On a point of order, Sir Eric. Would you be good enough to indicate which Amendments you have selected and also whether you have selected the new Clause dealing with regulations?

I have selected Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2 which is consequential upon it. The new Clause is out of order.

While, of course, I accept your Ruling, Sir Eric, I understand there is a feeling that the new Clause would be within the intentions of the Bill. It refers to skips for the use of demolition material which are part of a vehicle and are left lying without lighting in the road. I had the feeling that this would be within the intention of the Bill.

The fact remains that the new Clause as drafted refers to objects which are not vehicles, and therefore it is outside the scope of the Bill. I am afraid, therefore, that it cannot be called. Mr. Mawby.

I apologise in advance for anything I may say as a result of the Monday morning feeling. Having to catch a night train to get here is not the best way to start the week. I beg to move,—

Order. I apologise. Before I call the hon. Gentleman for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) to move Amendment No. 1 we must deal with Clause 1.

I am taken a little by surprise, Sir Eric. Perhaps I am even more Monday morningish than other hon. Members.

Many hon. Members have had correspondence from people who are in business in the manufacture of equipment. They understand that reflecting material is already in use on the highways and they suggest that the Clause is therefore unnecessary. They say that the intentions of the Bill—and we all support them—are already allowed for because the sort of equipment involved has already been in use for some time. There is a feeling among these people that those who have pioneered such equipment are at a disadvantage. They are anxious about it and wonder whether it is necessary to have legislation of this kind.

This aspect has come to light in correspondence since Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) brought it to my attention last week. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary could indicate whether the equipment already being used—which is a phosphorescent type of lighting number plate, I understand—is now without the law and would be made within the law by this Bill. If that is not the case, perhaps he can tell us whether it is already perfectly legal—in which case, is there need for this legislation?

We all want to help this Bill through, but there are points about which we should be careful, and certainly one of them is whether it is necessary to legislate if equipment of this type is already perfectly adequate and allowable. There is a considerable school of thought which holds the view that the best Parliament is one that legislates as little as possible. It may not be necessary to legislate in this case.

Perhaps it would be convenient to put a few general points about reflective material referred to in the Bill and perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will try to clear them up. I understand that the object of Clause 1 is to authorise reflective material to be used in a number of new ways on vehicles—for instance on number plates. If Clause 1 goes through, number plates would be one of the things which would be capable of being put in reflective form.

One or two points have been put to me about reflective material. The first is that it will definitely be more expensive than the ordinary way of making number plates and other reflectors for vehicles, and that point should be cleared up by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Secondly, the glass beads which make up the reflective material will have to be imported from America. This will require a certain amount of dollar expenditure which is not required at the present time in the manufacture of number plates and other accessories for motor vehicles.

Those are two serious points which will arise when this Bill and the regulations made under it come into operation.

I might perhaps go on a stage further, although it may be more apt under Clause 2, and you will stop me, Sir Eric, if it is.

I think that it would be better for the hon. Member to reserve his observations on Clause 2 and the regulations until we come to Clause 2.

My point is specifically in relation to number plates, and I take it that will come under the regulations which will be made under Clause 2.

I will just throw those two points into the arena for the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us about: that here is a new form of reflective material being introduced which will be more expensive and will require imports from America which will require dollars. The Parliamentary Secretary ought seriously to consider those points and tell us why it is necessary.

It is a pity that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) was not here on Second Reading when those two points were specifically dealt with. On the question of expense, I would refer him to Section 7 of the Road Research Laboratory Report (No. 44), published in January, for the third time:

"Cost of reflectorising. Ordinary registration plates are sold by the manufacturers to garages at a cost of £2 per pair and upwards and fitted to cars by garages at a cost of around £3 10s. It is estimated after consulting with the firm making plates of the type used in the experiment that the price would be about £2 for a pair."

I said on 31st May that they might be a little more. I was exaggerating the claim of the Road Research Laboratory. Even if that were so, it would be a nominal increase and still a price which would be well worth paying in order to save life.

Whether imports would be required from America seriously concerned me. I took the matter up immediately with a number of the companies concerned and discovered that these beads could be obtained from Germany and that there would be no dollars involved in this transaction.

It would still require foreign exchange.

But it would not be in dollars. The hon. Member specifically mentioned that it would be necessary to import from America, but I am told that they could be obtained from Germany.

Those two points are adequately dealt with. The object of Clause 1 is to make it clear that a reflectorised number plate, or any kind of reflective material, is not so much a form of light but a form of warning of danger or hazard. The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary on 31st May made that perfectly clear.

On Second Reading the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that if his right hon. Friend had those powers Orders would be introduced so that this type of number plate could be brought into general permissive use before the dark nights came on. He spoke of colours other than red being used at the rear of motor vehicles, but did not indicate whether his Department had had any particular thoughts on the type of colour that would be available at one end of the car as against the other.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) suggested that the Road Lighting Working Party had suggested that black and amber were the most effective colours at the rear of a motor vehicle and black and white at the front. I have had a pair of reflective number plates on my car, one black and white and the other black and amber. Could the Parliamentary Secretary give any indication of which end of the vehicle they should be placed?

I was not present on Second Reading. However, I would like to testify that these reflective number plates are extremely effective—much more effective than those in normal use. I have seen them demonstrated and there is no doubt that they are a very useful improvement. Every effort should be made to get out of the present difficulty about showing a light to the rear. The Bill does that and we all ought to welcome it.

I had hoped that I had explained this position on Second Reading, but let me make it absolutely clear. In this Clause we are only dealing with the definition in law. The title of the Bill begins,

"A Bill to resolve doubts as to the application of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957 …."

and this Clause begins:

"It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt …."

Doubt has been expressed about whether new types of material which have been developed as a form of reflector can be held in law under the 1957 Act as showing a light when they are reflecting light. The Minister has been advised that they would be so held, and hon. Gentlemen acquainted with the law will know that today the use of any such material on the rear of a vehicle, other than red, would therefore be unlawful. I am not declaring what the law is; that is a matter for the courts. However, that is the advice given to my right hon. Friend. Therefore, anybody using reflective material on the rear of a vehicle, other than red, would be committing an unlawful act.

We want to resolve the doubt on this point, and the purpose of the Clause is to differentiate between those materials designed to act as reflective materials and other materials that may be on the rear, or any other part, of the vehicle which, because of their polished surface, have the quality of reflecting. We want to get the definition clear, and we shall then pass on to discuss how and to what extent we should allow other reflective materials to be used on various parts of motor vehicles. I hope that makes the position clear.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary confirm what his hon. Friend said about expense and the imports necessary?

The Clause deals with the definition in law. It has nothing to do with the use of reflective materials. The purpose of the Clause is simply to clarify and get rid of doubt. We shall then pass on to consider the question of the circumstances, cost and things of that kind.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end to add

'and

(c) provision requiring reflective material of specified size to be fitted on each side of vehicles exceeding 18 feet in length and all articulated vehicles'

I am sorry that I jumped the gun, Sir Eric. On Second Reading, I referred to a type of vehicle to which I hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary would give careful consideration. I said:

"There is no requirement under the law to show a light on the side or even to have a reflective material for use when a long vehicle is turning. This has led to accidents. I hope that the Minister, in making orders under the Bill, will take into account the long articulated vehicle and require a reflective material at some point along the side of the vehicle."

The Minister showed that he was sympathetic and said:

"The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) mentioned the importance of distinctive markings on lorries. I should like to emphasise this. I hope that the Bill will make a contribution by enabling my right hon. Friend to make further regulations about this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st May, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 10–26.]

That shows that the Minister and I were at one on this matter, and I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman meant exactly what he then said.

However, since then I have studied the Bill closely and I doubt whether Clause 2 gives the Minister sufficient power to require that certain vehicles should have reflectorised materials on their sides. I am not an expert, and I may be wrong about that, but that is the reason for my Amendment. I have also drafted an Amendment to the Long Title so as to make the Bill wide enough to permit the Minister to have these powers. That Amendment is in line 5, after 'vehicles' to insert:

'and to impose requirements with respect to reflective material in the case of certain vehicles'.

The Parliamentary Secretary may have been able to take advice since these Amendments appeared on the Amendment Paper and he may be able to satisfy me that the Clause enables him fully to implement his promise on Second Read- ing, in which case, of course, I should not press the Amendment. However, he may feel that some change is required.

I am not a Parliamentary draftsman and I am not prepared to go to the stake on the wording of the Amendment, but if the Parliamentary Secretary feels that there are not sufficiently wide powers, I hope that he will accept the principle of the Amendment, which will help everyone concerned and make sure that his promise can be fully implemented by Regulations. Since putting down the Amendment a number of matters have come to my attention. For instance, because the Amendment would apply to vehicles more than 18 ft. in length, it would obviously include buses and coaches which are normally lighted and which therefore do not present the same danger as goods vehicles. Naturally, it would be wrong to attempt to tie the Minister to too much detail.

Those are my main arguments for the Amendment and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that I have moved it with good intentions and that I hope to hear either that the Clause provides all the power needed, or that he will accept the principle of the Amendment.

It may be convenient if I say straight away that the Minister has all the powers necessary to achieve this object. We are now engaged in considering draft regulations to amend Regulations 28 and 29 of the Road Vehicles (Lighting Regulations), 1964, specifically to provide for more effective side lighting of long vehicles. I can assure the Committee that in our discussions with the trade my right hon. Friend will take into consideration the possibility of using reflective materials, but it is quite clear that no additional powers are required in this respect if my right hon. Friend wishes to include reflective material among those to be used for the side marking of vehicles.

When does the hon. Gentleman expect a decision to be made and action to be taken on this matter?

I said that we have draft Regulations, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we go through a certain period of consultation with the trade. We have been considering the 1964 Regulations and it is hoped that in a very short time my right hon. Friend will be able to make an announcement about what we regard as an important matter.

I am glad to hear that Regulations dealing with this matter are being considered. I added my name to the Amendment assuming that it would not apply to passenger vehicles, which in any case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) said, normally have inside lighting which makes them visible when turning. However, long vehicles, particularly articulated vehicles, when making a turn to the left in the dark can be very dangerous. Military vehicles already have lights on their sides.

However, there is a matter to which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will pay attention when the Regulations are being considered. This rule is already followed in Sweden, and the Common Market countries have regulations which are recommended although not yet officially approved. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will bear those European regulations in mind when drawing up his own, because it would he convenient if the two sets of regulations could be kept in line because of the greater number of vehicles travelling between the Continent and this country on roll-on, roll-off ferries and so on, and if we have a Channel Tunnel the number will be even greater.

I added my name to the Amendment because I thought that the issue needed clarification, and we are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for saying that the position is fairly clear.

However, there are one or two things which must be said, because the public is not fully aware of the present danger. When I was at school, although not a great scientist, I learned the rudiments of heat, light and sound, and one of the things I learned about light was that nothing had any colour in the dark. It is only when it is lighted up that it has colour. A white object reflects much more than a black object. That is why people in hot countries are apt to wear light clothes. Exactly the same applies to vehicles. A great dark black lorry does not reflect very much light, even when seen in good headlights.

This was brought home to me quite recently when a large and very dirty lorry was parked on the side of a country road and when, although I have extremely good brakes on my car and was travelling at a reasonable pace, I almost drove into the back of the lorry because I had not picked it up in my lights. In exactly the same way, an articulated lorry was once turning to the left in front of me. At the moment of turn its rear lights were at right angles to the road and I did not see the lorry until within a few inches of it.

It should not just be permissible to put reflective signs on the side of a long lorry and particularly an articulated lorry. Such a rule should be compulsory. Although the Amendment may not be necessary, it has helped to clarify the position.

I would like to support what has been said by my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite about articulated lorries and lighting on the sides of lorries. The hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary may remember that there was a bad accident in Birdcage Walk about two years ago when a car struck a lorry which was turning into Wellington Barracks late at night. I believe that the driver of the car was killed. There has been a reluctance on the part of lorry owners to put either lights or reflective material on the sides of lorries, and I suppose this is understandable because of the expense.

