I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 3, line 33, at end insert:

`and

(d) subsequent death of the person alleged in the statutory statement of facts to be the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time shall discharge the liability of any other person for the offence specified in the notice'.

The purpose of this probing amendment, which follows a short debate in the upper House when the Bill was debated there in the last Parliament, is to establish that no liability will fall on an innocent person through the demise of the real offender after signing a declaration that he or she was the driver of the vehicle concerned.

I am aware that there are difficulties about this matter, as there are other categories where similar problems could apply—for example, when someone has emigrated or been sent abroad on business after having signed such a declaration.

I should like an assurance from the Minister that in such cases the matter will not merely be left to the common sense of the police. I am not in any way decrying that common sense. However, I am anxious to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards and that there will be no basic unfairness on this point.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) asked for an assurance about the signature on the statement of facts by a man—who subsequently dies—that he was the driver of the car. That is the precondition of having a statement of facts under the Bill that we have introduced. This is a change from the Bill as it appeared in the last Parliament, because now, under Schedule 1, the alleged driver has to sign the statement of facts. In that case, it may be that the amendment is slightly defective, but I make no point about that.

The hon. Gentleman asks that if a person signs and is subsequently found to have died the police will not prosecute. I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman that it is unlikely that they would ever do so in those circumstances. But if there were reason to think that there had been some collusion between the owner and the alleged driver to sign, clearly the police must have the power, if need be, to go ahead. Since, in the limited circumstances of that nature, the power would be required, it is better to leave it to the discretion of the police. The hon. Gentleman may be assured that in those circumstances no innocent owner would ever be prosecuted.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 9, line 39, leave out and used'.

With this we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5.

I think that I can deal with these matters very briefly. These are technical amendments that arise out of the definition of "owner" that is at present contained in the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations of 1971. I do not think that I need explain the technicalities to the Committee, but there will have to be a change of the system when there is a centralisation of vehicle registration records at Swansea on 1st October of this year. As a result, it is desired to change the definition so that the matter can be dealt with under the computerised records. That is the only purpose of the amendments. There will be no change in the practical effect.

I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 10, line 15, at end insert—

'(5A) Where the person on whom a notice under section 1(6) or section 2(6) above is to be served is a person who subsequently or at the time claims diplomatic immunity, this fact shall be notified to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office forthwith'.

I understand that in the Metropolitan Police District, in the last year for which records are available, there were about 600,000 offences involving notices of the sort dealt with in the clause, of which about 60,000 were unservable or returned because the person who committed the offence claimed diplomatic immunity.

We have seen in London an increasing disregard by the diplomatic community, with some notable exceptions, of the road traffic laws of this country. I appreciate that diplomatic immunity is conferred under the Vienna Convention. None the less, instructions go out regularly from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to our diplomats abroad to ensure that they comply with the laws of the land which receives them and, if I may put it this way, in which country they are meant to be our representatives and a credit to us. Any diplomat who continually offends the laws of this country is bringing discredit upon his country. It may be that the countries concerned do not know the diplomats who are constantly offending our laws, and I want to make certain that this matter is brought to their attention.

The only way in which it seems possible to do that is for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to be notified on each occasion when such immunity is claimed. It would be difficult to put into the Bill what the Foreign Office should do, but one would hope that on receipt of such notification it would notify the ambassador or the high commissioner that there was a constant flouting of British traffic laws by one or more of their diplomats.

11.15 a.m.

I am certain the Minister will say that the amendment is technically defective. I accept that, but last night we passed a Bill which it was said was defective but which will soon become the law of the land. This is the constraint under which we operate. If the Minister is able to say that he takes the point and will undertake to consider it, and if he does not feel like putting this in the Bill but says that he might by administrative action achieve the same object, I shall be perfectly happy.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has done a service by introducing this amendment. The flouting of our parking and traffic regulations by some members of the diplomatic corps is a nuisance in London, but we know from experience in other capital cities—and I am thinking particularly of Washington and Paris—that it can in time become a menace, and I suspect that the situation in this country will get worse, because if the GLC persists in its unfortunate police policy of harassing the private driver more summonses will be served on diplomatic car drivers and the proportion of offences committed by the diplomatic corps will, if anything, increase.

My hon. Friend wants notification to be made to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I hope that that can be done. I hope, too, that when notification is made the Foreign Office will, as a matter of regular form, publish lists of those embassies that are most persistent in offending in this way, because it is only by adverse publicity that one will get embassies to check on the members of their staff who are flouting the regulations. I further hope that if some embassies persistently take no action some way can be found of limiting the number of their vehicles that have diplomatic immunity.

The Amendment is not only technically defective, but unnecessary. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) wants the police, the Home Office or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to inform embassies of these breaches on a regular basis. That is already done. Every month each embassy is given a list of the cars that have been the subject of these fixed penalty tickets, so the matter is already dealt with.

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the only sanction that we have in this matter is adverse publicity, and there has been adverse publicity over the last few years about this whole matter. Figures have been published in HANSARD in reply to Written Questions about the embassies with the greatest number of fixed penalties awarded to them. All I can say is that, judging by the figures, there seems to have been some improvement at least in the record of some of the worst embassies. Perhaps the matter could best be dealt with on that basis.

Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to consider taking the matter a little further so that, apart from just distributing the figures to each embassy, if there were constant breaches he would draw an embassy's attention specifically to that, and ask what action that embassy would take?

That is hardly a matter for a Home Office Minister. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might care to take it up with the Foreign Office. As I understand the position—I speak here only from the standpoint of my departmental responsibility—the Foreign Office draws the matter to the attention of embassies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has raised an important matter, and he seeks by his amendment to bring about effective action. The Minister tells us that there is already a system by which embassies are notified of offences, but I urge upon him that there is a strong case for delving further into this matter to find out what other countries do. I realise that this is not covered by the amendment, but we should like to know what steps are taken by other countries faced with a similar problem.

What international efforts could be made, with the emphasis on transport rather than on diplomatic approaches, to point out that this is becoming extremely offensive in over-crowded cities such as London, and that the diplomatic corps is gaining an increasingly bad reputation for flouting the law?

I do not think that it could be approached on that basis. There is diplomatic immunity, and if a diplomat commits an offence he cannot be brought before the courts. That is part of the international convention, and we have to respond for our part because there is reciprocity in relation to our diplomats elsewhere. Therefore, it cannot be done on the basis of treating certain vehicles in different ways because they are diplomats' vehicles.

The only way is by the pressure of public opinion and the pressure of out own Foreign Office in relation to those embassies which offend most. I have no doubt that this debate will be noted and will play its small part in that pressure. Equally, I shall draw the attention of Foreign Office Ministers to the views which have been expressed in the Committee today.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 11, line 7, at end insert:

'(4) Nothing in this section shall permit a constable to prevent immediate departure of any person who when given a traffic direction indicates that he is unwilling to furnish information for the purposes of a traffic survey'.

Subsection (2) of the proposed new Section 22A provides specifically that the power

"does not include a direction requiring any person to furnish any information for the purposes of a traffic survey".

That clearly rules out any element of compulsion. I have proposed this amendment, however, because it should be made clear that anyone who decides not to co-operate should not be penalised, even unofficially.

The vast majority of motorists are only too happy to provide information and to co-operate with the police and the Ministry. On the other hand, we need an assurance, and I suggest that a directive might be given by the Home Office to police forces that an over-zealous policeman should not penalise anyone who decides to exercise his undoubted right not to furnish information required at a survey point.

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter, and I hope to reassure him on it. The definition specifically excludes a direction requiring any person to furnish information. The effect will be that a constable will be able to divert motorists to a survey point, but motorists will not be obliged to answer questions or give information, and any motorist who does not wish to furnish information will be free to go on his way without delay.

The survey sites will be designed so that no one will be held in queue if he is not taking part in the survey. I hope that that explanation is satisfactory.

I am afraid that that does not meet the point. Immediate departure, or departure without delay, should not in this context mean departure after the person has waited and been interviewed by whoever is taking the survey. That is not good enough.

I regard the whole clause as a serious interference with the normal rights of people on the highway. A person may be in a great hurry. There are occasions in life when one has no time to draw in and wait while particulars are taken by someone conducting a survey. The subject must have the right to say to the policeman, "No, I shall not go through the control. On this occasion, I do not wish to co-operate." He must then be free to go, and he will not be unless this amendment is accepted.

