealt with in some depth at the Road Research Laboratory: that is, the psychology of bad driving. Why on earth are we so silly? I speak with humility for reasons that I

193
will give in a minute. Why is the human race so silly about its own safety?
"Lord, what fools we mortals be!"
It is, as I said earlier, partly fatalism and partly laziness.
May I first turn to the question of laziness? When I buy a motor car I always say to the supplier, "Fit a seat belt". But do I ever put it on? No—simply because I am in a hurry or I am going only half a mile, or at any rate because it is uncomfortable. Nevertheless, the whole evidence of this publication is that the safety belt, if worn, is a life saver and injury saver and therefore a saver of money. The cost to the nation of a bad injury is £10,000. I would commend to the Government the work that has been done on the safety belt mentioned in this particular study: a transverse belt fitted from the centre of the car to the door, which is automatically put in position when the driver steps into the car and sits down. If you tell a driver that he must put on a safety belt when he drives, he just will not do it—it is like prohibition in the United States. We are a cussed lot! But if you are as lazy as I am, and as you got into the car and sat down the belt came across you, then it would be accepted; I would accept it. This design has one additional virtue in that it keeps the door shut in a crash, because you are thrown against the belt which pulls the door to; you are not thrown out into the road by the door bursting open. So I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that this is a field of existing research that is well worth additional study.
If we are talking about the psychology of driving, it is worth studying why we have been able to succeed in getting motor-cyclists to wear crash helmets. With the cussedness of the human race, normally if we went out and told young people not to do something, they would promptly go and do it. Yet, by some psychological magic, we have got our young people to ride about in crash helmets. It may be that they look like space-age men; I do not know. Nevertheless, this particular field of propaganda—and it is nothing else—has been successful.
At this point it might be worth while quoting a Treasury statistic, which was given at one of their schools and illustrates the cost of all this. The Treasury has made a calculation which shows that, whenever a young man bought a Vespa-
194
type motor-scooter, it would be worth the Government's while persuading him to give it up and providing him with a Mini Minor instead. It would be far cheaper for the nation if every motor-scooter bought was substituted by a Mini Minor bought by the Government, because £10,000 is the cost of a major accident. These young people bash their heads into stone walls and cost the nation something like £10,000 each. It is a fascinating thought, if a rather frightening one.
The next point to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention was, I believe, mentioned by another noble Lord in the debate—I believe it was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, once again. It concerns the question of reaction testing before one actually obtains a driving licence. Page 53 of the Report deals with driver behaviour. It contains a very head-shrinking paragraph about various types of driver: the safe driver, the injudicious driver, the dissociated active driver (he is the real threat) and the dissociated passive one, who is equally frightening—he is the chap who drives at 30 m.p.h. up the middle of a motorway. These particular driving types can in fact be spotted by psychological tests. Just as the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, has suggested one might take reaction tests when applying for a driving licence, perhaps these various psychological tests might also be taken in a simplified form because they might indicate where a specific weakness in an individual's driving capacity lay.
One of the consoling factors in this connection is that particular weaknesses can be trained out of the individual. He does not have to continue in his ways. He can take training which checks a psychological blank. This, again, could be applied at the same time to sight. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, mentioned eyesight tests. There is "tunnel" vision, which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, mentioned, and changing eyesight, which the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, mentioned. These could be easily checked. Expensive experts are not needed. I am certain that very simple tests could be devised which would immediately show up this type of physiological weakness which is a hazard in driving.

195
I have one final point to make on this question of psychological or physiological testing, or factors, in road safety. This is not a subject usually touched on. It is the question of the colour of motor cars. This is a factor which has been recognised. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, mentioned the fact that we are now going to paint the back of lorries with fluorescent paint. But in fact the colour of cars affects one's ability to spot them in bad visibility and particularly at high speed. A table on page 58 deals with this. At this moment I feel rather like Mr. Henry Ford, in saying, "You may have any colour you like so long as it is fluorescent yellow/orange." There are about four colours specified which substantially increase the visibility of a motor car. They are fluorescent colours, Kilimanjaro white (I do not know why not Fujiyama white), and lemon yellow. These are colours which in fact increase visibility greatly, and it might be considered worth while to prevent black cars and dark blue cars from being sold, because they are the cars which are almost invisible under conditions of dawn, dusk and fog.