Anyone who has driven in France at night will know that most lorries are festooned with lights, let alone reflective material, and they can be seen a long way off. There is no danger of mistaking blank space for a lorry. Urgent consideration should be given to this. There is no reason why we should not be as good as the French and why we should not avoid these accidents which occur through lorries not having proper lights.

I would add my thanks to those of my hon. Friends for what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said. I am glad that there are powers in present legislation to make regulations. When will they be ready and when will we have a chance of seeing them? Will it be before the House rises for the Summer Recess because, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows very well, if we do not debate them we return to a lighting-up time which is much longer. It is not so urgent during the summer, but we will not have a chance to deliberate upon this until the autumn and early winter.

I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell me that the regulations will be laid before the House rises. Can he give us any indication of what progress he has made, and whether these regulations have been to the National Road Safety Advisory Council and whether it has expressed a view? It will be helpful to the Committee to know this. I am glad that the information should be a little more favourable than it looked on 31st May. The Committee owes my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) a debt.

Both of us raised this point then, and it appeared to me then that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was trying to say, "Let us get through this limited Measure first." Now we know, as a result of what he has told us, that there are existing powers. I suppose that if he had been able to tell us this—maybe he was not in a position to do so—it would have saved my hon. Friend coming up all the way from the country in order to move his Amendment and have avoided a Monday morning, for which he has all my sympathy.

This matter requires urgency, and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can tell us that these Regulations will be introduced before the House rises in order that they may be enforced in advance of the dark nights. What has been done in this Bill is most important and useful, but it is not half as urgent as the point raised by my hon. Friend in his Amendment, nor as the point that I have made in my new Clause, which is not in order. Both of these are more urgent matters, and I trust that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us a progress report on what we consider to be more urgent than the main intentions of the Bill.

I do not know how far I am permitted to go in discussing something that is not in the Bill. I shall be very sorry if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) feels that his journey was not really necessary. I regret that, but knowing his keen interest in the Bill I suspect that he would have made the journey in any case. I am glad to have been able to clarify the position, and I would emphasise that the Minister will make regulations obliging the use of certain types of side-lighting. In reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson), we will take into account the point he raised about uniformity with Europe.

It is because we are involved continually in international discussions, designed to bring about a desirable standardisation especially in Europe—because of the interchange of transport—that many regulations are being held up. We shall endeavour to make new regulations about the side-lighting of vehicles as rapidly as we can, I hope in advance of the winter.

I believe that I said on Second Reading, in respect of regulations to be made under this Bill, if Parliament approves it, that my right hon. Friend is quite determined that the regulations should be made before the winter months. If these powers are granted, we shall certainly proceed as rapidly as possible, but I trust that the hon. Member for Totnes will withdraw this Amendment since these powers already exist.

Let me make it clear that I do not begrudge coming here this morning for this Bill—what I do begrudge is coming up here because this Bill was put on for this morning sitting when I believe that it involves more country Members than town Members. Some consideration should have been given by the Lord President of the Council to that fact. I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said and for having drawn my attention to the fact that there are powers in present legislation. He has assured us that that power is there, and has gone even further and stated that the Minister will not drag her feet in bringing regulations into force.

I hope that he will not take it amiss if, from time to time, if they do not appear as rapidly as we feel they ought, we nudge him and his right hon. Friend and inquire into the reasons for the delay. In view of the hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Now is the right moment to raise the points that I started to raise at the end of Clause 1. This Clause gives power to the Minister to make regulations for the use of reflective material on a number of components or accessories relating to motor vehicles, in particular in regard to non-reflective number plates. There are three points to which I would like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to address himself. The first has to do with the use of this reflective material, secondly whether it involves the use of foreign exchange for the production of material to make up the reflective number plates and, thirdly, I would like to refer to the doubts that exist about these adhesive digits.

Will it be possible for these Regulations to be satisfied by sticking reflective material on to a number plate? If this is not so, must the numbers be of a raised type and rivetted on to the plates? This is important, and should be cleared up. Some authorities say one thing, and some another. There are some counties where one would not be prosecuted for using adhesive digits, yet in Brighton recently the owner of a van was fined £10 for using adhesive number plates. This was taken up with the Chief Constable who said that on his reading of the regulations it was an offence. On the other hand, other chief constables say that as long as the numbers can be read from 75 ft. that is all they care about and would not prosecute anybody for using adhesive digits.

This is a point which should be cleared up in the regulations—whether people can take a strip of adhesive material, cut out the digits and stick them on. I do not think that that would be satisfactory, because they would come off or flap loose in wet weather. It would not be a satisfactory solution to the reflective number plate problem merely to allow manufacturers to stick on digits made out of reflective material.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that that would play into the hands of thieves? It would make it easy to change number plates in a second or two.

That is an excellent point. Instead of having to unscrew a number plate, a thief taking a Jaguar car—they always seem to take Jaguar cars nowadays—would merely strip off the adhesive digits and put on new ones. That is a point which should be carefully considered when framing the regulations.

I am sorry that I was not present on 31st May, but I was abroad on export business on that day. I have always done my best to assist road safety. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) introduced a Bill about 10 years ago for putting two reflectors on motor vehicles and two rear lights. I advised him and helped him, even before I was in the House, because the daughter of the Chairman of London Transport, when coming to a dance of ours at home, ran into the back of a lorry as the lorry driver had only one tiny muddy reflector.

In the interests of road safety, we must do everything we can to ensure that number plates are plain and can be seen from the rear. But there are problems for manufacturers. There is also the problem of whether people will be permitted, under the regulations, to stick on reflective number digits. If so, in my view, that would be unsatisfactory.

I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary whether his Ministry has come to a definite conclusion about the colour of the number plates which may be permitted on the rear and front of vehicles. Will there be two colours, or will the colour be the same at each end?

I was concerned about whether the numbers could he taken off very easily. The Road Research Laboratory test, which was done over two years on vehicles which were subjected to 80,000 miles of use on the road, showed that with normal wear and tear this did not happen. I am told that provided the numbers are put on properly they would not lift. Equally, I made the point that I should be in favour of riveted raised digits being fitted to make sure that they could not be taken off. This is a question on which I hope that the Ministry will lay down certain specifications. I agree that we have to ensure that the numbers are not interchangeable and that they cannot be taken off and others substituted. The numbers which were utilised in the Road Research Laboratory's test from April, 1964, to April, 1966, clearly showed that this could not and did not happen.

The question of having one colour at the back and another at the front is very important. I gather that this is already done in France. I think that the colour is red at the front and yellow at the back. It helps to know whether a vehicle is coming or going. We should if possible try to get some standardisation with Europe, because we are taking vehicles to and from the Continent frequently these days.

It is right that the Committee should discuss what should go in the regulations, because if we can give assistance to the Department this is the time to give it. When a regulation is laid, it is a case of take it or leave it. Nothing can be done to amend regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) is to be commended for what he says about the doubts which exist and the different interpretations of chief constables. It would be useful if we could do something to resolve these doubts before the regulations are laid. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us whether we shall be seeing the regulations in the next few weeks.

I refer to the point which I tried to raise on Clause 1 about whether existing number plates are adequate. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said that if we have an existing device which is adequate it is unfortunate that we should have legislation under which we shall need to import equipment, whether with dollars or any other currency. I have a letter from a firm in Leeds which states that it is already producing number plates with reflective digits which conform to existing regulations and that the motoring Press and the Financial Times have been sufficiently interested in the safety aspect of the plates to devote editorial space to them. I am not resisting the Bill because the principle of it is necessary, but it seems to me that if a firm pioneers something as a result of which road safety is improved it is unfortunate that we should have to import a substitute material.

I return to the point which I made on Clause 1 and the quotation which I did not get right then. Carlyle said that that Government was best which legislated least. I agree with the point about security and that we do not want every thief who wants to take away the Jaguar of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham—and, incidentally, I am sorry that a member of the Rootes Group should use a Jaguar car—

I was not advocating the use of Jaguar cars. I said that they seemed to be very agreeable to every thief.

I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point abundantly clear, because it was causing me a good deal of worry.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can assist us about the security of the device, particularly in connection with the use of trailers. The number plate of a trailer has to conform with the number plate of the tractor. As the Parliamentary Secretary well knows, there is already adequate scope for putting fresh number-plates on a trailer. It may be that the next time there is a bullion raid the thieves will use a trailer. Far be it from me to instruct the criminal classes about how they should go about their business. It would appear that there is adequate scope for abuse.

I return to the point which I made earlier about a firm which has pioneered a safety device. It seems that, as usual, we seem to be penalising British enterprise—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I hope that we are not, and certainly it is something that we here should hesitate to do.

I agree with what the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said. I did not like the colour he used in giving the exhibition however. I once suffered from jaundice and yellow is a dazzling colour, particularly on a Monday morning, if one has suffered from jaundice.

I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will indicate what is to be in the regulations. I think that this is the time to do so. This has been a useful debate and, as a result of it, we have been able to get some indication of what we can expect. I hope that it will result in giving the regulations a fair wind, but it would be helpful to have an indication of what is to come.

I must differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Westonsuper-Mare (Mr. Webster), although it is true that he is asking the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for information rather than anything else. I believe that we are in danger of giving the wrong impression that certain people at the moment manufacturing certain types of goods will be put in jeopardy as a result of the Clause. I cannot see how this would be possible.

The Clause codifies and anticipates certain standards either of reflective or fluorescent material and gives the Minister power to recognise the existence of these things to be fitted either at the front or the rear of a vehicle as she thinks' fit. Secondly, she will have power at least to impose conditions to standardise the type and size to be used. I do not believe that the Clause will do anything to jeopardise the position of any present manufacturer of any items which are now within the law. All we are doing in the Clause is to codify the whole thing and to bring more standardisation into what is obviously a good safety device.

I agree with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) that we have had a useful debate. We will take note of all the views expressed. But it would be foolish of me at this point to enter into discussion of technical data and specific dimensions that the Minister may make in regulations. We will take account of all views expressed and there will be an opportunity to discuss the regulations themselves.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the quotation from Carlyle. I shall remind him of it on future occasions when he demands that we produce more Bills and more regulations more rapidly and in greater volume.

I was only suggesting that we have fewer Bills. We should have the more essential Bill, bringing more into a smaller number of Bills.

It is hard to satisfy the hon. Gentleman. He wants fewer Bills and more regulations. We will do our best for him. It will be appreciated that when Parliament has approved the Bill, the Minister will be armed with necessary powers to make regulations and certain technical discussions will be carried through as quickly as possible. We shall take all these things into account.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) raised a point which I dealt with briefly on Second Reading. The tests carried out by the Road Research Laboratory indicate that red reflective material on number plates is considerably less effective than some other colours, and if the maximum benefit is to be obtained from their use it is necessary to relax the provisions of Section 2 of the Act so as to give the Minister the necessary powers to permit use of a colour other than red to be shown to the rear of a vehicle.

Similarly, experiments with distinctive rear markers for commercial vehicles show that the most easily distinguishing marking both by day and night is made up of red reflective, red orange fluorescent and white reflective strips. We are enabling my right hon. Friend to permit such markers to be introduced.

My right hon. Friend will be able, under subsection (a) to make regulations permitting the use of yellow or amber reflective number plates on the rear of vehicles. Similarly, she will be able to make regulations requiring a distinctive marking on the backs of commercial vehicles, which would include white reflective strips. We shall naturally rely, in the technical detail of the regulations, on the results of the experiments at the R.R.L., which indicate that this would be the most satisfactory thing to do. That is as far as I can go now. The technical advice of the Laboratory is being given to my right hon. Friend, but there will be many details, including those which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) raised, about the use of certain kinds of materials.