If the Government intend that the procedure shall operate in the way I have just described, they should accept the amendment. Otherwise, the motorist will not be entitled to do that. He will be told to divert to a particular point and there wait. He will not be free to go. Indeed, I suppose that under the terms of the new Section 22A the policeman could keep him there almost indefinitely if he were bloody-minded enough to do so. If he took the view that the citizen was being bloody-minded, he might choose to be bloody-minded himself.

I am not happy about the clause. We ought not to give the police power to direct the law-abiding citizen to go to a point indicated by the policeman if he does not wish to do so. At the very least, therefore, this amendment should be accepted. For my part, I hope that the clause will not be retained in the Bill. It is a dangerous departure.

I hope that I can reassure the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). Part of the reason for giving the police power to give a direction is specifically to prevent the possibility of a build-up of traffic on the road while a census is being taken. I have already said that the survey sites will be designed so that no one will be held in a queue if he is not taking part in the survey. But first there will be a direction from a police officer—we must all abide by the directions of a police officer in uniform on the road—and the police officer will merely divert the motorist to the specially constructed or arranged site, at which point the motorist will be free to say, "I do not wish to take part "—or he may tell the policeman he does not want to take part in it—and then go into the lane which will take him straight out of the laid-out site.

The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks in terms of a policeman possibly being bloody-minded. If any policemen were so bloody-minded, I do not think that they would need the excuse of a survey to hold up someone for a long time.

The House is always anxious, as I am, to ensure that citizens' rights are protected. But surveys are important. Most people, as the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) said, will co-operate in a survey, but we want them off the road so that there will not be a long queue of traffic forming perhaps on a busy road. It should be remembered that surveys are often taken on busy roads.

I fully appreciate that the amendment is put down with a constructive intention, but I hope that I have reassured the Committee. The operation of these arrangements will be watched carefully. They will be supervised by fairly senior police officers—perhaps not all the time, but fairly senior officers will certainly be there at the lay-out stage and will always be available. I hope that the Committee will accept the proposal as it stands in the Bill.

I wish that I were more impressed by that assurance. If I have learned one thing in this place, it is that ministerial assurances, though always given in the utmost good faith, are always valueless. I can remember so many. For example, when the 30 mph speed limit was first introduced, an amendment was moved that it should not apply after 11.30 at night. The Minister gave an assurance that the police would not bother motorists on empty roads and that the amendment was therefore not necessary. Nobody even remembers now that that was said, and I should not like to be the motorist who tried to remind a policeman of it nowadays after being pulled up at 1 o'clock in the morning on an empty road for going at more than 30 mph or whatever the limit might be.

I cannot remember the precise occasion, but I know also of an assurance that people making facsimiles of postage stamps would not be unduly harrassed, and that the prohibition was necessary just to deal with forgers. I recall that not long afterwards somebody appeared in the High Court for printing a stamp album which contained ordinary photographic reproductions of stamps, and the court said that not only was he guilty but the policeman who bought the album to give evidence against him was guilty, too. With great respect, that is an indication of the value of ministerial assurances.

The Under-Secretary says—and, of course, he means it—that there will always be, or almost always be, a senior police officer supervising the arrangements. I can assure the House that there will not. Indeed, there will not even be officials from the Department, probably only students doing a vacation job and the constable directing traffic off the road into a lay-by. What the Minister said in the House of Commons on a morning in late July will simply not come into the picture. There may be a queue and the motorist may well be in a hurry and may not want to stop. He should be in the position of not having to stop. Most people will want to co-operate because we are not a bloody-minded people, but the occasion will arise when a motorist cannot stop because he is a bit late already and does not want to break the speed limit or, at any rate, be found breaking the speed limit.

11.30 a.m.

It should be enough to say to the policeman, "I am sorry but on this occasion I am afraid I cannot help". The police usually stop every tenth car and it only means the car behind being stopped. The citizen should have this right in law, but he will not have it unless the amendment is accepted. It will not do the slightest harm to the purposes that the Government have in mind for the clause. Their aims will not be diminished or damaged in any way and there is no reason for not accepting the amendment.

I seldom find myself co-operating with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) on road safety matters, but I wish today to support what he said. Unless the amendment is made there will be a right for the police to keep a citizen there indefinitely. It may not be because the policeman is bloody-minded, but simply because it is a convenience in ordering the queue. Ninety-nine out of 100 of us enjoy reciting to these surveys where we have come from and saying exactly which girl-friend we have been with, and such personal things. But there are occasions when we want the freedom to pass by a queue, and we shall not have it unless the amendment is made.

I am sure that the Minister would make a wonderful policeman handling any of these queues. He would be courteous to everybody and anyone who wanted to go by would be told to sweep on down the line. But the Minister will not be there. There may be those who want to order matters to the disadvantage of the citizen, and we should protect the citizen. There is no danger in putting this provision in the Bill. The authorities will still get their information, so let us be fair to the citizen.

This little piece of legislation has crept into the Bill because the civil servants noticed the recent court case where a private citizen upheld his rights. That shows that the police were not aware that people could be allowed to pass them by. I hope that my hon. Friend will press the amendment. Many of us must have taken part in these surveys on a voluntary basis, and perfectly happily, but I cannot recall in 20 years driving ever being flagged down by a police officer above the rank of constable, and the Minister said that a senior police officer would "usually" do the job.

I suggested that the lay out would be supervised by a senior officer and that he would be present some part of the time when a survey was being taken. I did not say that he would be stopping people. If I have misled the House I am sorry.

There must have been a misunderstanding. If the Minister has ever participated in these surveys, I wonder whether he, or for that matter any hon. Member, can recall being stopped by a police officer above the rank of constable. I do not believe that anyone ever has.

These surveys take place sometimes on roads where there is not usually a through path, so I hope the Minister will accede to the wishes of the Committee. There was no need for the amendment originally. The courts upheld the citizen's right. The provision in the Bill is a piece of bureaucratic nit-picking which arises because some Civil Service draftsman did not like the courts upholding the citizens' rights. I hope my hon. Friend will press the amendment and I hope that the Committee will support it.

Very often at these surveys there is a barrier between through traffic and the traffic that will be questioned. By the time the driver has got into the queue of motorists to be questioned and has told the policeman that he is in a hurry to catch a train or to vote in a Division, other cars are close behind him and it is physically impossible for him to get out. If he does not want to take part in the survey he must have the right to say so to the police officer.

I support the amendment. The Minister is a reasonable man. I am sure he must have spent a great deal of time motoring around the countryside and he must have encountered these situations. I have done so on many occasions and I have noticed that some people resent taking part because they are so busy and have long distances to travel, particularly in Norfolk where the roads are not very good. I cannot believe that rural police forces are big enough to allow senior officers even to do the lay out. I am sure they would not have the time. The job is always done by a junior constable, who does it to the best of his ability. But the constable must know where he stands if he is to say to a motorist that he is obliged by law to take part. I ask the Minister to think again.

I, too, support the amendment. The normal procedure in surveys of this sort—and I do not share the enthusiasm for them expressed by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page)—is that the police select, say, every fifth, third or second vehicle, and that leads to a complicated arrangement which must be operated by the constable on duty who must ensure that the right vehicle goes into the survey queue. It does not matter, however, if occasionally he sends in the fifth instead of the sixth vehicle or vice versa. The amendment would not present difficulties in that respect. The difficulties arise in ensuring that the instructions to the constable and all concerned with the survey are clear. That is why the assurance by the Minister is not satisfactory and why we should place a clear instruction in the Bill.

I think that the Minister is missing the point when he talks about the lay out of these surveys. If these surveys are to be of any use the public must co-operate, and if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment they will be valueless. There is nothing more frustrating for people who have to be in a certain place at a certain time to be denied their liberty in this way. The amendment will not in any way change the aims of the Bill.

The difficulty is that the Committee has misunderstood the reason for the clause. The clause does not seek to amend or change existing practice. A defect in the Road Traffic Act 1972—I believe Section 22—was the subject of recent judicial proceedings this year in a case of Hoffman v. Thomas which could make it impossible to conduct any kind of traffic census or survey. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) might feel that that was a good thing, but we are quite frequently and properly pressed by hon. Members and local authorities in considering road plans to give traffic figures. If I were ever unable to give those figures, hon. Members would naturally feel concerned and upset. The question is, therefore, whether we can go ahead with these surveys. The whole purpose of the clause is to revert to the situation as it was before this legal decision. The reason for having a direction by a police constable to take people to a specially selected site is to give minimum interference with traffic so that people who are unwilling to give information—and there is no obligation on them to do so—may go through.