My Lords, that is all I have to contribute to your Lordships' debate, except once again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for instituting the debate, and to congratulate your Lordships on producing such an interesting, factual and concise series of speeches. We are running well ahead of my time schedule. The Road Research Laboratory will agree that perhaps we have thrown out a number of ideas to-day which could even be of use to them. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, designed his perfect motor car and a lot of the features in it were not quite so "way out" as he seemed to think they were. Some of these factors might be introduced within the next five years.
7.48 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, Lord Ferrier, and to all other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I hasten to say that, so far from being unpopular, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, always enhances every debate in
196
which she takes part; but she is very unpopular with me because she has used precisely the illustrations with which I was going to begin my own remarks. Very many valuable contributions have been made and they will all be considered carefully. They are particularly welcome because at the moment, a number of specific steps, as in the field of drink and driving, having been taken, a far-reaching and wide-ranging review is now taking place; and the comments and suggestions which have been made in this debate will for that reason be all the more timely and welcome.
The background, of course, must be the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, drew our attention: the fact that on our roads we kill more people than the Americans lost, killed, on the battlefield of Vietnam. This situation is continuing. In fact the trend is for the numbers to increase as the traffic increases: 15 million cars by 1974, about 11 million now; and the proportion of accidents to car occupants is also, alas! expected to increase on present trends. One favourable point that should perhaps be made clear is that now and for some little time past the road programme is expanding faster (8 per cent.) than the traffic (5 per cent.).
We have also to face the fact now that many of the easy, cheap, obvious things have been done. There are few quick, cheap, easy answers left. For that reason I am grateful to all those noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, in particular—and of course the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who has made the Report of the Road Research Laboratory the peg on which to hang this debate—and also, from his more recent experience, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, who have paid tribute to the Road Research Laboratory. It is vital now that all our policies, both overall and in their separate parts, should be supported by research.
I should like to spend a little time illustrating how effectively the Laboratory can work by virtue of its being now all on one campus, down at Crowthorne. To take two particular instances, I would point out that several noble Lords mentioned tyres and tyre treads. The first piece of research which the Laboratory

197
did showed that in skidding accidents at the kind of speeds at which most of us are able to drive, the tread of the tyre is more important than the surface of the road. Having established that, the Laboratory then established the further point that for practical purposes the minimum depth of tread after which tyres were no longer safe was 1 millimetre. That minimum has been established by regulation. Now the problem is that the police are finding it rather difficult to enforce. The staff at the Laboratory are looking into ways in which it can be made easier to enforce, and have come up with a suggestion which is now being considered, that when the depth of the tread reaches 1 millimetre a red mark should begin to appear. The question now arises as to whether that can be incorporated into tyres commercially. No laboratory working on less comprehensive lines than our Road Research Laboratory could have undertaken all that research on the same campus.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I would advise your Lordships that there is at least one leading United Kingdom tyre manufacturer who does include at 1·6 millimetres a warning strip at six places on the cover. So this kind of thing is quite possible.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am glad to have confirmation of that.
May I now give a further indication of the wide range of work that the Laboratory is able to undertake by virtue of the comprehensive nature of its resources? In 1967, before the publication of the previous Government White Paper, Road Safety—A Fresh Approach, it estimated that the full potentiality of seat belts for the saving of life and limb was of the order of the prevention of 43,000 fatal and serious casualties. Seventy per cent. of all the casualties occurred to people sitting on the front seats of the cars. But in fact at that time they were saving only 3,500 front seat casualties—only one tenth of the full potentiality had been developed. It was therefore clearly a valuable act of policy to insist on the compulsory fitting of seat belts.
In 1967 40 per cent. of the people who had seat belts were using them. We are now in a position where seat belts are compulsory. Two-thirds of the cars on
198
the roads have them, so that percentage is increasing; but now only a quarter of the people who have seat belts are using them. Therefore the policy now shifts from the compulsory fitting of seat belts to new cars to the kind of seat belt about which the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, spoke; namely, one so designed that one cannot get into the car and drive it without properly wearing the seat belt. There are further refinements of that, such as having the ignition circuit going through the clip of the safety belt. I mention that only to illustrate the value of a widely based research laboratory. It is most appropriate that a tribute should be paid to it during this debate.