Under subsection (b) again the Minister will be able to make regulations specifying the kind of materials, the positioning and dimensions. Many details have to be settled. We are relying on getting the best technical information and advice, but I am not in a position now to elaborate on these things which must form the subject of the new regulations.

But surely the hon. Gentleman is in a position to clear up the two important questions as to whether these materials will not be more expensive and whether they will have to be imported.

I am glad the hon. Gentleman reminded me. Although in this Clause we are taking powers to require or authorise the use of lights of varying colours, I made it clear on Second Reading, on the authority of my right hon. Friend, that her intention is to make the use of reflective number plates permissive. She will permit motorists who wish to fit reflective number plates, according to certain standards laid down, to do so.

We have no idea, in moving into this permissive phase, having clarified the law on the subject of reflective materials, to what extent that permission will be used by motorists. Therefore, it is impossible for us now to estimate what will be the additional cost. Certain figures were given earlier in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas). Indeed, certain figures are well known about the cost of reflective number plates now on the market. We have no idea, because this power will be permissive, to what extent these number plates will be used. We will go into the matter carefully. I understand that these materials can be manufactured in the United Kingdom.

I can see danger here. Let us say that 50 per cent. of the cars on the road have clear, brilliant number plates which can be picked up easily. One might be lulled into a false sense of security and bring oneself up close behind a conventional number plate that is dirty. In such circumstances an accident may occur. I do not believe that this should be permissive. I believe that the Minister should make these materials compulsory.

I take note of that view. I hope that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) will take note of the fact that I said on Second Reading that my right hon. Friend has declared that, to begin with, we would have an experimental period permitting the use of such reflective materials and number plates so as to be able to draw on the experience gained. Nevertheless, this Clause contains the power to make them compulsory at a later date, if we agree that that is what should be done.

If it is to remain permissive for the motorist, will it be compulsory for all commercial vehicles?

I have referred to certain commercial vehicles being marked by distinctive strips at the back, and my right hon. Friend is currently considering the compulsory introduction of certain requirements in that respect. However, that does not apply to the introduction of reflective number plates, for example. My right hon. Friend has declared that she will use the power under this Clause to permit all road users to fit reflective number plates if they wish to do so.

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) suggested that the cost of this type of plate would be much greater than that of plates normally in use. The cost of the existing range of number plates varies widely, from the Rolls-Royce type down to the ordinary type. I have heard of a garage in the Midlands which charges £10 for a set of ordinary number plates for a Mini. That is excessive. My information confirms the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) that the type of plate which we are discussing should cost no more to the public than the existing type of number plate, even during the permissive period when there is only a small market. Of course, if anyone wants his number plates made in ivory, they will cost more, but at the moment the cost of the plates which we are discussing is almost identical with that of the ordinary plate.

This Clause deals with lights to the rear of vehicles for the purpose of illuminating any device for giving signals to overtaking traffic. I hope that I am in order in asking the Parliamentary Secretary about the signs which the House approved some time ago and which have been in use for three or four months when breakdowns have occurred on motorways. Are these signs operating in a satisfactory manner? I am concerned particularly about the Chiswick flyover and the raised part of that motorway, which are extremely hazardous places when there are breakdowns. I take it that such signs are approved of by this Measure, but is the Minister satisfied that people understand what they mean? Are there any figures available to show that they have been successful on motorways? Can the Minister give us any good news at this stage?

The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) loves to range far and wide. We are supposed to be considering devices to give signals to overtaking traffic. I take it that he is referring to the special fog signals on motorways, which are not attached to vehicles and do not give signals to overtaking traffic, but are erected on the shoulders of motorways. I have not to hand the information which he desires. So far as I know, they are working well. However, I undertake to get information about the current position of these signals, and I will give him any data which we have about accidents. I think that he will be aware that, according to a recent report, some improvement has been achieved in the way of a reduction in the number of accidents on our motorways and the casualties resulting from them. The extent to which that is attributable to the signalling system which we have devised is a matter about which I have no information to hand, but I will let the hon. Gentleman have it as soon as possible.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I welcome the support which the Bill has received from all parts of the House. Whatever differences of opinion there may be, I know that we are united in our determination to tackle the problems of accidents on our roads in a variety of ways. I am sorry that it is not possible to deal with all the problems in one omnibus Bill per session. However, even though the present Measure is more in the nature of a mini than an omnibus, hon. Members should not underestimate its importance, nor the extent to which it has resulted from genuine back bench effort and agitation, drawing our attention to the subject with which it deals.

We all agree that we must take full advantage of new techniques to combat accidents. To do this, sometimes our existing laws have to be altered, because, when they were drafted some years ago, it was quite outside the powers of foresight of any of our legislators to predict the technical advances which have been made over the past few years.

This is the situation with which the first two Clauses are intended to deal. We wish to be able to permit the wider use of reflective material for the rear lighting of vehicles, while still retaining some powers of control.

First, we had to deal with the dubiety about the legal status of these materials. If they are to be used as an adjunct to lights on vehicles, it must be clear to all concerned what the position is about the law governing the lighting of vehicles. That is why it is necessary to clarify the legal status of reflective materials in the first Clause.

Having defined that position, my right hon. Friend is advised that, with the law as it stands at the moment, it would be illegal to use anything except red reflective material to give out light to the rear of a vehicle.

We do not intend that there should be a multiplicity of colours on the rears of vehicles. That would only lead to confusion. It would also go against the basic principle that the back of a vehicle is denoted by a red light or reflector. However, as long as we control carefully the colours used, we have every reason to believe that we can avoid confusion and, at the same time, make it very much easier for vehicles to be seen at night. That is almost as important as making certain that the driver can see properly.

Similarly, there is little point in saying that a reflective material may or shall be used unless, at the same time, we can say what the optical qualities of the material ought to be. If its reflective properties are inadequate, insufficient light is reflected to serve any useful purpose. At the same time, if they are too efficient, the drivers of other vehicles may be dazzled. It is necessary, therefore, that my right hon. Friend should have the powers contained in Clause 2 to lay down technical details. These will enable her, by means of regulations, to control the colour, optical qualities, positioning and amount of any reflective material which should be used on the back of any vehicle. At the same time, they will enable her to make provisions for special types of vehicles if she so wishes.

The hon. Gentleman has told us twice that his right hon. Friend will have power, by means of regulations, to lay down the size, colour, positioning, and so on, of any reflective material. He has not mentioned the problem of rivetting and sticking on the digits, which is most important.

I promise to go into that. I admit that I have not covered all the details with which we will have to be concerned, and I hope shortly to reply to the hon. Gentleman.

As I said on Second Reading, I confidently expect my right hon. Friend to use these powers to permit the use of reflective number plates by those drivers who wish to fit them to their cars, and that regulations on the subject will be made before the onset of the long winter nights.

Finally, there is the question of controlling the devices intended to give signals to overtaking traffic. Signals which are misunderstood, or not well understood, are a potential danger on the roads. When most drivers signalled by hand there could be, and were, misunderstandings. It was sometimes difficult to know whether a driver was intending to turn right, or was merely showing the passengers in the rear of his car the Palace of Westminster as he drove by.

Mechanical devices for direction signalling are replacing hand signals, and illuminated devices may be more readily distinguishable than hand signals. This is particularly true at night, and so long as everybody knows what the signals mean no danger should arise. It is when signals are not understood that accidents are likely to occur. It is therefore extremely important, when new devices are invented, to try to clarify and standardise the position with regard to their use. Since it seems that there may be a loophole in the present Act which could be taken as permitting the use of any signal, provided it was intended as a signal to overtaking traffic, we feel that this should be stopped, and this is why Clause 3 is in the Bill.

Perhaps I might stress one point which arose during the Second Reading debate. None of these powers will in any way prevent or inhibit developments in vehicle lighting. All that we are doing is ensuring that control can be exercised over the development of new systems, and that new ideas are properly tested and assessed before being tried out on the roads. Perhaps most important of all, we want to ensure that they are properly publicised so that, before they are put into general use on the roads, everybody knows what they mean.

I think it is generally agreed that this is a good Bill, and again I express my thanks to the many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to its provisions and considered it with such speed. I commend it as a Measure which will make a further contribution to road safety.

I do not want to detain the House for more than a few moments. I was very pleased to hear the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say that he hoped the regulations would come into operation by the time the dark nights arrived.

The hon. Gentleman said that there must not be a multiplicity of colours, and that the regulations would permit the use of certain colours other than red. I hope that these will be made known as soon as possible because manufacturers will want to distribute the appropriate number plates throughout the country as soon as possible so that those who wish to use them can do so.

The use of reflective number plates is to be permissive, and only permissive, which means that a motorist will be able to fit them if he wants to. I hope it will be laid down quite clearly that those who purport to produce these plates will have to conform to a certain standard before they can put a British Standards stamp on them. This will ensure that those who purchase them are buying plates with good reflective surfaces, and are not buying a pig in a poke. There would be no difficulty if the use of these plates was obligatory because there would then be some check on whether they were up to the required standard. I hope, therefore, that steps will he taken to ensure that those who purport to sell reflective number plates will make them of the standard which the customer will expect. I hope that they will be made of proper reflective material, and will be up to a proper optical standard.

The speed with which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and his Department have handled the Bill almost makes them guilty of exceeding the speed limit. I say that because an early-day Motion on the subject was signed by a large number of hon. Members in January and February. my ten-minute rule Bill was given a First Reading on 19th April, this Measure received its Second Reading on 31st May, and today, 12th June, we are seeing it through its final stages here. This is a truly remarkable performance and it shows that my hon. Friend and his Department, and indeed all hon. Members, realise that this Measure can save a number of lives.

I am greatly indebted to my hon. Friend and his Department, and indeed to all hon. Members, for the help which I have received with my Bill. It was in October, 1965, when I read an article in a Sunday newspaper that this matter was first brought to my attention. Since then I have come to realise the tremendous advantages which can be obtained from using reflective material for number plates, and it is good to know that before the winter nights arrive these plates will be in use.

When I spoke on 19th April and 31st May I said all that I wanted to about the position and dimension of these plates. I hope that it will not be long before we get the regulations which will enable us to give effect to the slogan which I coined on an earlier occasion, namely, that all motorists should be able to see and be seen. If we can achieve this, I am sure that we shall reduce the number of appalling tragedies on our roads.

Even though it may have been a little inconvenient to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) and to other hon. Members to come here on a Wednesday and Monday morning to consider this Measure, I am sure that everyone will think the effort will have been worthwhile if by it we save a certain amount of suffering on our roads and bring back a little sanity into our road lighting regulations. Without further ado I conclude by thanking by hon. Friend, his Department, and all hon. Members for the tremendous help which they have given me, and I hope that this Measure will very soon become law.

I, too, thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for what he said, and wish the Bill every success in the other place. We have dealt with the Bill extremely speedily. It has taken only ten days to get it through this House.

I am glad that the Government decided to support the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas). Had they decided to do so earlier instead of getting involved with the controversial Measure dealing with the abolition of live hare coursing, this Bill might by now have completed its stages in the other place. This is something on which the hon. Gentleman can reflect, but I shall not sour a happy morning by pursuing that any further.

The hon. Gentleman said that this was a mini-Bill. This is reasonable, because we have to get it through before the autumn evenings are with us. It is probably best not just to travel hopefully, but to arrive, but I regret that my new Clause was not considered to be in order. I have discovered the word for the disposal units to which I referred. I understand that they are called—

Order. The hon. Member cannot pursue what is not in the Bill. He knows that.

I regret that it is not, Mr. Speaker, but I shall leave it there.

I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that we do not want a multiplicity of colours on the backs of vehicles. I am glad—although I do not very much like it for political reasons—that we shall stick to the colour red at the rear of vehicles. It is probably basically right. The signs that motorists have to deal with are baffling enough now without making them more difficult, and the same thing applies to signals.