I make no complaint about it, but the words "prevent immediate departure" could be the source of substantial judicial argument. Having solved the difficulty of the recent case, up to a point, we may be just asking for another case to decide what is "immediate departure".

If there were more time, this is the kind of situation in which I should normally give an undertaking to try to meet the hon. Gentleman's point by redrafting. I acknowledge the tremendous cooperation I have received from hon. Members throughout the House. Without it, we could not be debating the Bill today, and there would be no chance of passing the Bill, which has been through the other place twice in substantially the same form. I am most grateful to all concerned.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) withdrew the amendment now, could not the Minister's draftsmen, who have nothing else to do on the Bill, try to find an acceptable form of working for Report? If it is technically defective, could not the Minister accept it and have it tidied up later? There is always a Road Traffic Bill or Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, whichever Government are in power after any election. I appeal to the Minister, who is a reasonable person.

I have given an undertaking that if we had a normal timetable I should consider the matter with a view to meeting the Committee's proper concern for the rights of the individual. I have had no opportunity to discuss the availability of draftsmen. I can draft. I remember the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) saying that he often thought that he could draft better than the parliamentary draftsmen, and in fewer words. I feel that myself.

However, if there is general agreement that I should try to obtain counsel to produce a manuscript amendment on Report, I shall do so. I understand that it would be in order for the hon. Gentleman to bring forward his amendment again then if I could not.

In view of what the Minister has said, I am inclined to think that that would be best.

The speed at which we are moving is not the fault of hon. Members on the Opposition benches. I am not blaming the Minister but one of the problems is that although the Bill could have had its Second Reading and other stages much earlier, we are now being stampede on many points affecting individual liberties, which the House of Commons exists to defend.

I was making no complaint about the shortness of time. Evidently, I did not do it very well, but I wanted to express my appreciation of the co-operation of everyone concerned. I have time to read the newspapers occasionally, and I gather that if we do not get the Bill through there may not be a further opportunity.

Would not it be better if my hon. Friend pressed the Amendment? If the Minister could accept it, that would be fine. Then if his draftsmen felt that it was defective it could be put right before Report.

If there will be no opposition to my producing a manuscript amendment if it seems desirable, I am happy to go along with that suggestion. I want to be as helpful as I can.

I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 11, line 12, after vehicle', insert:

'other than a moped and'.

The amendment is very important. To make a blanket prohibition of parking on verges and footways for all two-wheeled motorised vehicles as well as three- and four-wheeled vehicles is to go much too far, particularly in relation to mopeds. They take up very little room, and unless we are also to prohibit push-bikes I see no point in including them.

The clause could well discourage the use of two-wheeled vehicles, and at this time in our history we should not do that. Apart from the effect on the motor-cycle industry, there are good reasons for encouraging people to use forms of transport other than motor cars. Indeed, a good case can be made out for removing mopeds from classification as motor vehicles. In many other countries where they are not so classified, there is much greater use of this form of individual transport. For example, in France one person in six owns a moped, whereas in this country the figure is one in 150.

The moped is a logical form of personal urban transport which gives maximum door-to-door mobility and which has an excellent safety record, as is shown by the insurance premiums charged. Those reasons, as well as the energy and economy reasons, show that mopeds deserve more encouragement by the Government.

As a means of easing rush-hour congestion, going by moped is better than occupying a large motor car. Although I am always interested in road improvements and road building, it is possible that if we persuaded more and more of our commuting population to use mopeds we should not need to have quite so many road improvements.

Therefore, we should do nothing to discourage the use of mopeds. On the contrary, we should be taking a good step forward in excluding them from the clause.

I understand and sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry).

The history of the clause is that in another place a clause which was more or less a blanket prohibition of parking on verges and footways everywhere was inserted in the previous Bill. I sensed on Second Reading that there was considerable sympathy for the proposition that there should be restrictions on parking on the footways, but that obviously we had to cater for particular circumstances and difficulties. That is what we have tried to do in the clause. It is not a clause that I would have sought to introduce, but I thought it only right to take account of the case expressed in another place and in this House.

In fact, we can meet the point made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough under subsection (4) where by regulations we can exempt certain classes of vehicles. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows that we have begun discussions with the interests affected. Over many years of successive Governments it has not been the practice to come down firmly on details of this sort and to introduce regulations before consultations have been held with the bodies concerned.

I can give the assurance that we shall consider this matter with a view to the possibility of exemption under the powers already in the Bill. For example, we shall probably want to consider the matter in respect of bicycles or motor cycles. It would be a little difficult if we had just one category written into the Bill when we wish to consider the whole matter. I cannot predict the outcome of our consultations but we shall not be unsympathetic to the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

I ask the Minister to give a clear assurance that when he considers this matter he will take into account any representations which may be made to him by those representing motor cyclists. Apart from those who represent the moped industry and the many people that use them, there is no doubt that it is in the national interest that machines such as mopeds, which are extremely economic in the use of fuel, should be encouraged as much as possible. I think that a change in the law along the line that has already been indicated, and not confined only to mopeds but to all motor cycles, would be in the national interest.

I am prepared to give the assurance that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) seeks. We began talks with the motor cycle interests only yesterday.

I hope that the Minister will not look too favourably at these parking matters. Part of the reason for forbidding parking on the footpaths is to ensure that those with short sight or blindness do not fall over the moped, the motor cycle or the pedal cycle that is placed on the footpath. I happen to reside in a road in which there is a great deal of parking not on the footpath but in the residential road. It is frequently found that at night, when there is a slightest wind, motor cycles are blown over on to the pavement. They are a danger in a residential road in which the lighting is not very good. There is also the danger of oil spillage on the pavement from motor cycles. I hope that the Minister will take such matters into account.

I support the clause as an ex-chairman of the Pedestrians' Association for Road Safety and I do not want it watered down by the pavements being cluttered with mopeds and motor cycles.

Of course, whatever I try to do I can never be right. That is why was not able to give an unequivocal answer. Naturally we have to consult the Pedestrians' Association for Road Safety. Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) knows, the clause stemmed from another chairman of the Pedestrians' Association for Road Safety.

I accept the difficulties in which the Minister finds himself. I am glad that he has taken up this matter with the industry and the interests involved. In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), I must point out that if people always go around with their eyes shut they will fall over anything on the pavement. In view of the assurance that the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 11, line 15, leave out `highway, or' and insert:

road, or

(aa) on any land which is situated between two carriageways of an urban road and which is not a footway, or'

With this we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 35 and 37.

This group of amendments is quite technical and I hope that it will not be controversial. The intention is merely to change the word "road" to "highway". That will permit the benefits of the clause to be applied to roads that are not technically public roads but are highways to which, either on foot or by vehicles, the public has access. The amendment also applies a prohibition on parking on land between two carriageways. We are trying to bring the Bill into line with the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Bill which was promoted by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) in the last Parliament. We are trying to link the Bill with that measure and to strengthen its provisions. The amendment is also in line with legislation affecting the Greater London Council. I hope that this technical drafting amendment will be approved by the House.

The next amendment ment is—

Where is he?

The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has missed the boat.

Order.

I must apologise for delaying the Committee. Even I find it difficult to deal with two Ministers at the same time, especially when one is not in the Chamber.

With this we may take the following amendments:

Transport interests welcome the exemptions that are already provided in certain circumstances for loading and unloading but are still concerned lest the parking of cars and other vehicles on narrow residential roads should obstruct carriageways, thereby impeding emergency vehicles and vehicles servicing adjoining premises. I believe that this concern is felt by many local authorities, particularly those which have to undertake street cleansing and refuse collection.

I have tabled the amendment because it is a way of trying to help overcome the difficulties to which I have referred. Those who took part in the Second Reading debate will remember the widespread concern that was expressed from both sides of the House. I believe that the Minister himself expressed the wish to prohibit parking near the corners of roads. As a result of those fears the clause was, in my view, quite properly dropped from the Bill. Too often, however, there is still considerable congestion, and I believe that much more needs to be done to provide a freer flow of traffic in our built-up areas.