I now turn to the rest of my speech, which covers three main topics: the roads, the vehicles and the people who use them. I apologise for not being able to deal with every point that has been raised. I think if I attempted to do so my apologies would have to be all the greater. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, gave a clear instance of the kind of safety considerations which are so well worth while attending to in the example she gave of the dangers of a section of the A.1 with which she is particularly familiar. I will not now go into that matter in detail, but I will write to the noble Baroness about it, because obviously she is concerned. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked me a question about our present policy in connection with the central reservation crash barriers on the motorways. It is our policy to see that 80 per cent. of the whole motorway system, amounting to about 1,000 miles, is so equipped by 1975. The noble Lord, Lord Gray, asked about school patrols and the crossings. It is now policy to arrange for flashing amber lights to be switched on when the school patrol is in use. This is not yet applied extensively over the whole country, but it is the policy.
I turn from particular points raised by noble Lords to the road programme in general and its effect on road safety. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, was the first person to mention this and he invited the Department of the Environment to get interested in Scotland and Wales. I am in a position to-day to answer for my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland, but the Department of the

199
Environment normally would hesitate to stray into either Scotland or Wales. I will write to the noble Lord about the particular question he raised.
Roads and their good design make a major contribution to safety. The safety record of the motorways is good—less than a third of the total number of accidents, comparing traffic with traffic, means that they are three times safer than the class A rural roads. Therefore, where the traffic demands a motorway it is good sense not only from many other points of view but also from the point of view of safety, to provide those motorways. At present there are 700 miles in use, 290 under construction and 520 more miles in preparation. The great achievement of the motorway is segregation, and the whole question of interference with pedestrians, cyclists, people coming into the traffic system unexpectedly, is taken care of.
The amount being spent on new construction and major improvements in great Britain is planned to rise from the current £400 million to well over £500 million by 1974–75. That is an average annual increase of 8 per cent., and the road programme, as I said, has for some years been growing faster than traffic. I think it is wrong to over-emphasise the problems of the motorways and the effect that they can have on accident prevention and casualty reduction, because in fact only 1 per cent. of the fatal and serious accidents happen on motorways. Because they are so safe it is a good thing to press on with their construction, but it is as well to bear in mind that in further measures to reduce accidents and casualties on motorways we are dealing with only 1 per cent. of the total casualties and therefore the scope there is not very great.
Road accidents predominantly occur in the urban areas, where 70 per cent. of all casualties occur and 90 per cent. of all pedestrian casualties. I can assure noble Lords that the urban roads will take an increasingly large proportion of the total expenditure on roads, for this reason, between now and 1974–75, and we plan for an urban programme which will grow about 10½ per cent. per annum. I can also assure the four noble Lords from East Anglia, who seemed very well organised, that they will get their proper
200
share of that increasing road programme. The minor improvement schemes, too, can also show an important dividend in safety if they are based on a careful and systematic study of the local accident problem, and this is why it is so important for the local authorities, assisted by the road safety units, to study accidents in a sophisticated, professional and systematic manner.
In the longer term, we hope that as town redevelopment schemes gather way it will be possible to reduce the pedestrian/vehicle conflict, which is such a major source of accidents and casualties, as well as providing for traffic to flow more smoothly and safely—and in that connection pedestrian precincts are a considerable boon. Where pedestrians and traffic cannot be separated and never will be separated, it may be necessary for pedestrians to accept a greater measure of discipline.
My noble friend Lord Howe raised the question of speed limits. Noble Lords will have seen in the Press recently the proposals being made by the G.L.C. for a review of their roads and the speed limits on them, and this is a process which will be continuing and gathering way all over the country.
I should like now to turn to vehicles. The first thing I would say is how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for the very thoughtful and comprehensive set of suggestions he made about vehicle testing and maintenance and repair across the whole field, and the whole of that will be studied with the greatest interest. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, was, of course, perfectly right to mention seat belts as the biggest single life-saving and limb-saving feature in the field of new design in vehicles, and I hope that what I said by way of illustration will deal with that adequately.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, asked me about glass, toughened versus laminated. Until fairly recently the toughened glass had seemed to have the edge, because of the combination of much greater cheapness with the fact that research had shown that it led to less injury to people being cut by glass when thrown into the windscreen as the result of a serious accident; but, as he pointed out, the fact is that there has been an advance in the design of the windscreen

201
with laminated glass, and the relative merits of the two is something the Laboratory is now looking into with the greatest care.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, asked me two questions, one about fumes and one about headlamps. I can assure him that the possibility of automatically adjusted headlamps is something which the Laboratory are looking into closely at the moment, but we have not reached the position of being able to assess whether the benefits there would justify making the fitting of these headlamps compulsory. It may well be so. On the question of fumes, I can say that proposals are already published to make the British Standard on smoke from diesel-engined vehicles compulsory for new vehicles and to require new petrol-engined vehicles to be fitted with a device to prevent the escape of fumes from the crank case. I am not sure which kind of fumes the noble Earl had in mind, but both are being dealt with, and the Secretary of State is considering whether these particular actions are going to suffice or whether something further will be needed.