It is also right that people should know what signals are for. I sometimes wonder whether they do, and whether motorists should not be subjected to a thorough examination, on a snap basis, in order to see how many of these signals are known by them. I believe that the answer would be disappointing, to say the least.

Having said that, however, I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his celerity in getting the Bill through and wish it success in another place. I hope that no Amendments are made in another place, except to do what we have failed to do here. I hope that the Bill will turn out to be a successful Act and that the regulations will do something to mitigate the loss of life on our roads.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) and to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and his Ministry on the progress made by the Bill in such a short time. We are now left with roughly 36 days for the Bill to go through another place and for any regulations to be made. Remarkable progress will have to be made by the Bill if the Minister is to be able to make regulations before we rise, so we may have to wait until the beginning of September before they are made, if there is to be sufficient time for us to discuss them when we come back in the middle of October.

Reference has been made to the fact that permission would be given before the onset of the dark nights of the coming winter, but we can have some dark nights in June, July and August. I suggest that the Minister might follow the precedent set by the Home Secretary on the Murder (Abolition of Capital Punishment) Bill, which suspended capital punishment. If this Bill has gone through the other place and has become law by the end of June it could be indicated to people outside that it would be rather foolish to prosecute someone for using these number plates, in view of the fact that their use would be made lawful by regulation very shortly. This would be as useful a piece of legislation in June, July and August as it would be in September and later.

I have been waiting in the corridor since 31st May to make sure that I would have the opportunity of continuing my speech, and I am glad to do so today. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), speaking on the previous Bill, said that he was grateful for the fact that the Bill was being proceeded with speedily. I agree with him, because that Bill was a good Bill. On 31st May I had an opportunity to study briefly this Bill, and I have studied it since. I do not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare that this Bill should be rushed through.

I have never used those words with reference to this Bill.

Certainly not. I am glad to know that my hon. Friend agrees with me about this Bill, because this will need to be substantially amended. Quite apart from that, the Minister has a clear obligation to explain the reasons why certain provisions are in the Bill and others are not.

Let us consider the general question of the major change that is being made in the present legislation as laid down in the 1899 Act. That Act was very specific in its provisions, but apart from one or two minor items this Bill is a general enabling Bill to enable the Minister to make what regulations he wishes at the times he thinks appropriate. It would make Parliamentary business a great deal easier if all Ministers merely asked the House for general enabling Bills from time to time. If this were done there would be little need for morning sittings—or afternoon or evening sittings. We should require only one or two sittings a year to give Ministers general enabling powers.

That is what is being done in this Bill, and I do not like it. I was involved in all the discussions and negotiations which led to the shipbuilding regulations, when I worked in the shipyards on the Clyde. Those regulations, in principle, contain many things which I feel should be included in this Bill. I want to refer only to a few points. First, there is the question who should carry out the testing of chain cables and other similar equipment. Clause 1(1) provides that the Minister shall have powers to make rules, and for the supervision of testing and marking of equipment, and its inspection, by surveyors of ships appointed under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894

"or by such other person as the Board of Trade may authorise for the purpose."

That is wrong. The Act of 1899 specified that testers had to be licensed, and clear conditions were laid down for the way in which tests should be carried out. It would be wrong to be too specific, but this difficulty could be overcome if the Minister inserted such words as "a suitably qualified person", or "a fit person", or provided that the person concerned should be qualified for the job. This was clearly laid down in the legislation dealing with shipbuilding.

The testing of chains and other similar equipment, at a time of changing technology, when new techniques and new equipment are being developed, should not be carried out by a person merely authorised by the Board of Trade. The Minister of State will probably say that they would not just pick any old bloke from the street to carry out this work. We appreciate that any sensible sane Minister would not do that. But why not cover the point by a reference in the legislation?

Section 6 of the 1899 Act referred to the appointment of an inspector and said:

"The Board of Trade shall appoint a fit person to be inspector of testing establishments, under this Act, and may remove any person so appointed."

That was the inspector of testing establishments, but a similar provision could be used in respect of the testing of equipment

Then we have the question of the definition of a ship or vessel. Several points were raised in connection with this on 31st May and considerable discussion took place on the question whether hovercraft should be included. I was amazed, startled, taken aback and disappointed with the Minister when I read what he said, as reported in col. 31 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 31st May. One of my hon. Friends was pointing out that when the Bill had been last discussed a specific assurance had been given by the late Mr. Redhead that hovercraft would be included in the Bill. I was therefore quite shocked to read what the Minister said when that specific reference was read out by my hon. Friend. The Minister said:

"I was aware of that and of the reason why Mr. Redhead was prepared to accept it. He was anxious to get the Bill through.—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 31st May, 1967, Vol. 747, c. 31.]

That was a shocking thing to say. I am sure that Mr. Redhead said what he did because, on the basis of information received by his Department, he believed it to be right. If this is the case, there is no excuse whatever for the present Minister, looking forward to a good number of days in this Parliamentary Session, thinking that he can skate over this legislation, and not bother about hovercraft, because it may involve technical difficulties. This is a question of what is right or wrong. If it were right on 19th May, 1965, and unless there are very telling reasons advanced by the Minister against it, it is right that hovercraft should be included now.

Is it not a fact that the carriage of persons by hovercraft in the last two years has increased considerably, and that this has become a most rapidly expanding form of transport, making the point, then accepted by the then Minister of State, all the more valid?

My hon. Friend is quite right. If any hon. Members need confirmation on this point, I would suggest that they read the annual report of British Railways for 1966, published about a fortnight ago. This contains a full report of the extension in hovercraft developments, with a regular service which has increased its traffic three times in one year. On the other hand, it has lost a considerable sum of money, but there is no question that, once these things begin, they will continue. Undoubtedly, hovercraft development is something which is here to stay—something which will grow.

It is wrong for the Minister to bring a Bill like this, which may last for another 60 or 70 years, before the House without including a definition of a hovercraft. I hope that he will indicate that he intends to change this. Clearly, a hovercraft is a ship or a vessel. It has chains and anchors, and to that extent I cannot see any possible justification for saying that the standards of general maintenance and testing of chains for use by hovercraft should be different.

There is also the question of oil rigs. I visited John Brown's yard on Clydebank only ten days ago and saw there the fifth oil rig to be built by that firm. They are huge structures and will require to be fixed to the North Sea bed. There is no question that a considerable number of chains will be required. These rigs are launched like a normal ship, although it is a difficult operation, and are clearly things which are on the surface of the sea, requiring chains and anchors. Why have oil rigs been excluded? We are entitled to an explanation. This may be a marginal case, and it may be that to bring oil rigs into the definition would bring in a lot of other things which would not be wanted. Members are entitled to know what regulations will cover oil rigs and what is the position regarding the safety of these rigs.

We also have the matters referred to by the Minister as a justification for this Bill on the last sitting. He said that the Act of 1899 had two major defects. First of all, it embodied many detailed requirements about the ways in which various anchors and cables may be tested. I would not regard being specific as a defect. This Bill is not at all specific, except for one matter, which I think is wrong and to which I shall refer later.

The second thing he said was that under the old Act manufacturers were compelled to test anchors and cables in licensed proving houses. He also mentioned that new materials have been introduced which required to be covered. These new materials would require to be tested in the same way as anchors or chain cables made from older materials. There is no question that this Bill, being a general enabling Bill, will give powers to extend testing to these. At this stage, we should have an indication of what new materials the Minister has in mind.

We were very concerned with this at the time of the shipbuilding Regulations and specified the materials that we had in mind very carefully. We should know whether the Minister's definition of chain cables includes in any circumstances a fibre rope or a fibre rope sling, or wire rope. What other new materials does he have in mind? It is all very well to say that new materials are here and others will come, but shipowners ought to know precisely what new materials the Minister has in mind.

Another point arises on this question of new materials and techniques. We have general rules about the testing of chains, but one thing in which I am particularly interested is tests carried out after repair. Obviously, new materials are being introduced and new chains will require to be tested under any legislation. Obviously, there will be periodic checks, but one thing which has been omitted from legislation in the past has been the testing of chains once a major or minor repair has been carried out.

It is vital that, in any regulations made under this legislation, it should be clearly specified that not only should equipment be tested when it is manufactured, and not only should it be tested after a period of time, but also on every occasion when a repair, major or minor, is carried out. There have been a good number of accidents in the shipyards and elsewhere, when chains and other forms of lifting tackle have been broken. I believe that many of these accidents have stemmed from repairs carried out to the chain cable. To that extent, I hope that the Minister can give us a clear assurance that there will be an obligation for the testing of chain cables and anchors after a repair has been carried out.

There is also the question of the vessels to which these regulations will apply. I am not at all clear whether the Bill will apply to Admiralty vessels. This is important, and there was no question about it in the 1899 Act. It was clearly specified that the Act did not apply to such vessels. This Bill does not refer to its application to Admiralty vessels. If, as the Minister may say, the Bill does not apply to Admiralty vessels, then he is under an obligation to say why, and whether the legislation which will cover Admiralty vessels will be of a comparable standard. We have a substantial number of naval dockyards, carrying out a greater amount of new work than has been undertaken previously.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that this point has added importance, due to the practice of the Admiralty selling off some of the vessels that it has constructed? Would he give an indication of what he thinks the testing procedure should be in such a case?

The testing should be of a comparable standard, if not of the same standard. The equipment on merchant ships will be the same, unless the Admiralty vessels are using certain types of chain not available to merchant shipping. We should have an indication from the Minister as to whether this Bill covers Admiralty vessels, and it should be specifically stated in the Bill. If we are to have an advance in our techniques of testing for merchant shipping, then there should be the same advances in the naval sphere. One thing which appalled me in the Bill was that I can find no definition of an anchor or a chain cable. This was alarming. We can understand why we should not be too specific, but what is the point of having a Bill dealing with anchors and chain cables when there is no indication in it of what an anchor or chain cable is.

The only remote definition which I can see is in Clause 1(7), which provides:

"In this section 'anchor' and 'chain cable' include any shackle attached to or intended to be used in connection with the anchor or cable …".

But we are still at a loss to know what is an anchor or a chain cable. This is a point of substance, and I hope that we shall have a satisfactory definition.

This may be regarded by some as a niggling point—

Hear, hear.

—but it is not. I know that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) takes a very real interest in shipping matters. He brought forward a Private Member's Bill which I was glad to support which was in the interests of the industry, and I congratulate him on having done so. I do not think that he could regard this as a niggling point if he has the interests of the shipping and shipbuilding industry at heart, as I believe he has.

In the Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Regulations of 1960 we went to considerable lengths to define what a chain was. The Minister may say that regulations will be brought forward which are specific, but I still feel it is going a bit far to have a Bill about anchors and chain cables and which gives general enabling powers without specifying precisely what an anchor or chain cable is. I hope that before the Bill becomes law, if it ever becomes law—and there are doubts about that—we shall have a definition of a chain cable and anchor.

I come to the more general points about the Bill. I have mentioned that the Bill is not specific in many respects, but there is one respect in which it is specific. In Clause 1(3) it provides:

"If any person applies to any anchor or cable which has not passed the tests prescribed by rules under this section any mark prescribed by those rules for denoting that it has passed those tests, or any other mark calculated to suggest that it has passed those tests, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding four hundred pounds."

That is a very considerable fine, because it is a major offence. But I wonder why the sum of £400 was chosen and whether it is in line with the practice in respect of similar misdemeanours, not only in the law of England but, more imortant, in the law of Scotland. It might be difficult to apply this provision in Scotland, where our court procedure is much different from that in England. Would the Minister indicate how these powers will operate in the Scottish courts? I see real difficulties arising from this provision.