We should not at this stage enact any legislation which would increase congestion. Congestion is conducive to considerable frustration, to waste of energy and to waste of time. I should have thought that in those circumstances every effort should be made to see that the greatest amount of access is provided. Nothing that we do should limit that.

The points raised in Amendment No. 48 are exactly the same as those covered in Amendment No. 44. In Amendment No. 49 I am asking for an assurance on the question of the unaccompanied lorry driver. I am aware that there is a general understanding about the definition of "in attendance". In view of the tremendous shortage of lorry drivers and the fact that most delivery vehicles have only one person attending them we ought to have some definition of these words.

I support the amendment. The Minister will remember that on Second Reading I raised the question of garaging space on council estates and the difficulties caused by the narrow roads there. Unless the clause is amended there will be a great deal of congestion on these estates. A number of council estates in my constituency have narrow roads. There is a shortage of garaging, because many of the houses were built before the war. But services operate through the estates.

If the clause is not amended and there is a great deal of street parking there will be difficulty in operating the bus service. I have had strong representations from my constituents about this. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the Government are aware of the problem. There is another side to this. The local authorities will shortly be asking the Ministry for more money to provide garages on these estates if this amendment is not carried.

I support the amendment. There are houses in my constituency where the driveway is 12½ ft. long and the car is the standard length of 15 ft. The only way people can park their car is by having it protruding 2½ ft. on to the pavement. Sometimes it positively helps the flow of traffic if a driver parks partly off the road and partly on the pavement. I have in mind the situation late at night, when traffic flow through cities can be heavy while the pedestrian flow is light. Then the roads are not wide enough, while the pavements are very wide. Many of my friends and I believe that we are helping the traffic flow by putting a couple of wheels on to the pavement.

We do not have to look far for examples of this. Nearly every night opposite St. Stephen's Entrance to the House of Commons, in Millbank, Members park their cars, and often, to help the traffic flow through that bottleneck, they put the two nearside wheels on to the pavement. I regret that the passing of this clause in its present form would make an offence of what I regard as a rather helpful motoring manœuvre.

I cannot support my hon. Friends on this amendment. It is not only a question of the blind colliding with things on the pavement. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) misunderstood what I said earlier. It is not a case of people walking about with their eyes shut. I was talking about those who cannot see. They have to use the pavement, and that is not easy when it is cluttered with vehicles or other street furniture.

There is, however, a further point. My hon. Friend talked about congestion on the roads. There can also be congestion on the pavements. I remember that 10 years ago I had a number of photographs taken showing congestion on pavements where cars were parked. I had photographs showing pavements crowded with shoppers experiencing great difficulty in entering shops because of parked cars. Even worse, a number of photographs were taken in Brixton showing mothers having to push prams out into the road to get round cars parked on the pavements because there was not enough room between the car and shop premises. This is a serious risk. We must think of congestion on the pavements as well as on the road.

If we think merely of improving the traffic flow we are likely to cause greater danger to pedestrians. A further point to bear in mind is that pavements were not designed for vehicular traffic. They are damaged when cars or heavy vehicles pass over them. This results in greater expense for local authorities. Further, the services under our pavements—the drains and other utilities—are not protected from the weight of such traffic passing over them. I welcome the clause in general and do not want it to be watered down.

I join the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in supporting this clause. I do so for broadly the same reasons that he gave. Our constituency experience proves that there is urgent need for such a clause. My constituency has a massive problem. We are just outside London People come to my constituency by car and, because they have been encouraged not to travel right into London by car, they park their vehicles in my constituency and get the train into London.

As a result my constituents suffer great frustration. They take their cars off the road and put them into garages. Then they discover that someone has parked his car on the pavement outside their house, blocking their garage. To prevent that happening they decide to park their car on the pavement. They are additionally irked because they still have to pay increased rates as a result of building a garage.

In North Ealing there has been a growing number of accidents, which have included child fatalities, arising from cars being parked on pavements and children running out from behind them to cross the roads. Frequently, cars smash paving stones and old people then trip over the uneven surface, sometimes breaking a limb. There are those who feel justified in suing the local authority for failing to maintain the pavements. This clause would help to ease the situation.

There are two points of view here, both of which have great merit. I see this situation every day in my constituency. It probably has more cars than a town constituency because, being a rural area, everyone needs a car to get to work. The Minister is in an impossible situation. We have to ask what will happen to those council house tenants who have cars but no garages. Many of our housing estates were built before the war, and the width of the road is insufficient to allow cars to be parked outside the houses. Indeed, some roads are not wide enough to allow delivery vehicles to get down them. Dustbins cannot be collected. It is a terrible problem.

Would my hon. Friend include fire engines in the list of vehicles which cannot travel down these roads?

Certainly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is right, although I do not find that many pavements are broken as a result of cars parking on them. It is the heavy vehicles that do the damage.

I can meet my hon. Friend's case regarding council estates. In subsection (5) there is a freedom to exempt a road where there are the sort of difficulties he has in mind.

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I do not have the same knowledge of the Bill as he has.

We have here two perfectly valid points of view. We must consider the difficulties of parking in country districts. I understand that at one stage in one of the Bill's migratory processes there was a proposal prohibiting parking on grass verges in country lanes, but often the only way to keep country lanes clear is to allow parking on grass verges, particularly if farm sales or similar events are taking place.

The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has—as he so often did in the last Parliament from this Box—answered effectively and persuasively some of the points raised. If I may deal with the history of the clause, it contained, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said a total ban which was inserted in another place in the last Parliament. That was unacceptable, and we saw, in response to representations from quarters which hon. Members have in mind, the reaching of a compromise, although we realise that some people will remain dissatisfied. I suspect that the friends of the right hon. Member for Crosby in the Pedestrians Association for Road Safety will be critical, because I have made a possibility of there being too many exemptions. The right way to tackle this is for exemptions and exceptions to be decided at local level. It would be nonsensical for me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to issue directions or instructions as to which roads were regarded as sufficiently narrow to be excepted and which were not. We have provided for the local authorities to make what exceptions are necessary.

In view of the Minister's assurance, and provided that subsection (5) will be adhered to, so that where roads are not suitable orders will not be made, and with the further definition from the Minister on what he means by "unattended," I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 12, line 13, at end insert:

'(5A) Traffic signs shall be erected to indicate lengths of highway in regard to which such orders have been made and the effect thereof'.

This is a straightforward matter. The purpose is to ensure that road users be left in no doubt as to what regulations apply, and that there should be no misunderstanding. I say this because shortly before the 1970 General Election I was asked to take part in a radio broadcast and I parked my car in an unfamiliar city outside the broadcasting offices. When I came out I found I had been given a ticket. I discovered to my horror that I had parked in a no-parking zone. There were no yellow lines, and the notice about parking was so far away that I had not seen it. I was resentful that I had to pay a fine—but luckily I won in the subsequent election.

I hope that the Minister will give a favourable reply to this proposal.

I have great sympathy with the proposal. We want to ensure, as far as is reasonably possible, that all road users are aware of parking regulations. We are considering this matter, but I am worried because we are also under attack from environmentalists and others, including motoring organisations, about having too many signs, especially in urban areas, with the result that it is difficult for motorists to take them all in.

New legislative power is not required in order to have no-parking signs, but I shall examine this matter and write to the hon. Gentleman. If any difficulties arise in trying to make reasonable provision to meet this point we shall have to see how we can best deal with it—but I do not wish at this stage to write into the Bill provisions for a particular set of traffic signs, especially as in certain cases small areas of road may be involved, and problems would arise. A difficulty arises here because there has not been the usual interval of time between the Committee and Report stages.

I hope that on the basis of what I have said the hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw his amendment. We shall consider this point. If it is necessary to issue a circular or make regulations, the necessary powers are available.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Will the Minister give some explanation of subsection (2)(b) which states:

"that it was parked in contravention of this section for the purpose of saving life or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency…".

I would like the Minister to amplify the words "any other like emergency", because many motorists have considerable problems, both personal and mechanical. It is likely that a motor car will break down and considerable difficulty ensue before it can be moved from where it has broken down. The motoring public are entitled to some understanding as to what these words mean.

As hon. Members know, no comments of mine will be of any assistance if there are legal arguments, because it is the words in the Bill that the court will consider. This form of wording has been used in order to permit the widest consideration by the court of any exceptional circumstances. For instance, someone may have to stop his car in a hurry because a lady on board is expecting a baby rather sooner than had been thought. All sorts of contingencies may arise, and it is difficult to foresee them all. If we spelt out a list, others that are not mentioned would be regarded as having been excluded.