Several noble Lords touched on the question of the lighting and marking of vehicles, and perhaps I could deal with them collectively. I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, may not have been aware, though I think other noble Lords were, that regulations have already been made, which will come into effect on November I this year, for the fitting of luminous strips on the backs of lorries, and that, we think, on the evidence so far, is the biggest single step we can take to reduce the casualties caused by the under-running of lorries when parked or going slowly. Other questions about rear lights were raised, and the position is that on brake lights there will be a requirement as from 1973 for dual-intensity brake lights to be fitted; high intensity may be used in daytime in conjunction with the fog lamp. On tail lights, dual-intensity is not desirable or justified as a compulsory measure at the moment.
There is the further question of reflective number plates, already widely fitted on new vehicles. The Department is considering the case for making them compulsory. Perhaps in that connection I could mention that another possibility is the rear guards which many manufacturers are already fitting on lorries to
202
physically prevent the under-running, but whether they should be made standard and compulsory is another factor that is being considered at the moment.
LORD STRATHCARRON: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point, may I ask about the lights down the side of lorries, to which I referred? There is a very great danger of lorries being entirely invisible when pulling out of side roads unless their length is shown by lights down the side.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I did not mention, because I think my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton mentioned it in opening, that a pair of amber lights halfway down the side of lorries of more than a certain length is already prescribed. Whether we should go further and have the Christmas tree effect that I believe is current in the United States is the next thing we have to consider.
Turning to the people who use the roads and their behaviour, perhaps some of the most intractable part of the whole problem, two noble Lords—I think the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and my noble friend Lord Somers—made some very valuable suggestions and asked some questions about medical tests and optical tests. The fact is that at the moment the evidence that the Laboratory has is that in not more than 1 per cent. of the accidents that have been analysed can the occurrence be traced directly to an optical or medical deficiency, and although what they were saying does not lose all its validity by any means as a result of that finding, it does mean that compared to some of these other things, like the effect of seat belts, it does not deserve quite the same priority.
The noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, and the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, both went very properly into the depth of human personality. The quotation of the "driver's litany" serves to remind us that the real source of the trouble lies right down in the depths of human personality. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, used the words "our cussedness", and that is another way of describing what the theologians call the "fall". We are in fact dealing with the kind of thing which St. Paul was grap, piing with; namely, we know perfectly well what to do, but we do not do it, and we know the things which we ought

203
not to do, but we do them. Until we have found a satisfactory way of changing behaviour of that kind, we shall be faced with a whole range of problems which perhaps all these other measures are only tinkering with and containing.
The test, for instance, is a test of driving skill and driving ability and, as such, is a valuable thing. What is much more difficult to deal with—though heaven knows the Laboratory are spending plenty of time and effort in researching into it—is how to assess and grapple with the general behaviour and attitude of the driver. This is a thing we want to do in all sorts of fields of life, but in particular on the roads, and in driving the question is how can behaviour and attitudes be assessed. If they are found to be defective or dangerous in any way, how can they be changed for the better, and how can the fact that they have been changed permanently for the better be tested?
There are one or two places in the world (I believe notably the State of Victoria in Australia) where there is some sort of dual test; first of driving ability, and then subsequently of experience, behaviour and attitude. Although this has been going on for some years, in our view it has not yet thrown up anything which would enable us to change, with any certainty of improvement, the existing arrangements for conducting the driving test. I was attracted, as I think many other noble Lords were, by the suggestion which first came from the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, about two-stage testing of some kind or another, and perhaps the use of simulators at an early stage. The evidence from the Laboratory so far is that use of a simulator does not show any clear and positive gain over the existing procedure, but research is continuing.
I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made the most constructive and practical suggestions which we can contemplate for the moment namely, those concerning the whole field of preparation of young children for moving about in traffic, the training of drivers, and so on. Perhaps in that connection I could say that a manual has now been prepared for use by teachers to show them the most effective way in which to teach driving, and
204
the most effective way in which to integrate it with the school curriculum. If I may go into that in a little more detail (because I think it would be of interest to several other noble Lords besides the noble Earl), the position is now that road safety education of one sort or another is going on in 10 per cent. of our secondary schools—that includes pre-driver and driver training—and the manual is available. Further research on the results of using it is being undertaken at the University of Salford, and this will give us a clearer idea of how to achieve the best results in this particular field.