I have mentioned a number of questions which should be answered clearly and precisely by the Minister. First, why is there so little specification in the Bill? Why is it a general enabling Bill? Secondly, why cannot we have a definition of a person who is to undertake testing? Could not the words "suitably qualified" or "fit" be inserted in the Bill? Thirdly, why exclude hovercraft and oil drilling rigs from the Bill? Fourthly, what sort of new materials does the Minister have in mind in saying that this is one of the reasons why the Bill should be introduced? Why are not Admiralty vessels included, if they are not included? Then there is the question of the penalty of £400 on summary conviction. How will that operate in the Scottish courts?

These are serious problems. However, it would be fair to say that our general objection to the Bill is that the powers in it are too general. I hope that something will be done to put these matters right.

I come now to the question of where testings will be carried out. We do not get any guidance from the Bill on this point. The 1889 Act was specific. In the First Schedule to that Act several places were specified at which tests could be carried out. I was interested to see reference in it to the Clyde Navigation Trust, which would be able to test establishments in Glasgow and in the Clyde; to the Municipal Corporation of Glasgow, which covered the Glasgow area; and to the trustees of the Port and Harbour of Greenock for testing establishments at Greenock. That provision is now out of date because there has been a merger of the Greenock and Clyde Navigation Trusts. I wonder whether due note has been taken of this change and whether there will be any major alteration in the position in Scotland.

My hon. Friend has referred to the proving houses. I think that there is great anxiety, about which he would know, regarding small manufacturers of anchors and chain cables who, if the proving houses are closed down, will have great difficulty in getting their anchors and chain cables tested. I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware of this point, and I hope that he will support the continuance of these proving houses.

As my hon. Friend says, I have been made aware of some concern about that point. What alarms me more is the lack of concern in some places and the fact that some people do not know what is going on. People should be made aware of these dangers which could arise. Certainly several people are not aware of them.

These are some of the objections which we have to the Bill, and I hope that they will be answered. Bearing in mind the present position of the shipping and shipbuilding industries which are both facing such a grave crisis, this is not the time for bringing in legislation of this sort, which is so wide that real and perhaps unnecessary concern will be caused in the shipping and shipbuilding industries. The Clyde is a major centre, not only for shipbuilding, but for our great shipping industries. The Minister has a real obligation to ensure that any legislation which is introduced provides, not only for safe working conditions, but for the continued prosperity of shipbuilding and ship repairing. I think that it is clear from what I have said and from the speeches of my hon. Friends today and on 31st May that we hope that the Bill will be considerably amended.

I am well aware of the problem of speaking on the Second Reading of Bills of this sort on a Monday morning or a Wednesday morning. The Whips and others often think that thereby a Member is indicating that he wishes to serve on the Committee dealing with the Bill. However, this is a Bill in which a substantial number of Members have a real interest and I will understand the difficulty if it is not possible for me to take part in the Committee on this Bill. I assure my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Weston-super-Mare, that I shall well understand if it is not possible to put me on the Committee.

My hon. Friend is being too modest. It would be very difficult for the Committee to consider this point without his presence. He has touched only lightly on some of these very grave matters. I hope that my hon. Friend, who works very hard in the House, will reconsider his decision, although I am not sure that the decision is entirely his.

I have made no decision. I was simply indicating that, because of the great interest that there is in the Bill, I would understand if it were not possible for me to serve on the Committee. Hon. Members know that I am particularly interested in this subject. If I were appointed to the Committee, I should do my best to clarify the Bill.

I have raised points today and on 31st May which perhaps can be dealt with in greater detail in Committee. They are important and significant points, and I trust that they will be answered by the Minister. If they are not, my hon. Friends who are favoured with appointment to the Committee will press them even more forcefully.

I should declare an interest in so far as I am a Lloyd's underwriter, and if the ground tackle carries away I must pay through the ship. I therefore have a direct personal financial interest in the Bill, but that is as nothing, although I should declare it as a formality, compared with the interest which I like every hon. Member have in the Bill, because ultimately it is about the lives and safety of persons at sea.

Nothing could touch more closely the interests of this country. I represent a constituency within convenient distance of the London docks and the City of London. Many seafarers and those interested in their safety are among my constituents, and I therefore approach the Bill with a more than usual degree of interest, if that is possible.

But there is yet another interest that concerns me. I do not like the smell of the Bill. I smell here the dread scent of autocracy and bureaucracy. I am afraid that I see here an indication of the movement towards making Parliament more efficient. I am all for efficiency, but not in Parliament. The business of Parliament is to be inefficient. From the point of view of Ministers, this is a very efficient little Bill. It empowers the Minister to make regulations. It does no more than that, and the representatives of the people are nut on one side. There is only the farcical provision of the Regulations under the Bill being subject to consideration and the House having the nominal power to annul them. But this will not do in general and in particular.

I shall come to the particular later, but in general the House should strenuously object to the whole tenor of the Bill and the tendency of which it is symptomatic for Ministers to introduce Bills giving them power to make regulations. The most important feature of a Bill of this nature is the detail in it, and it is the duty of the House to scrutinise the detail very closely. The point of doing that is that if the House is not satisfied we should be able to amend it. We shall bring all the resources of the Opposition to that task in Committee, as is our duty.

But if we are not to have our way in Committee the House should deny the Government the Second Reading. What will happen if the Bill goes through in anything like its present form? The regulations will be submitted to the House and we shall have the nominal right to refuse the Order making them, but, as hon. Members know perfectly well, that adds up to absolutely nothing. I have yet to know in 14 years' experience in the House a single order being refused. I have never seen an Order introduced by the Government making regulations of this kind fail to get through.

Therefore, we cannot stop the regulations and, what is far more sinister, we cannot amend them. We may well be in the position of either having to go through the farce of refusing the bringing into force of the regulations or having to assent to regulations which are better than nothing but not as good as we think the House should make.

I now turn to some of the matters of detail, which we shall have to consider at greater length in Committee. There are some omissions in the Bill which strike me as being peculiarly sinister. It purports to make provision in substitution for the Anchors and Chain Cables Act, 1889. A lot has happened at sea since 1889; a lot has happened in many fields of technology; and a lot has happened in the organisation of the maritime powers and their merchant and other fleets.

For one thing, a large part of the world's commerce is now carried in ships flying flags of convenience. Many ships flying flags of convenience are officered and manned by Her Majesty's subjects, people for whose lives we are largely responsible. I am not sure that the narrow scope of the 1889 Act, and, presumably, the narrow scope contemplated by the regulations to be made under this abortive Bill will go far enough, unless provision is made to try to get some discipline into the ships of fleets registered in places like Liberia, Panama, Costa Rica—and no doubt in the future Dahomey and the Congo and Urundi Burundi and all those other new states. It should not be regarded as beyond the wit of Parliament to devise some provision for the safety of these people, so that ships which come into British ports must have their anchors and cables of a standard which will mean that if the ships rely on them at sea there will not be loss of life.

My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the Merchant Shipping Act, 1964, which ratified the Convention of 1960, covered all the flags of convenience. Unfortunately, this is a Bill for which there is no covering convention, and I have not yet had any satisfactory statement from the Government that they will make it enforceable on ships coming into this country. My hon. Friend's point is essential.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. This matter will have to be gone into with great care in Committee, and if the Minister does not feel able to draft suitable Amendments we shall have to give him assistance. We hope to have an assurance from his hon. Friend when he winds up that he will take this very seriously, and that he will be amenable to the rather full Amendments which we shall probably have to offer.

A further point which greatly troubled me is that I believe that the Act refers to anchors over 168 lb. Therefore, the Bill will presumably be limited in the same way, and I am not sure that that will be enough now. Many more people go to sea nowadays in small vessels than was the case in 1889. Those were the days of MacMullen and the great pioneers of British yachting, as it used to be called, all going to sea around the dangerous coasts of this country in small vessels. Captain Joshua Slocum had only just finished his circumnavigation single-handed in the sloop "Spray". He rounded Cape Horn, but he went through the Magellan Straits the other way to Sir Francis Chichester.

The great pioneers of small boat cruising had not fully emerged. It was a very rich man's pleasure. MacMullen was the first man to sail single-handed the type of yacht then in vogue, narrow gutted, deep keeled vessels, of over 20 tons, rigged with huge spars, heavy canvas and ground tackle that would hold a battleship, and with paid hands to work them.

Nowadays it is a very different scene. Anyone who goes to our coastal ports knows that one cannot get a mooring anywhere from the north of Scotland round the south coast and up to the north of Scotland again. East, west, north, and south the creeks and harbours of this country are crowded with small vessels. At the Daily Express Boat Show one sees the enormous change that has come upon the maritime scene with so many amateurs going to sea. Many of them are very skilled and fully competent to take their vessels to sea, but the tendency nowadays is for people to go to sea with the idea that it is rather like driving on the roads, but taking a small vessel to sea without experience can be very dangerous. I should like to see some consideration given to making provision for the proper testing of the kind of ground tackle that these small vessels carry, particularly in the range of toplines and sea anchors.

While we are on this question of ground tackle, we should consider whether we should not enlarge the scope of the Bill and take account of the kind of anchors and cables, whether they be chain or other cable, specially for the use of ships and boats. These are often in greater danger from defective ground tackle than are large vessels.

No large vessel lies in an exposed anchorage without steam up in readiness for getting under way at a moment's notice. That is not so with small boats. They are most likely to be in exposed positions without the power of motor, sail or steam. Often their only power will be the pulling power of those aboard and they are often overcrowded. These vessels should often be equipped with ground tackle to hold them, especially on a lee shore.

This is not just a matter of testing the strength of the anchors or cables, but of seeing that they are of proper design, are stowed properly and can be quickly stocked if necessary. It is a matter of seeing that the cable—the coir rope—is stowed in such a way that it may be paid out so that the anchor can be brought into use quickly.

I should not like to leave all these questions to the Minister to make regulations, possibly overlooking a whole range of responsibilities of this House to which we should like to give attention. We shall have to consider this in Committee. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will take the Bill back and try again so that, on the Second Reading of its successor, we may see what regulations he has to propose and will be given an opportunity to improve them.

I am sorry that there is no indication that a serious defect in the 1899 Act is to be remedied in the new regulations on sea anchors. When the Act was brought before the House, Captain Voss had only just completed his famous voyage in the "Tilikum," a small, narrow, cranky, light draught Indian canoe in which he made the immortal voyages which he recounted in his book, "The Venturesome Voyages." He took it over the great oceans of the world. It was a vessel in which most hon. Members would think it unwise to venture out on the Serpentine. He took it through typhoons and through the most dangerous latitudes and seasons all over the world.

He was able to do this by having perfected the art of using the sea anchor or drogue. He used to come in at exposed beaches, with breaking rollers, using great skill in perfect safety by using his drogue. He recognised that a vessel was only likely to be pooped, as sailors say —the waves coming in astern and breaking over the vessel—or to be broached—swinging round so that the run of the sea is abeam instead of end to end—if she was under way and that the method of preventing her having way through the water was to tow to stern a sea anchor. With that disadvantage, the vessel does not make much progress.

Captain Voss cunningly overcame that great defect, however, in sea anchors by securing a trip line to the narrow vent of the sea anchor. I am sure that hon. Members are informed of the shape of a sea anchor. It is a cone with a large end and a narrow end, through which there is a vent through which the sea can run so that it does not burst the cone. It stops the vessel having any way on. One can put a trip line on the narrow end of the sea anchor. One has the trip line secured to the transom or counter and when one wants to proceed ahead one lets slip the main line, which is attached to the wide end, and then way comes again, with the narrow end of the sea anchor trailing away comparatively harmlessly.

By using a sea anchor, Captain Voss managed to take the way off his vessel when he saw dangerous waves coming eastern and this allowed him to proceed without being pooped or broached. He would let go and then make way again as the situation allowed.

Although people had been sailing small boats for hundreds of years when the Act was introduced in 1899—and since we are dealing here with small boats in which the crews and passengers of ships have to sail when the large vessels founder, as they do increasingly with all these Greek shipowners and what-not running them—we should make sure in this legislation that some attention is paid to the design, type, shape and specifications of sea anchors.