This provision is intended to give the motorist who parks his car the benefit of the doubt, but the way in which it is interpreted will be for the courts to decide on any particular occasion. I think that that is better than trying to spell out the circumstances. Giving a list would be of no assistance, because, even if anybody ever reads the OFFICIAL REPORT when it appears—no doubt many months after our debates—the words in the Bill would be all that the courts would consider. No doubt the courts would construe the wording in the widest sense for the benefit of the person concerned.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) in this query. The words are not quite as usually used. Using the words "any other like emergency" means that one applies not only the ejusdem generis rule, but the ejusdem very generis rule, because of the word "like". I know that there is not much that we can do about it at this stage of the Bill, but the wording means that the emergency is very restricted and will have to be either saving life or extinguishing a fire, or something like that.

My hon. Friend asked whether it would be a physical emergency or a mechanical emergency. I have no doubt that if a reasonable police constable saw a car parked outside a public convenience he would treat that as a physical emergency, but I am not sure whether it would be ejusdem generis with extinguishing a fire.

That is a very good point. We shall cover breakdowns and accidents by the regulations that the Secretary of State will issue under subsection (4).

The clause introduces into the Bill the vital rôle of local authorities in road works. It mentions several important aspects that local authorities have to take into account, other than studying accidents. They have also to concentrate on the construction, improving, maintenance and repair of roads and the construction of new roads.

I regret that the clause does not cover a matter about which I wrote to the Minister only a few weeks ago, namely, the responsibility of a local authority or its agents to make sure that warning signs are removed when road works have been completed for the night or for the weekend. I have met many illustrations of this recently. When men down their tools for the night, they lock up the tools and clear the road, but they leave the warning signs. If motorists see these signs at night and at weekends and find that they are not applicable; they tend to discount them, and the consequences may be fatal.

I know from the letters that the Minister sent me a week or two ago that he is calling the attention of local authorities to the importance of ensuring that road signs that they or their agents put up are removed when they are no longer applicable. Is it not possible for some mention of this matter to be made in the clause?

This is not a matter of an isolated instance. One can find successive examples of road works having been temporarily halted with the road signs left fully displayed. I should like the attention of local authorities to be officially called to their responsibilities in this respect.

I want to refer to the power for controlling, protecting, or assisting the movement of traffic on the roads mentioned in the clause, for there seems to be a serious omission from these powers, and that is in respect of night car rallies. This is a problem that concerns my constituency.

Tomorrow night, about 90 rally cars will be travelling through my constituency between midnight and 2 am. This is the latest of what seems to be a never-ending stream of car rallies that are organised in the Calder Valley area of West Yorkshire. We are becoming the Mecca of night car rallies, which present a serious threat for road safety and cause local residents considerable nuisance and disturbance.

We learned of this latest rally only a few days ago, when one of my constituents was given a letter from the club involved which said that cars would be passing her house and that approval for the rally had been given by the chief constable of West Yorkshire and the RAC. I investigated the situation and found that permission for such rallies comes under the Motor Vehicles (Competitions and Trials) Regulations 1969. It appears that no approval is needed for competitions involving fewer than 12 cars, but when more than 12 are concerned, approval has to be gained from the RAC. Applications are submitted by the individual car clubs to the RAC, which merely asks the police and other immediately interested parties for comments on the proposed route.

We have been able to obtain some last-minute rerouting of this rally, but the situation is most unsatisfactory. Drastic improvements in the regulations are urgently required. Local authorities should be the bodies giving approval to such events, not the RAC, which must clearly favour motoring organisations and does not have the necessary local knowledge of the proposed routes. It is also inperative that the clubs advertise in the local Press what routes are proposed to be used, so that local residents may have ample and early opportunity to object. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider reviewing the regulations in the sense I have suggested.

May I briefly detain the Committee to ask one simple, straightforward and basic question, which is, who is to pay for all this? I imagine that all of us are in favour of anything that can be done to improve road safety and that we are all in favour of local authorities preparing and implementing a programme of measures. However, one thing that has struck all of us more than anything else in the past few months has been the complaint from district and county councillors that Parliament is endlessly asking them to do all sorts of desirable things, but then not making the money available and leaving them stuck with the problem of finance. I do not have the quotation with me, but I believe that the Secretary of State for the Environment himself, whose Bill this presumably is, was making much the same point the other day.

I should be grateful for a brief comment on whether the Government will provide any finance, so that the Bill does not mean just another piece of machinery for local authorities and another burden on the rates.

Subsection (2) provides that

"Each local authority shall prepare and carry out a programme of measures designed to promote road safety…."

That is a powerful and vague provision and appears to have no end to its scope. I would be the first to advocate that local authorities should have strong powers, but to what extent is that subsection a new departure from what local authorities, under another "hat", have been doing in the past?

The Minister and I know that halfway between our two constituencies a driving and road safety school was set up. I was fully in agreement with that move. It was designed partly as an educational endeavour and partly to promote road safety. It was set up two years ago, and somebody had to pay for it. In fact, the local authorities footed the Bill. Will standards be laid down to enable local authorities to know what is expected of them? If no guidelines are laid down, an enthusiastic local authority may commit ratepayers to a huge burden, whereas a dilatory authority may be thanked by its ratepayers for doing nothing.

I advocate any measure aimed to promote road safety and to encourage drivers to become more proficient. I was involved in a skid some years ago and I ended up on the verge of the road. I did not know what to do to cope with that skid, but since then I have had the opportunity to practise, under instruction, on a skid pad. That skid pad was set up two or three years ago under the Conservative Goverment. Will the Minister tell the House whether, the powers in the Bill are much greater than the present powers? It would be useful to have some guidance.

I am concerned about the fact that trunk roads appear to be excluded from roads on which local authorities have to carry out studies into accidents. Most serious accidents take place on trunk roads or at junctions with local authority roads.

Some months ago I went to a dangerous area on a trunk road in my constituency and suggested to officials that double white lines should be painted on the road at that point. However, I was told that because of the national regulations it was impossible to have an adequate length of double white line. A few days ago there was a fatal acident at that point. It is close to a crossing where a local road meets the trunk road. I hope that the Minister will make plain that local authorities will not be prevented from undertaking studies into accidents on trunk roads, although they may not have the final authority in respect of those roads.

A number of different points have been raised on Clause 8—a clause which appeared in the Conservative Government's legislation on road traffic. It was produced following full consultation and discussion with the local authorities, and has been widely welcomed.

I was asked who would bear the costs of the provision. Expenditure is already incurred under local authorities' permissive powers. The purpose of the clause is to extend those powers. It will attract rate support grant and under the new arrangements, which will take effect from 1st April next year, local authorities will be eligible for transport supplementary grant. The nature and extent of the expenditure is a matter for local authorities.

I share the concern which has been expressed about the level of rates, but at the same time—and here I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart)—it is important that local authorities should have powers to carry out studies into accidents and so forth. This is a relevant consideration in their priorities as to how they should spend money on roads, and against this will attract transport supplementary grant. It is logical that they should have the additional powers. However, their discretion and initiative in exercising those powers is a matter for them.

I appreciate the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) about the great nuisance and disturbance caused to his constituents by motor rallies being allowed to take place in unsuitable conditions. The point does not arise directly out of Clause 8, but I appreciate that my hon. Friend feels that local authorities should have more power to deal with that situation. I know that he personally has done everything a Member of Parliament can do to try to mitigate the difficulties by approaching local authorities, the police, and the Royal Automobile Club which is responsible for these rallies. If my hon. Friend wishes to have a word with me, or would like to bring some of his constituents to see me, I shall be pleased to see in what way we can help. However, I cannot see how I can help my hon. Friend in this Bill.