I hope that I have dealt with a fair number of the points that were raised. I am very conscious that I have not dealt with all of them. I will write to the noble Lords and to the noble Baroness, as I undertook to do. If there are other noble Lords who feel that I have not dealt with all the points or questions they have asked, and they would like me to write to them, I hope they will ask me and I will try to make good any deficiencies in the reply that I am making now.
I should like to end by saying that I am sure we are all most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for having initiated this debate. I am glad that he hung it on the Annual Report of the Road Research Laboratory, because I think the £3 million we spend there is among the best spent of all the taxpayers' money. As he rightly reminded us at the beginning, in proportion to the density of traffic on our roads we are, thank God! one of the safest countries in Europe in which to drive; but we are nothing like safe enough, and the carnage described so vividly, and put into perspective so vividly, by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, is none the less appalling for having become routine. Every effort at the right points on the widest front, guided by the best possible scientific research and by informed public debate, must continue.
8.17 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I am gratified because I feel that this has been a useful debate. More than that, I am quite moved that apparently the House thinks so, too. All the more do I thank those noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and produced this huge range

205
of angles of vision on the problem. I have heard nearly all the speeches, and I apologise to such noble Lords as I was not able to hear. I propose to mention just one or two things, mainly credits, which I feel will just round off the debate. I do not think they have been mentioned. First of all, I remember well the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, speaking from this side of the House some two years ago, when we were all rather beastly about the Highway Code because it was presented without really having been discussed. Something that the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Teviot, said, reminded me that from this side of the House he said, "All right, my Lords, next time we produce a Highway Code we will put out a Green Paper and we will discuss it first". I only express the suggestion now that the noble Lord's adversary from this side of the House might carry on that tradition, because I honestly believe, based on a debate such as we have had tonight, that we can make a contribution and prevent ultimate trouble over some of the Papers and, legislation.
One interesting factor which has not emerged is that one of the Scottish branches of the Road Research Laboratory which I visited the other day, is making a great contribution to the environment by concentrating its studies on the use of spoil from bing and coal wastes in the construction of highways.
I have been asked by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chester, to apologise for his not being able to be here. As President of the Pedestrians' Association, he nearly always takes part in these debates, but he had an engagement in Chester which he could not miss. He sent his good wishes for the debate. I think they have been amply fulfilled. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, spoke about the multiplicity of signs and lights. Is it possible that flashing lights should be warnings and fixed lights should be commands?
That brings me to the question of level crossings, which has not been mentioned. The Road Research Laboratory mention the problem in their Report, and a number of my correspondents have asked, "Why on earth at level crossings do we not have red, amber and green, and not these wretched flashing lights?" Certainly, at one level crossing of which I
206
know the lights are most dangerous, because the crossing is on a main line and the through trains run at 90 m.p.h. while the coal trains run at 20 m.p.h. Another point which has not been mentioned is the bevelling of kerbstones in highway construction. That has not been mentioned in the Report, but it is something which ought to be borne in mind.
One credit which has not been given is a credit to medical research and to the doctors and hospitals, for the part they have played in reducing the incidence of fatalities and in patching-up poor, shattered people. I mention that matter because of the question by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, about the comparison of figures with those for 1934. The comparison does not make sense, because of the advance in medical science. Antibiotics, sulpha drugs, anaesthetics, the advance of surgery and so on, have all produced changes which mean that the figure of fatalities is not compatable with that for 1934.
I hope that the fears which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, expressed about the dangers of introducing advanced braking systems will not delay the introduction of that marvellous invention, but one hopes that its price will go down. I am old enough to remember the days when four-wheel brakes were introduced. In those days I never had a car with four-wheel brakes; but if you did have one you had to have a red triangle on the back. Of course the density of traffic is much greater to-day, but the advantages of the non-locking wheel will outweigh the difficulties which the noble Earl mentioned.
I was greatly interested in the most thoughtful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gray. I had occasion to hear about a school at which the gates were shut during the dark mornings, and the effect of a Question for Written Answer in your Lordships' House was absolutely miraculous. The gates were opened within 48 hours of the publication of the Question, before it had even been answered. Everybody has spoken about the need for additional police, which is an answer to the problem. But I can only repeat what has been said by the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that what matters is driver

207
behaviour and consideration for others. The lack of Christian charity is the main cause of fatalities and accidents on the roads. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past eight o'clock.