I cannot allow the Second Reading to proceed without making some reference to the hovercraft. This cannot be brushed aside. In opening the debate, the Minister of State said that it was not yet clear whether hovercraft were technically ships. But this Bill is not about ships in themselves. It is about anchors and cables and ground tackle. We are talking about anchors on which people will have to depend upon for their lives.

This Bill is about anchors and cables for use in ships registered in the United Kingdom.

That is the kind of pettyfogging distinction that I hoped we could avoid.

The hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill.

That did not prevent the Minister of State's predecessor, Mr. Edward Redhead, accepting the principle that a hovercraft should be a ship for the purposes of the Bill. Mr. Redhead did this during the Committee stage of this Bill's predecessor, as a result of which I withdrew the new Clause to which reference has already been made. The Minister of State has made some unfortunate remarks.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Westonsuper-Mare (Mr. Webster). I cannot accept what the Minister of State says. I have here a photostat copy of the 1899 Act, and the Act describes itself as:

"An Act to simplify and amend the Law relating to the Testing and Sale of Anchors and Chain Cables."

This Bill in its Long Title describes itself as

"A Bill to make new provision in substitution for the Anchors and Chain Cables Act, 1899."

Therefore, with respect, I am entitled to say that the Bill is not about ships but about anchors and chain cables. It may have provisions with reference to ships, but there is nothing in the Long Title to oblige us to confine ourselves to ships. The Bill is about anchors and chain cables.

The hon. Gentleman has no doubt read Clause 1, which is the main Clause of the Bill, and what it says there about ships.

I am prepared to accept that it says,

"… testing of anchors and chain cables for use in ships …"

I am objecting to the limitation of it. I am satisfied with the long title,

"A Bill to Make new provision in substitution for the Anchors and Chain Cables Act 1899."

The long title of the 1899 Act says that it is for anchors and chain cables. I am objecting to the limitation of the wide ambit of the long title to the

"… testing of anchors and chain cables for use in ships …"

I think we should say "for use wherever they are required to be used".

Whether or not a hovercraft is a ship, it is a vessel which carries human beings whose lives are likely to be in danger if occasion arises for the use of anchors and cables and they are not adequate. Close attention should be given to this. After all, hovercraft are supremely passenger vessels and there will be a large number of our constituents travelling in them. The proposal is that the hoverport should be in Pegwell Bay, a place where extremely short, nasty, choppy seas arise. If a hovercraft were to become immobilized—engines not working—it would require to anchor in the tideway there and if her ground tackle was not efficient there could be a disaster—she could be swept out on to the Goodwin Sands before rescue could be effected. Anything might happen. Should there be a hovercraft disaster which could be traced to defective ground tackle, we should look very silly, having tied legislation on anchors and chain cables to use in ships, if we had to say, "A hovercraft is not a ship; we are sorry that people have been drowned."

I cannot let pass the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Ire-monger) and at a previous sitting, the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), that there are no safety regulations for hovercraft and that people who travel in them are somehow at risk. The House must be aware that there are safety regulations. Under temporary legislation, hovercraft are classed as aircraft. They are governed by the Air Navigation Order, 1966, and the Air Registration Board has the most stringent regulations about anchors and chain cables used in hovercraft. This is an important industry, as hon. Members on both sides have said, and I would hate it to be thought that the safety of people who travel in hovercraft is not already taken care of.

If it is already taken care of by regulations, we have not had an opportunity to debate it. This is what we are objecting to in the Bill. We are told, in the first place, that all we can have under the Bill is regulations which we have to have on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and we are not able to amend. When we object to that and say, "What is more, we are not able to amend the Bill by putting anything in it about hovercraft", we are told that hovercraft are looked after by regulations which we have not had an opportunity to amend. I would rather see the regulations concerning the safety of hovercraft that depend on anchors and cables brought into the Bill in detail so that we can consider and debate and amend them in Committee, if necessary. I do not withdraw from the position that we should have the safety of hovercraft that depend on anchors and cables as part of the Bill, subject to debate in Committee or in the House.

Airmen are not qualified to consider the safety of craft which depend on anchors and chain cables. This is a very doubtful operation. The anchoring of light craft such as hovercraft—aircraft—in the waters off the south-east coast of England is not only a matter of the strength of the anchor or of the cable; it is a matter of the springing of the ground tackle. It is a matter of rigging the chain or cable with a spring—maybe by dropping a weight down the cable—so that the snubbing of the vessel does not come straight on the anchor. Small vessels pitch very heavily in the kind of seas which we get around our coasts. If there is a strong wind one gets a taut line between the anchor and the bitts of the vessel. The hon. Gentleman is a seaman and he knows that the bitts can be torn out of a craft in those conditions.

In a way, the stronger the cable the more dangerous the situation. What is needed is something which will take the snub off the cable. I should like provision to be made that there shall be a proper fitting to run a weight down the cable to take the strain off the anchor and the cable and the bit so that the cables and the anchors are not regarded as being adequate simply because of their strength. A chain is not a suitable material for this. It is the sort of work for which preferably coir rope should be used.

That is what happens now under the A.R.B. Regulations. They have nylon warp to Admiralty specification.

The hon. Gentleman keeps reciting these regulations. They may be admirable, but my objection is that if we are to have a bill on the subject we ought to have them brought into it and made the subject of discussion in Committee. I would not object to the provision of nylon rope. I would welcome it. However, I would like to be able to reassure the House that it had been considered. I am afraid that the Bill will leave it entirely to the Minister's Department—which, I am sure, will be very efficient and conscientious about it—but we shall have to take or leave what it produces without being able, from our experience or the experience of our constituents, to make any amend- ments to satisfy ourselves that we have done the right thing.

I am concerned that no consideration should have been given to the great development in the design of anchors which has taken place since 1899, namely, the broad category of stockless anchors. The Schedules to the 1899 Act, specifically mention anchors' weight, ex stock; that is to say, the weight of the anchor without the stock. By definition, it is concerned with stocked anchors. I am surprised that the modem type of anchor used by steamers, in which there is no stock, is not referred to. Presumably the concern was exclusively with stocked anchors. A stocked anchor is very much more efficient than a stockless anchor. A much greater weight of stockless anchor is needed to have the same holding power as a stock anchor. I would always rather have a stock anchor—I am not talking about the C.Q.R. anchors, but about the traditional stockless anchors used in steam ships.

There is a further complication that it is not only a matter of testing for the breaking strain of a stockless anchor which involves the safety of the ship. There is also the adequacy of the design, the possible danger that a stockless anchor can be dropped and that the flukes will jam and fail to drop down into the bed of the sea and be pulled in to provide proper holding power. Therefore, although the Act which is to be repealed might have proved adequate in so far as it concerned itself with the strength of stocked anchors, we have no guarantee at all that the regulations to be made under the Bill will concern themselves with the rather different specifications and requirements for stockless anchors. I cannot feel that any serious thought—I have no doubt that I am wrong, but I cannot be assured of it—has been given to this problem. When we are shown the fruits of the Departmental consideration, we shall be powerless to do anything about it, powerless to improve it, and the House should therefore have a look at the provisions of the Act which the Bill seeks to repeal.

Section 1, for example, starts off with the definition of anchors and cables as being the anchors of any British ship. I have already referred to that as being a classification which we ought now to reconsider. It excludes any anchor not exceeding 168 lb. in weight, again a rather dangerous limitation in present circumstances.

Section 5 talks about the fees to be paid for inspection or testing and yet we are to have no indication of what the Minister has in mind about the provision to be made for fees for testing under the new regulations. If the fees in 1899 should not exceed£50, they ought to be up to at least£200 today. We have not had a Socialist Government throughout the whole of that period, or the fees would have had to have been increased to£2,000 or£3,000; but, even with Liberal and Conservative Administrations for some of the period, war and inflation have made the figure of£50 totally unrealistic.

Has my hon. Friend observed that Section 11(3) is very precise about how a licensed dealer or tester shall apply to the Board of Trade for a change in the fees?

I was hoping to work towards Section 11 if time permitted, but I must hasten on in order to make sure that no point of scrutiny escapes me. I have a copy of the Act with me and it is important to consider its Sections one by one. I had skipped Sections 6 and 7 and was about to refer to Section 8 which deals with tests.

It refers to the tensile strain and the breaking strain. Since 1899 new techniques have been developed, new materials have been introduced and processing of steel has undergone great changes. The whole technological philosophy of fatigue has been introduced. New methods of detecting flaws by x-rays and spectroscopic methods have been introduced. I am not sure that the mere brute process of giving something a good pull and seeing whether it busts is a test with which we should be satisfied in this technological age. How do we know that when he introduces his regulations the Minister will do full justice to all the possibilities of the technological resources which may be at the disposal of those who are testing ground tackle?

The trouble with many systems of testing is that they weaken the items being tested.

On that matter I should be subject to persuasion, especially by my hon. Friend who is saying that if something is tested, while it may survive, it will never be the same again.

Testing could affect it.

It could affect it and we should therefore be now thinking in terms of not subjecting the ground tackle of ships to tests which, for all we know, may leave it no longer as sound as it is supposed to be. Ought we to introduce new methods of testing and new qualifications for those who do the testing? Obviously, my hon. Friend or I could give a good pull at something and see whether it busted, but if we were to have a more sophisticated form of testing, he and I would need to have qualifications for subjecting it to spectroscopic processes and so on, and while I do not know about my hon. Friend, I should be very diffident about taking that on if the Minister were to appoint me one of the testers of chain cables.

Section 11 is a very dangerous Section. It deals with the scale of charges for testing anchors and chain cables. How do we know that in the new regulations the charges will be reasonable? How are we to know on what basis they are to be made? How are we to know what is the Minister's philosophy? Surely, we have a responsibility to our constituents who are yachtsmen, and their passengers, for the scale of charges for testing the ground tackle of small vessels. Will those be the same as the charges for testing the ground tackle of commercial vessels?

I should have thought that we would need much more explanation of what is in the Minister's mind before giving the Bill a Second Reading. I am sure that if we do not get a satisfactory explanation, if the Bill goes to Committee my hon. Friends will be able exhaustively to examine all the possible variations and combinations and permutations of charges for testing. We might have different scales of charges for foreign vessels.

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again. I hope that our attitudes are not diverging and I hope that he is not suggesting that the British shipping industry, especially in the Clyde, should subsidise those of his constituents who are wealthy enough to have yachts.

There are obviously important sociological implications in the Bill which had escaped even me. It is clear that we should not dismiss the Bill in a cavalier fashion and if we are to examine it as conscientiously as we should, we should consider these obviously important aspects.

Section 15 of the 1899 Act deals with private testing and uses words which open questions which the Minister should have tried to answer in submitting a new Bill. The words are:

"other chain or cable"

and the words

"cable (not being a chain cable)"

This opens a whole realm of distinction to which reference has already been made and about which I hope to make some observations, if not this morning, then on some other suitable occasion. Obviously, although it does not say so in the Short Title, the Bill includes cables other than chain cables. When I was training to be a naval officer, I was always taught that the distinction between chain and cable was that cable had a stud in the links and that chain did not. The object of having cable instead of chain was that, when piled into the chain locker, studs in the links stopped the links from overriding one another and forming a sort of half knot in the chain, which would obviously be very dangerous, because chain in that condition and subject to great strain would be more liable to break than chain stretched out in its proper tensile position.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a question that has caused more widespread anxiety and dissatisfaction in the city of Birmingham than I can remember during the time that I have represented part of the city in this House—over 21 years. It is the matter of the unsatisfactory arrangements for railway passengers in Birmingham, pending the Minister's decision regarding the future of Snow Hill Station. I can understand that the Minister will tell me that the Ministry of Transport has no responsibility for certain day-to-day measures and that this is a matter for the British Railways Board.