The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) raised the important question of road signs. I have not his letter with me, although I remember it in general terms. He will understand that I receive a large number of letters on transport matters and that I do not carry all the details in my head. However, he made a valid point. I do not think that at this late stage it would be right to spell out even if it were possible to do so, how local authorities should exercise their responsibilities. This is not the way in which Parliament or central Government should try to do things. We are trying to give them greater powers and, I hope, some resources to go with them. We shall be pleased to look at the matter again, if the hon. Member believes that the situation is not satisfactory, to see whether advice should be given to local authorities. However, I do not want to send round to local authorities too many circulars which in themselves may incur expenditure. I have already been taken to task on that point a little earlier in our discussions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point about the trunk roads?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that omission. I shall be happy to discuss the question of the transfer of trunks roads and the matter of local authority responsibilities. The big problem is that of expense. Again, this could affect the rates. The reason that local authorities are not anxious to discharge any kind of responsibilities on trunk roads is that because trunk roads are the Secretary of State's responsibility, all expenses connected therewith are met from central rather than from local funds. Any transfer of Function would involve rate contribution.

What will happen when local authorities wish to study accident situations on trunk roads in their areas?

There is no harm in local authorities studying these matters, but studies usually involve expenditure. Normally in the administration of trunk roads the local authorities can be used as the agents of central Government, but in those circumstances the powers lie with the Secretary of State. Local authorities undertake work in this respect, but they are totally reimbursed by central Government so that no cost falls on the ratepayer.

I hope that we may have from the Minister a better assurance than he has given. It was at one time the intention to de-trunk all trunk roads. But until that happens there is a division of responsibility involving the organisation which used to be called the DRE but which now falls within the, responsibility of the Regional Controller (Roads), or some similar name. The responsibility is divided between that official and the county highway surveyor—the one dealing with trunk roads and the other with other roads. There is difficulty where there are junctions of the two.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider giving the agency to local authorities to deal with trunk roads when they are carrying out a survey. It is ridiculous that they should carry out the letter of the clause and survey all the roads in their district except trunk roads. They must deal with the roads as a whole.

I appreciate that the wording has to be as it is in the statute, but the only way in which local authorities can look at roads as a whole is for the Department to give them the agency to look at the trunk roads as part of the survey.

The right hon. Gentleman spent much longer in the Department of the Environment than I have done so far, and he had particular responsibility for roads. I said that it is our desire, when legislation is possible and the financial aspects can be resolved, to de-trunk roads if the local authorities think that this would be of assistance. But I do not trade on intention. I cannot do it today. We have been in office for just over four and a half months, and it would be a substantial financial and legislative operation to de-trunk roads which are within the purview of local authorities. That does not arise on the road safety clause.

The Minister has not quite answered my question which concerned the extent to which the rate support grant will be used to encourage road safety. A school has been set up in Sheffield for this purpose. Does the Minister visualise that similar projects in other areas will have the benefit of rate support grant?

The rate support grant which is available for existing road safety expenditure is spelt out in the Financial Memorandum, and that expenditure will also be an element in the new transport supplementary grant. No one can say how the powers will be exercised by local authorities because unless the Bill is passed they will not have powers. Local authorities must know what they can do before formulating projects. In the present economic climate of stringency they may not be able to do as much as the hon. Gentleman and I would like, but that is why we have left the initiative to the local authorities.

It is suggested that the debate should also cover Amendment No. 36, in Schedule 6, page 73, line 26, leave out from beginning to first 'the' in line 27 and insert:

(1) In section 53 of that Act (testing of condition of vehicles on roads) in subsection (1) (authorised examiners may test motor vehicles to ascertain whether certain requirements are complied with) in paragraph (b) after the word "of" there shall be inserted the word "noise".

(2) In subsection (2) of that section (persons who may act as authorised examiners)'.

This clause was inserted in the Bill in another place. Although we all have sympathy with its objective the great difficulty is that noise testing equipment would have to be provided in testing stations and it is at present not technically possible to carry out the kind of checks that are necessary. We are reviewing the whole question of the testing of vehicles, but I am advised that the clause could not be effectively implemented for a considerable time.

The amendment adds noise to the list of testing requirements for vehicles at testing stations, but we consider that spot checks are likely to be more effective than the method envisaged in the clause.

No one would wish to turn down a clause which is directed to the reduction of noise, but I have to ask the Committee to vote against it and to substitute the more practical proposal in Amendment No. 36.

There is little in the Bill which is related to noise, and the one clause that is about to be forcibly extracted. The clause was introduced in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I cannot see why it is not technically possible to introduce noise testing at testing stations. If man is capable of projecting his fellow men to other planets, surely our scientists and technologists can devise machinery for testing the noise level of vehicles. The noble Lord said that he was not concerned about the date of implementation and accepted that it might be 1975 or 1976. He was concerned about acceptance of the principle and a Government commitment to the cause of noise abatement.

We suffer in all our constituencies from noise emitted by mopeds, motor cycles, cars and juggernauts. Legislation gives insufficient recognition to the cause of noise abatement. There must be more stringent testing of motor vehicles which emit excessive noise, and the clause would go a long way towards giving the Department some teeth. The existing regulations are not being observed, the number of prosecutions is derisory and people do not get the protection to which they are entitled from officers of the law.

Lord Elton's amendment has a great deal of merit. I accept what the Minister has said, but I still think that much more stringent blanket testing should take place, not just spot testing.

I found the Minister's remarks disturbing. We are, rightly, spending millions of pounds on the reduction of aircraft noise and I do not grudge one penny of that. But a noisy motor cycle or sports car can create just as much disturbance as a noisy aircraft. One noisy motor cycle can disturb the sleep of hundreds of people.

It is nonsense to say that the necessary technical equipment does not exist to carry out adequate tests on these vehicles. The Minister is saying in fact that the Government are not prepared to give sufficient priority to obtaining that equipment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at this again and that he will give priority to obtaining equipment and installing it in testing centres. Obviously it is much easier to test a vehicle in a centre than to carry out random checks on the roads. We already have the equipment to do this, and I cannot understand why the Minister says that it is technically not possible to provide the necessary equipment for these centres in the next 18 months.

I do not want to make party points. However, the present Government have been in office only four and a half months. We have done a great deal, but we cannot do everything at once. I thought that the strictures of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) were such that I ought to make that point to the Committee.

It is all very well for people to say that this and that should be done. I remind the Committee that we have been reminded already from the Opposition benches that the money will have to be found for all these purposes. Someone has to pay for all this very expensive equipment. The cost of testing will be involved as well.

When I advise the Committee that the Government do not feel that we can make satisfactory arrangements for this highly technical testing, I do not mean that it is not theoretically possible. The situation is rather like that of the old lady who, on hearing about the first man landing on the moon, said, "Perhaps with all this advance in science, I shall now be able to get an electricity supply in my cottage."

We hear a great deal about vehicle testing generally. Everyone knows that a vehicle can be put into a suitable condition to pass the test. But what about the remaining 12 months? I am trying to get round what is a difficult problem by spot testing. I hope, for example, that the additional powers in the first five clauses will mean a saving in police time now taken up trying to enforce fixed parking penalties which can be devoted to other purposes.

We shall do what we can. I have no doubt that we shall come back to this point in subsequent discussions on road traffic legislation, by which time we hope to have a better answer than we have at the moment.

We have tried to meet the point. I hope that the Committee will agree to delete the clause and to accept the halfway house solution which is contained in what I shall be proposing when we reach Schedule 6.

I do not want to allow this clause to pass without commenting on subsection (1)(b) because I have had a number of representations from constituents of mine who are concerned about this matter. They feel strongly that there is a danger that people with worsening eyesight and deteriorating health, because they do not have a constant reminder when they apply for licence renewals, perhaps will not perform their statutory duty to inform the authorities that they are not as fit as they once were.

I hope that the Minister will be able to advise the Committee of the steps which authorities will take to ensure that abuses of this kind do not occur.

I know that there was concern when this clause appeared in the Bill introduced by the previous administration. Hon. Members who were here at the time had submissions from opticians and others about these difficulties.

Since I find it difficult, now that I am the Minister responsible, to change what I said in opposition, I concede that there are great difficulties in making sure that there are no abuses. At present, drivers sign the appropriate form every three years. I wonder how many people actually have their eyes tested before signing the licence renewal form.

Administratively, no one can guarantee that abuses of this kind will not occur. Successive Governments have tried to provide reasonable safeguards. When the scheme comes in, if there are found to be difficulties or abuses, it will have to be looked at again. But, against the general background of trying to reduce administrative costs and the cost to the individual motorist—because the cost of administration has to be reflected in the cost of the licence—I believe that it is right to proceed in this way. It will save a great deal of expenditure and a great deal of work on the part of the civil servants. It will enable us to give a driving licence up to the age of 70 at a reasonable fee.