I am raising matters of such serious concern that I hope that the Minister will not dismiss this merely by referring to the powers of the Ministry. Some months ago the Minister of Transport received a deputation from a number of Members of Parliament in the Birmingham and Midlands area and representatives of local authorities. At that time the Minister was warned that there were grave fears about the closing of Snow Hill Station. Then I had not quite made up my mind about the matter. I thought that there may be a good deal to be said for the closing of the station.

Now, after the experience of the last few months, I am fully convinced that Snow Hill Station should not be closed. The more I go into the matter, the more I am convinced of it. If the Minister is considering closing a station that station ought to be able to run normally, apart from changes in the trains, without measures which create considerable inconvenience. What the British Railways Board did, while the Minister was considering this matter, was to close every entrance to the station except the most unpopular one. I have appealed for the front entrance to be kept open. The present entrance, which is most inconvenient, could be closed. To alter a station in this way is to some extent to prejudice the whole consideration of the matter. If the Railways Board had it in mind to deliberately sabotage the Minister's consideration of the matter, it could not have done better than it is doing now.

Anyone who knows Birmingham will know that the decision to keep Moor Street Station open was not a good one. It is most inaccessible and is not the solution to the problem. If I were to quote from the large number of letters that I have received, more than I have received on any subject since I became a Member, apart from one or two major national issues, I should need much more time.

I wish to give three quotations from letters. The first is from the managing director of a firm in my constituency, who says:

"For years I have travelled to Birmingham Snow Hill, and in fact I am a season ticket holder of some 35 years, although I have lived in Dorridge for eight years … and as you know Birmingham well, and you will see that from Moor Street the distance I have to walk is almost treble. I am sure that the majority of travellers have been inconvenienced likewise. This diversion to Moor Street was done without any reference to users, in a most arbitrary manner."

A resident of Stourbridge has sent me a letter, in which he says:

"Due to a derailment on the curve at Smethwick West on Wednesday, May 31st, all Hereford, Worcester, Kidderminster, Stourbridge and intermediate station trains were diverted to Snow Hill. What a good job it was available."

What an inconvenience it was, because there is no bus service from one station to another, and it means crossing Birmingham at its most crowded area. The letter continues:

"To close the front entrance of Snow Hill is a vicious and dictatorial action, to cause inconvenience to the public."

I have put representations to the Ministry. The trade unions, public servants and people in Birmingham are utterly disgusted at the arrangements which have been made. Another constituent writes, and this is a copy of a letter sent to the divisional manager:

"Prior to the partial closure of Snow Hill station my total travelling time in the morning from my home in Prospect Lane, Solihull, to my factory in Warstone Lane, Birmingham, was not more than 35 minutes and the return journey in the evening also took 35 minutes. My minimum time for travelling in the mornings is now 50 minutes",

and owing to delays in trains, it is often 75 minutes each way.

One can add much more to all of this inconvenience. As a result of closing Snow Hill there will be no direct service to the Welsh coast, or to the south coast. There were services from Snow Hill to Bournemouth and Brighton.

I wish to refer now to New Street. It is beyond my comprehension how planners can plan a station in this way. I have had the pleasure of travelling from London to Birmingham, and at New Street there were two sections, where one could walk from the train to a taxi or to a bus. Now this has changed. The front entrance is closed, and a temporary staircase has been erected. In order to get to the station, one as to walk up 30 temporary wooden stairs, a long way over the roof, walk down 36 steps to the next level and to reach the station, down another 36 steps. So one has to go up 30 and down 72 steps.

This is temporary, and there has been such an outcry that the railway authorities have put a temporary entrance at the front. This is limited to between 8 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. to 6 p.m., so that other people travelling have to suffer this inconvenience. I cannot describe how inconvenient it is to old people and, people with families, particularly bearing in mind that there are escalators from the main station to the bridge. Those escalators do not work after half-past ten in the evening. I have been inconvenienced when travelling from London on a late train and having to carry heavy luggage up all these steps. It is unfair.

I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether the temporary entrance to the station can remain open at all hours. Would he make representations to the Railways Board to ensure that in the ultimate planning of the station people will not have to tolerate this inconvenience? This entrance from New Street—he main centre of Birming-ham—is called" the hole in the wall". I should like to see the reconstruction of the station to provide for an entrance from New Street without the necessity of having to go up and down these steps. There are no down escalators, which is extraordinary for a modern station.

It is difficult to describe the inconvenience which is caused to the travelling public at this station. There is a tiny refreshment room which is not as big as one on Snow Hill Station. Last night I saw people standing up. I have even seen a policewoman giving first aid in this crowded tiny room. This is most unsatisfactory. There is no proper provision for the workers. There is no accommodation for the 253 drivers except in the old huts left by Bryants the builders.

The electric trains are good when they are in order, but there are evidently many technical difficulties. My experience has been unfortunate. I have travelled on them many times when they have not reached their destination on time. Last night my train was 20 minutes late and I had to wait 25 minutes for a taxi. The Railways Board seems to be obstructive and hostile to the approaches made by the travelling public.

The Minister will no doubt say that there is a body called the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. How is this committee constituted? My information is that there are 25 members of it and that not one-third of them use the railways. I do not see how people who do not use the railways can understand the indignity and inconvenience which is caused. Furthermore, the secretarial staff of the committee cannot be independent. It is housed in the same buildings as the Railways Board in Birmingham. I should have thought that, as so much inconvenience was caused, the first thing which this committee would do would be to consider the hardship to the public. The Minister, in reply to me, said that he did not know why the public did not consult the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. I should have thought that he would have inquired and would have insisted that it was most important that the committee should consider this matter.

It is in sorrow that I criticise what seems to me a very bad example of a nationalised industry. I have worked in private industry. I am sure that if private industries were guilty of causing such inconvenience to the public something would be done, and done speedily. Perhaps the station was opened before it was ready, but I am sure that a good deal of the inconvenience would be removed if people could use the alternative service at Snow Hill and be allowed to go through the front entrance instead of having to walk a long way. There is a strong case to be made for the opening of more entrances at the station, pending the Minister's consideration of the matter.

I hope that the Minister will not make a decision until very much more has been heard about the effect on the public of Birmingham. A city with a population of over one million is entitled to have reasonable transport facilities. If they are unsatisfactory, as is the case at present, more and more people will turn to the motor car. I do not think that the bus service is entirely satisfactory. Old people and people with children find it increasingly difficult to travel on the railways.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will take my remarks seriously and will deal with them today or will put them to the Minister. I beg the Minister not to make a final decision until much more has been heard about this matter. I should like to take a high-powered deputation from the whole of the Midlands to the Minister to show the dissatisfaction that there is on this matter. Trade unionists and the public are frustrated. There are large blocks of offices and banks in the centre of Birmingham to which the nearest approach is Snow Hill station. Having to get to these offices and banks by using the other station is causing grave inconvenience.

A lot more could be said on this subject, but I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to give careful consideration to the matters which I have raised.

I wish to back up some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates). It is probably right that, on financial grounds, British Railways should centralise station facilities in Birmingham. From that point of view, it is right to close Snow Hill; and I realise that many of the facilities at New Street are temporary and will get better.

I reinforce what my hon. Friend said about the entrances to New Street station, which are absolutely appalling. Many of the faults in the design of the station are emerging. Incidentally, it is one of the worst station designs I have seen in Europe. It is in what I would call the British public lavatory architecture tradition—and it is a very bad example of that. But the worst feature is the ascent of 30 steps and the crossing of what some people have described as the Siberian waste of the vast plateau on top of the station. So far we have seen what happens in the spring and summer. What this waste on the top of the station will be like during the coming mid-winter is impossible to imagine. I hope that other entrances will be opened by then.

Snow Hill Station is virtually closed already, and it is hypocritical to think that we have any proper closure procedure if the Railways Boards is able, by closing all reasonable entrances, to circumvent that procedure. I hope that we will get rid of this hypocrisy and force the Board to keep the station open until a decision has been made or at least ensure that that decision is soon enough to enable the Board to run its financial affairs properly.

I have listened with great interest to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates) and Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price). I know my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood has been very concerned with this issue over a substantial period. He has corresponded with me about it and has also raised it in conversation. I am glad that he has raised it today. I will try and reply in the short time I have available. Nearly all the matters my hon. Friends have raised are questions of management which, under the Transport Act, 1962, are made the sole responsibility of the Railways Board. That will be no surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood. When we corresponded, I explained the position to him but I appreciate his wish nevertheless to have these matters aired in this House. Clearly, they are important questions and should be aired.

My hon. Friend stressed in particular the inconvenience that travellers are suffering following the Board's closing the main entrance at Snow Hill Station. It may be helpful if I explain to the House just why this is something on which it would be quite wrong for my right hon. Friend to try and intervene. As I have said, questions of this kind—that is, question of day to day management—are placed by the 1962 Act in the sole responsibility of the Board. There is only one proviso. If there are representations to the local Transport Users Consultative Committee and it refers the matter to the Central Committee which, in turn, makes a recommendation to the Minister, then and only then does my right hon. Friend have power to issue a direction to the Board. My hon. Friend is aware of that I believe.

In this case there were indeed representations to the T.U.C.C. and it considered them on 20th April. I do not know whether my hon. Friend knows that.

Yes.

This adds force to what I have to say. I understand that the Committee concluded that, in view of the Board's reasons for the closure—its desire to operate the revised services into Snow Hill as economically as it could, as part of its general anxiety to keep down the deficit—it could not support the representations.

There is therefore no question of any reference to the Central Committee or of any recommendation from that Committee to the Minister. In these circumstances I do not think it would be right for me to take up the time of the House by going into the merits of the question; the Board have made its management decision, the proper consumer body has studied the representations and has drawn its own conclusions.

My hon. Friend has suggested it would have been better if the T.U.C.C. had been told in advance about the changes. I think generally it is helpful to both the Committees and the Board if there is this sort of informal contact; though there is of course under the Act no obligation on the Board to do so. I understand the West Midland Committee do in fact find London Midland Region most helpful in answering their queries.

My hon. Friend also referred to the accesses to be provided at New Street Station. As the House will know, this station has been comprehensively re-built as part of London Midland Region's electrification programme. I had the privilege of going to the opening. I confess I am sorry that the occasion on which I should have to speak about the new station should be one of criticism, because I think in many ways the Board has done a magnificent job in producing a right up to date major terminus which accords so well with the new spirit of that great city.

But if detailed complaints have been made about the accesses it is right that they should be looked into. Here again the proper body for such examination is the Transport Users Consultative Committee, which is specifically charged with considering and, where desirable, making recommendations about any matters affecting the services and facilities provided by the Board which have been the subject of representations.

In fact in this case also the Committee has received representations. I know that it has been looking into them with great thoroughness and that members of the Committee have made a special investigation of the sites in question. But I could not tell the House what their conclusions might be. This is because the matter is still within the consultative machinery. If the Committee should decide to make a recommendation to the Central Committee, and that Committee in turn were to make one to the Minister then and only then would she have the power, if she thought fit, to intervene.

I can tell the House, however, that it was as a result of some suggestions by the Committee about the present temporary access from Stephenson Place that some practical improvements have been made, for example to the steps and to the handrails. I think this is a good example of what can be achieved by this sort of informal contact between the T.U.C.C.s and the regions. The wider matters, such as whether this arrangement is to be permanent, are still in the consultative machinery.

Hon. Members have referred to the reduction of services at Snow Hill, particularly to the Welsh coast and other parts. Again, however, I must point out to the House that these reductions are, under the Transport Act, 1962, matters of management for the Board. We in the Ministry knew the Board were going to make these changes, in order to get the best possible return on their investment in electrification. But it was entirely their decision. This does not mean of course that the public have no right of redress. On the contrary it is open to them, notwithstanding the current closure proposals to withdraw all services into Snow Hill, to make representations to the T.U.C.C. about the current level of service—though not the reduction itself—if they feel it is inadequate and this would bring into operation the procedure I have described.

Hon. Members have also raised the question of the Minister's decision on the Snow Hill to Wolverhampton closure proposal itself. I know that Members and the people in the area are anxious that there should soon be an end to the present uncertainty about this and other services. All I can say is that my right hon. Friend fully appreciates the need to take a decision as soon as she can.

The considerations outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood indicate that this is a matter which will need a little time to investigate. We shall need to study thoroughly all these considerations to ensure that at the end of the day the right decision is taken. I know that the delay is causing anxiety but I am sure that I carry my hon. Friends with me in saying that it is better that there should be thorough examination of this very complex proposal and that in the end, the decision should be the right one, even though it may take a little time.

I see it has taken me almost as much of the House's time to tell Members why I could not answer their points in detail as it might have done to answer them. I ask the House's pardon. But I wanted to make it absolutely clear what my right hon. Friend's statutory position is in these matters. The Transport Act, 1962, left questions of management to the Railways Board, subject to the very important proviso that the T.U.C.C.s should have the duty of looking into representations by the public, in the knowledge that if they feel something is wrong and the Board are not willing to put it right, they have a direct line of access to the Minister. In this situation my right hon. Friend wants the T.U.C.C. machinery to work. This is why she has decided only recently, and has begun the work, to widen the basis of their representation. This has already been done in many parts of the country.

My right hon. Friend is anxious to ensure that the T.U.C.C.s represent a wide variety of people, including those who use both the railways and other services. I do not carry all the details of the Birmingham area in my head and I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood. But I know that a number of appointments have been made of people representing women's organisations, the National Parks, the disabled and the elderly, among others who place almost complete reliance on public service. All these matters that have been raised will certainly be studied by the Board. It will consider what my hon. Friends have said. They can properly go through the existing machinery and therefore to the Board itself.

I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967 that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:

Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act, 1967.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to the United States Government regarding the escalation of the war involved in their proposal to increase the numbers of troops in Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to the United States of America about the proposed increase in their armed forces serving in Vietnam, in view of the danger of further escalation of the war.

I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to a Supplementary Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) on 6th June.—[Vol. 747, c. 803.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing concern in this country about the threats of escalation of the war? Could he say what positive steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to try to bring about negotiations and the end of this terrible war?

I have said that many times in this House, and we are doing our utmost to do it. However, it means approaching more than one party to the war. It means trying to get in touch with those who entered the demilitarised zone in flagrant breach of the Geneva Convention, as well as those who responded. I am doing my best.

May I press my right hon. Friend a little further? Will he state what is the present attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the further escalation of the war in Vietnam by the Americans and, in particular, will he deal with the potential threat of an American land invasion of North Vietnam?

I have no reason to suspect the latter. I am against the escalation of the war, and would very much welcome the support of my hon. Friend to oppose those who, from North Vietnam, from China and elsewhere, are in fact encouraging the escalation.

Can my right hon. Friend say if forces from any other source or nation are entering the theatre of war in Vietnam?

Like the South Vietnamese, the North Vietnamese have allies and friends. There is no reason to think that either is failing to use them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position in Aden.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is to be his policy in the matter of the Eastern Aden Protectorate and its relationship with the Federation of South Arabia; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the future policy towards Aden.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on Aden and on his discussions with the Federal Ministers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further constitutional proposals he has for the South Arabian Federation and on what date he now expects Aden to achieve independence.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the present situation in Aden.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the constitutional arrangements for Aden and South Arabia prior to independence in 1968.

Sir Humphrey Trevelyan has now had time to settle in and has made a number of important reports which I am now considering. I will be in a position to fulfil my promise to the House to make a full statement of policy at the beginning of the debate planned for 19th June.

On internal security in Aden, although there has been no fundamental change I regret to say that in the last few days two British servicemen were killed and five were wounded, and one British civilian was killed and two were wounded.

The United Arab Republic/Israeli war, and the lie about British intervention broadcast by Cairo radio as an alibi for its defeat, has increased tension in Aden and there were some disturbances which, however, were contained without difficulty. As two of them were in the Eastern Aden Protectorate, elements of the Irish Guards have been flown there as a precaution.

While appreciating that reply, and deploring the acts of violence which have taken place in Aden in the last few weeks, can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any chance of a change in the Federal structure and if our minds are open to that possibility? Secondly, is he optimistic that in the next few months there can be direct British negotiation with the main nationalist organizations—Flosy, obviously?

Both of these are the sorts of matters with which I want to deal in the very full policy statement which I intend to make next week.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that President Nasser has said that he will continue the struggle towards victory, and would he, therefore, dissociate himself from the remark by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that what is happening today in the Sinai Peninsula has no reference to our position in Aden? Could we not have the statement before the debate?

I have not heard of that remark, and the last thing that I would want to do is dissociate myself from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I am often asked to dissociate myself from other people, but I do not think that I would from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

On the general issue which the hon. Gentleman raises, perhaps he will be kind enough to wait until I make a full statement next week. I will fulfil my promise to the House to make a very full statement of policy at the opening of the debate, and then the House can proceed to debate it.

In the light of the events of last week, will the right hon. Gentleman give his assessment of whether or not, in his view, there is a danger of an external attack upon the South Arabian Federation after independence?

I do not think that I can answer that question just like that. One would have to assess much that is currently happening in the Middle East. One would have to be in a position to assess the events of the last few days. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a wee bit early to do that. I might be in a better position to do so next week.

Has the Foreign Secretary been able to make any progress in reconciling the very different aims and interests of the Arab traditionalists in South Arabia and the Arab nationalists in Aden, without which it will be very difficult for us to hand over to a united and powerful federation and without which we may be handing over to chaos?

I do not consider that we are handing over to chaos, but obviously there are difficulties here. That is why I decided to change the High Commissioner. That is why I asked the House to be allowed to have a little time to think about the changes to be made. Obviously one wants to hand over to a more viable and widely constituted Government, if one can bring it about, than the one there at the moment. By next week, I hope to be able to present to the House a wide range of proposals which I trust the House will think commend themselves to it.

Will the Foreign Secretary reconsider the timing of his statement? The House has been very patient. Could he not make it on Thursday or Friday, so that we might have it in our possession over the weekend and, thereby, make the debate that much more valuable?

When I was in Opposition, I always used to say that to the Government—[Interruption.] I never expected the Government in those days to respond; neither did they. However, there are other more serious reasons than that. In fulfilment of my pledge, I want to give the House a full statement. If I am to do that, I want to do it having taken into account all the various elements which make it up—political, security, external defence, and the rest. I shall not be in a position to do that until next week—

rose—

I really think that the House as distinct from the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), will be better served if I open the debate next week with a full statement—[Interruption.] Since heads are being shaken and the right hon. Gentleman is jumping up and down, may I remind the Opposition Front Bench, slightly undermanned as it is at the moment—[Interruption.] I mean in terms of quality. May I remind them that the Leader of the Opposition called upon me, in terms which I can read out if necessary, to make my statement at the beginning of the debate. I shall do that.

Order. Answers ought to be reasonably brief.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, leaving out all his cheap points which I do not propose to take up, whether he realises that nobody objects to his making his statement next Monday; that what we object to is the idea that we must have an immediate debate on this tremendously important issue? Surely he could arrange to have the debate on the Aden Bill postponed if he was not able to make the statement before Monday? Would not that be perfectly reasonable?

Certainly not, and I commend to the right hon. Gentleman the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that he expected me to open the debate with a full statement of policy. After all, that is what debates in the House are for. The idea that the Government must make their statements of policy earlier in order that the right hon. Gentleman is able to compose his speech at leisure later does not normally go along with the practice of the House.

The right hon. Gentleman need not worry about my speech. I can compose one very well, but it would be a much better speech, and so would all the speeches from both sides, if the right hon. Gentleman would concede that we should have the information before we debate this important question. My right hon. Friend was not talking about the debate on the Aden Bill. He was talking about a debate on Aden. The debate that we are to have next Monday is on the Aden Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman try, through the usual channels, to see whether this can be arranged to the satisfaction of everybody?

Certainly not. The debate next Monday is on the Aden Bill, and the policy which the Government are going to operate is obviously relevant to the Bill and to the circumstances of it. The appropriate moment for announcing the wide area of policy is on the debate on the Bill which has relevance to it, and I will do it in full. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will have a perfect opportunity of discussing it. The purpose of the debate is to discuss Her Majesty's Government's policy, and that is what I will unfold next week.

Mr. Speaker, may we have a guarantee from you that when we come to discuss the Aden Bill we shall be able to debate the full scope of Her Majesty's Government's policy in every respect?

I was asked that on Thursday. I must reserve my position. I shall decide what is in order when I see the shape of the debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to strengthen the administration of the High Commission in Aden during the period before independence.

We have recently reinforced the High Commission in Aden by appointing now a number of Diplomatic Service officers who will remain to staff the British Embassy in Aden after independence.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider strengthening the High Commission in the light of the events of last week, or does he still consider it strong enough to perform its functions on independence?

We have recently sent a Foreign Office inspector to Aden to make a special report on the point mentioned by my hon. Friend—the need to strengthen the administration in the period up to independence. The principal recommendations of that report have already been carried out.

What action is the Minister taking to protect the families of the members of the Administration up to independence, in addition to the action taken to protect Service families?

The most careful precautions are taken to protect the families of members of the Administration in South Arabia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take to facilitate collection of maintenance payments on behalf of a divorced wife from an ex-husband who has emigrated to a non-Commonwealth country.

We are considering the amendment of existing legislation in order to provide facilities for the enforcement, on a reciprocal basis, of maintenance and affiliation orders emanating from courts of foreign countries.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply will give considerable satisfaction since the incidence of hardship in individual cases far exceeds the number involved? Those affected will be most reassured and pleased to hear that the Government are planning legislation along these lines.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. This is a genuine human problem, and we are doing all that we can to help.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now take steps to recruit members of the Foreign Service from an older age group than that from which new recruits are normally drawn.

There is a regular annual competition for recruitment to the Administrative Branch of the Diplomatic Service for candidates aged between 27 and 40 (or 45 in the case of candidates with regular service in Her Majesty's Forces or who are serving or have served in Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service).

Can my right hon. Friend assure me that such people, when accepted, are fully safeguarded from the point of view of superannuation and pension rights, and that they enter at a salary scale appropriate to their age?

Yes, Sir. They normally enter at Second Secretary or First Secretary grade, depending on their experience. The purpose of this is to enrich the diplomatic service with people who bring into it experience from outside—commercial work, journalism, scientific work, and so on.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what weight he gives to facility in languages in the choice of candidates for the Diplomatic Service.

Candidates are expected to demonstrate a capacity to learn languages. They are tested on the basis of the opportunities they have so far had. They need not be already accomplished linguists. The necessary language training is given after entry into the Diplomatic Service.

Has there been an improvement in the number of language candidates going into method 2, because three-quarters of the entrants into the Diplomatic Service are examined through method 2 and in the past, apparently, results have been very poor?

As I have told my hon. Friend, our prime qualification is not a language facility on entry but the necessary sort of intellectual capacity and ability.

Is the knowledge of a language or languages a condition of promotion in the Foreign Service?

Yes, Sir. Once candidates are in the Foreign Service they undergo language training, and there are special incentives to learn particular languages. The Foreign Service has set up its own foreign language centre and has its own language laboratory.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent South-East Asia Treaty Organisation Council Meeting held in Washington.

I attended the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation Council Meeting in Washington from 18th to 20th April, when members exchanged frank views on many problems concerning South-East Asia. I took the opportunity of stressing Britain's interest in the peaceful development of the area, our satisfaction at the new spirit of cooperation between South-East Asian countries, and the urgent need for a negotiated settlement to end the Vietnam war.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied with the frequency of the meetings of the Council and with the arrangements in force for continuing consultation between those meetings?

The answer to both parts of the question is "Yes".