I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 21, line 35, after 'evidence' insert

'or, in Scotland, sufficient evidence'.

This is a technical drafting point to fit the Bill to Scottish law.

I hope that I shall not be asked to explain Scottish law.

This is another clause inserted in the other place which we see considerable difficulty in implementing.

It has been discussed on a number of occasions. Although I am happy with the safeguards about heavy goods vehicles and although an apprentice scheme has been worked out—and provided that the scheme is enforced rigorously by both sides concerned it will work—it is not possible to have an apprentice scheme in respect of public service vehicles so that drivers can graduate from one vehicle to another.

There have been no real consultations between the operators and the unions, but there is no strong evidence of the operators wanting this change except in one or two rather exceptional circumstances. Having regard to the enormous responsibility attached to driving a public service vehicle with a large number of passengers, the Government do not feel that it would be right to make this change.

I intervene only to point out to my hon. Friends that this was a clause in the Bill introduced by the previous administration. We always felt that Clause 15 was far more important. The industry was under considerable pressure because of the shortage of drivers. But this is not the case with buses. It is clear from our consultations that there is no great demand for the age to be reduced from 21 to 18. For those reasons, I support what the Minister said.

It is suggested that at the same time we should debate Clauses 18 and 19 and Amendment No. 24.

I think that I am under an obligation to explain to the Committee why Clauses 17, 18 and 19 hang together. They are an attempt—I accept a sincere attempt—to improve the position of rural transport by a series of changes in the licensing system.

I do not think that there is any dispute on either side about the serious problem of rural transport. Hon. Members privately, as well as in speeches and Questions in the House, have expressed their concern about this matter over a long period. We are all concerned about it.

In 1968 there was an attempt to help by giving local authorities not only the power to subsidise services but a grant to help in that way. We know that, for business and other reasons, people are obliged to have motor cars and that situation has generally eroded the services about which we are all concerned.

There is no dispute about the problem. The dispute is about the best way of tackling it. My advice to the Committee is that these clauses will not help very much and may in certain instances make matters worse.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) shakes his head. This is obviously a matter for argument. I make no political point out of it. Difficulties are involved. The previous administration were extremely concerned about this matter. They had experiments conducted, and so forth. Ultimately, at the end of three and a half years, they brought forward proposals, but they were not acceptable to the operators, the unions or the local authorities.

The proposals before us now, which were inserted in another place, are different from those which the previous Government had in the final print of their Bill. I make no complaint. It is a difficult problem and it is only right that people should try in this or that way to meet this or that difficulty.

The argument about minibuses is attractive. People say that they see a bus going along with perhaps only three, six or eight people in it and therefore ask whether it would be more sensible to have a minibus. They seem to think that because a minibus is only a quarter of the size of a large bus it will cost only a quarter of the money to run. But how wrong they are. The biggest factor in transport, both rural and elsewhere, is drivers' wages. It costs as much—or there is very little difference—to have someone drive a minibus as to have someone drive a bigger bus. Therefore, there are no economies in that respect, unless it is suggested—I do not think that anyone would make such a suggestion—that the drivers of minibuses should not be properly paid.

When we debated this matter before, concern was expressed about people thinking that there might be money to be made in running these services or that they might be motivated by some form of public service to operate such services, that they might take away from some of the existing routes the low level of support that they have, that neither the National Bus Company nor the operators, whoever they are, would be able to run the services any longer, and that the local authority might feel that there was no justification for continuing to support them and withdrawing support. Then, for whatever reason, the people who had introduced the alternative services might find that they were not profitable, or they had gone for contract work, and therefore withdrew the services so that the situation would be even worse than it is now.

There is a lot of scope for argument and study here. I do not pretend to know all the answers. I think that we may need a more radical approach to try to do something for rural transport.

The question was whether we should include what were widely accepted to be the unsatisfactory clauses in the previous Bill. I do not criticise the previous Government for those unsatisfactory clauses. I know the difficulties. That is why we have not seen versions of them here.

In the initial consultations I had to make up my mind about them. It seemed to me that, in the first instance, we needed to get all aspects of the operators' and the unions' views together and then to bring in the local authorities. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State chaired the meetings on that basis. We wanted to bring in the local authorities earlier. However, these additional responsibilities for traffic co-ordination were given to the county authorities only as recently as April. Many were new authorities. Therefore, it was reasonable that they should ask us to defer our meetings with them and the operators and the unions. A number of them have expressed their worry about these provisions and have asked us to defer consultations until the autumn, because they had to get in their transport policies and programmes and so on. That seemed quite reasonable.

I make no promises. However, I hope that out of these consultations with the parties principally concerned—the operators, the local authorities and the unions—we shall get more broadly acceptable and workable proposals than we have here.

Frankly, from my point of view at any rate—I do not know what hon. Members opposite may think—when local authorities, operators and others are asked to do a lot of work with a view to trying to arrange something and they are then told, "The basis on which we are working has changed; Parliament has decided such-and-such", it puts me in an untenable position.

The Minister keeps mentioning the great rôle of the unions in this matter. Surely they are not very relevant to these three clauses. Unions in most parts of the country would have no say whether a minibus service was provided by private owner operators who do not employ trade union labour. To find out what the trade unions' wishes are in this respect and apparently to be guided by them alone gives the Minister a false picture of the needs of the countryside.

I did not say that I had been guided by the trade unions alone. I should like to make my attitude to these matters absolutely clear. On all relevant issues I am prepared to consult and, as a matter of course, do consult the trade unions, employers and everybody concerned. I reject utterly any proposal that I should not consult the trade unions. I hope that there is no suggestion that they are taking an obstructive or difficult attitude to this matter. The unions are concerned. They have members in rural areas who are concerned about transport. They happen to agree with the people operating the current services that this proposal could make matters worse rather than better. There is no assurance that the position will be made better.

We have our different views. The local authorities have recently been charged under legislation proposed by the last Government to take on this responsibility. Is it suggested that we should write to them saying, "You need not bother, because Parliament has decided what it will do about rural transport"? That is not the right way of going about it.

With the assurance that we shall report as soon as possible any proposal that we can work out. I ask the Committee to delete these clauses.

I think that if and when HANSARD is published again and the Minister reads the speech that he has just made he will conclude that it is not one of his best contributions to our debates.

One would imagine that nothing before had been done in this sphere. I was involved in this industry for some years before I came to the House, and to my knowledge discussions have been going on for 15 years. Indeed, one could go back to when the licensing system as we now have it was introduced in the 1930s. Since then people have been crying out for some relaxation, and for the Minister to talk as though we were proposing something so radical that it would put people out of work and existing bus services out of business is not to tell the truth.

We shall not be able to get through this debate as quickly as we have done some others. "Forty years on" is a very old song. When we say that the present licensing system is out of date, it must be remembered that it was set up to protect established operators in an industry that was buoyant. Their only problem was that the industry was so attractive to others to set up in business that those in it already had to be protected so that they could stay in business and not have their best routes creamed off.

If that were the case today, we should not put forward this sort of proposal. As the Minister admitted, it is accepted on both sides of the House that, particularly in rural areas, the changes that have been made have been disastrous. Over the last 20 years, passenger journeys have more than halved in number while the number of cars has increased fivefold. No industry can see this sort of erosion and expect to continue as it was before. We say that we cannot brook any further delay, and we are not prepared to see these clauses deleted from the Bill.

On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) instanced—I thought graphically—the problems in his constituency, and in an Adjournment debate on this very issue my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) did the same.

It is not that we are talking about areas with bus routes; we are talking about many areas which have no buses at all. Railways went some time ago. It is wrong for the Minister to suggest that things can go on in this way. There are people who cannot afford a car, yet they must buy one to get to work. They have three choices. They can buy a car and go to work, they can walk—and that is highly unlikely, because of the distances involved—or they can be unemployed and stay at home.

Is there something terribly wrong in suggesting a few modest relaxations to help those people and the elderly who, in many areas, are isolated? Is it wrong to help the young housewife with a family, or the infirm? We say that this hardship has gone on for too long, and the proposals in these clauses will help to fill certain gaps.

In 1971, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) produced a pilot study that was concerned with this problem as it related to West Suffolk and Devon. The conclusions that were drawn were simple. The study concluded that there was limited scope for full-scale bus services, and I shall be surprised if the Under-Secretary of State comes forward from the working party with something to disprove that. Apparently, how ever, we have a friend in court in the hon Gentleman, because one sees in HANSARD—I mentioned this on Second Reading—that he said:

"I hope that there will not be too many pettifogging regulations about the use of minibuses on existing bus routes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January 1974.; Vol. 868, c. 474.]

I hope that after meetings with the working party the hon. Gentleman will not forget what he said on a previous occasion. He was, of course, relating his comments to Scotland—an area that he knows well. If the hon. Gentleman has a change of heart, we shall think that he has been nobbled, and by the time I conclude my speech I may suggest that one or two people have been got at. There is limited scope for full-scale bus services, even with the subsidies that county councils are prepared to give.

I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber.

I have given my hon. Friend a verbatim report of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that what I said would percolate through.

The second conclusion drawn from the study to which I referred earlier was that it was necessary to encourage the use of cars to meet irregular needs. The study also said that there was a need to extend the use of minibuses on a much wider basis and, finally, that there was a need for local government to accept a new rôle in co-ordinating transport needs in their areas. This is an important new factor, and local government ought to be given certain new powers to deal with this.

The Evening News of 20th July said:

"Rural bus services in Hertfordshire are in need of drastic overhaul, say a county council study team.

They discovered that villagers are prepared to pay higher fares if the bus services are improved.

Many are prepared to buy their own village minibus to overcome transport problems.

The council are investigating several schemes including joint mail—minibus services and using school buses to carry general passengers."

What is so wrong about that sort of proposal? After all, that is all that we are asking for—that there should be this flexibility.

These facts have been known for a long time. For too long Vested interests have come before the public interest, so much so—I accept some of the blame for this—that nothing has been done for far too long. I must tell the Minister that if he tries to convince us that we have to continue this charade he will not get his way. This issue should have been tackled in 1968. We know that the problem existed then. It was a scandal then, and it would be an even worse scandal to allow it to continue.

I know that the House would not wish me to go into the history of our Bill, but had we remained in government there is no question but that these clauses would now be law. However, certain tragic events occurred which brought someone else into government, and to our amazement they withdrew these changes from the Bill and presented the amended measure in another place. I congratulate their Lordships on restoring these proposals.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that these causes are in the same form as they were in the previous Government's Bill? They have been substantially modified.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In view of what he said, I should have thought that the clauses would be far more acceptable to him than what was proposed originally.

Perhaps I may draw attention to a rather strange conversion. I am glad that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) is in the Chamber, because after the Second Reading debate on the previous Government's Bill he tabled certain amendments. I have them here, and I see that they are not very different from what we now have in the Bill. I notice that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) has his name to the amendments. Neither of those two hon. Members has ever been reluctant to admit his connection with the trade union movement, so I presume that when they tabled their amendments they had union agreement to them. If that is not so, no doubt the hon. Member for Nuneaton will correct me when he addresses the Committee.

I wonder why there is this sudden hostility to these proposals. I find it difficult to justify the claim that existing services could be damaged. I have looked carefully at the safeguards in these clauses, and it seems to me that there is adequate protection for operators who are or have been worried about their business. The fiercest opposition to our proposals when they were introduced in 1971 came from bus operators and not from the unions. I am sure that the Minister will accept that. It took a considerable time for us to get agreement to what was proposed, and I have to tell the House that my information now—I have been careful to check this—is that the industry is happy to go along with these clauses and would prefer them to remain in the Bill rather than be deleted. There are three small matters which they suggest could be altered, but they do not in any sense affect these clauses.

Let us consider the protections available for the industry. The traffic commissioners will have considerable powers. We are not for one moment suggesting that minibuses which are operated by commercial undertakings for a profit should be allowed to go into operation without permission. They will still have to apply to the traffic commissioners for a permit. An easing of this law was made in 1968, and all we are saying here is that this should be extended a little further. The traffic commissioners will take into account what services are being operated, and if there is any doubt, even under these clauses, they will advertise the fact that the service is to come into existence and that any objections should be made as soon as possible.

Thus, the only change in criteria or instructions to the traffic commissioners—it ought to have been done a long time ago—would be that the public interest would be the first priority. The traffic commissioners would be instructed that the public interest came first, instead of being third or fourth. I sometimes think that the public interest does not come first with right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side, and I have to say, with some regret, that in this instance I think that they are being misled in trying to delay these proposals.

I have referred to the protection in relation to minibuses run commercially. There is talk of concern also about private minibuses and the effect of our proposals in that sector. There will be safeguards here, too. The purpose is to provide a social service, and under Section 203 of the Local Government Act 1972 a local council would be involved if such a scheme were planned. I think it highly unlikely that a local authority would go along with any such scheme—it should not be forgotten that advertisements would not be permitted—if it felt that it would harm a service which it was already committed to helping by means of grant. Therefore, the additional safeguard asked for in this connection is provided under the co-ordinating policy of local government. We can on longer condone the isolation of so many of our people, and a service of that kind would have a great part to play.

Where do the objections come from? As far as I know, the industry is happy with our proposals. What about the unions? I do not have such close links with the unions as some hon. Members have, but I cannot believe that they are saying that these clauses ought to come out of the Bill in order to protect jobs. If any hon. Member has a constituency in which there is a surplus of bus drivers, will he please let me know? I am certain that many of my hon. Friends would be glad to have their names and addresses, because in their constituencies there is a serious shortage. It is an incredible idea that these proposals should now be removed in order to protect the jobs of existing bus drivers. There is no surplus whatsoever, and our job now ought to be to find a new way round the problem.

There is no question of a social contract here. Indeed, if the Government succeed in removing these clauses it will be seen as an unsocial contract by many thousands of people living in rural areas. I ask the Minister to put the public interest first. If he does that, he cannot fail to allow the clauses to remain.

rose—

rose—

Mr. Edwards.

On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I know that it is in your discretion, but I was under the impression that it was traditional to call hon. Members alternately from either side.

It is within the discretion of the Chair. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I did not see him. He will be called next.

The Minister gave us a miserable little speech. When the matter came before the other place, the set of amendments now the subject of these clauses was accepted by the Government, presumably because the noble Lord then replying for the Government could think of no argument with which to defeat them.

I take it that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Government did not make clear their opposition to the clause when it was proposed in the other place. There were no Divisions on these matters because it was clear that on these, as on many other matters, the Conservative Party always has a majority in the other place.

In fact, Lord Garnsworthy said:

"I sense that the Committee is behind Lord Aberdare and I shall not, therefore, oppose the amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th June 1974; Vol. 352, c. 817]

That seems about as clear a statement as anything one could imagine.

Today, the Minister has given a reason. He said that he could not consult about other proposals in a situation in which the whole basis had been changed. Are we to understand that these modest proposals change the whole basis of rural transport in such a way that the further radical reform about which the Minister has twice spoken—both today and on Second Reading of the Conservative Government's Bill on 30th January—will be prevented? I cannot imagine why that should be so.

All we are asking is that while we await the further radical proposals which the Minister apparently has in mind we should be allowed to proceed in a modest way to improve what is at present a desperate situation.

I am especially surprised at the Government's attitude because, over the years, in my constituency of Pembroke one theme has been at the centre of speeches made by the Labour candidate. Indeed, there was a time when I thought him incapable of making any other speech. There seemed to be no other point on which he dwelt apart from the need to improve rural transport and, in particular, the need for relaxation of the kind now proposed in the rules affecting minibuses. When we introduced our Bill, his speeches suddenly came to an end, after he had written an article in a local newspaper confessing that we had gone most of the way to meet the demands which he had made. Presumably, therefore, he will be as disappointed as many others will be at the present Government's attitude.

I speak for my widely scattered constituency of Pembroke, and I do so from the backbenches, but I am certain that I speak also for all hon. Members representing rural constituencies in Wales. It may well have been the attitude of the Labour Party, now exemplified by the Government, which swept it from rural Wales at the last election.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) said, opposition to these proposals cannot be based on a threat to the jobs of bus drivers, because there is a great shortage of bus drivers. But, of course, there is a threat of a different kind to jobs. In my constituency people are unable to take jobs because they cannot travel to work. We are told also that there is a threat to existing bus services. In most of my constituency there are no existing bus services. I sometimes think that I provide about the only bus service in my constituency. As I go about visiting constituents, I make hardly a journey on which I do not give someone a lift. Fortunate it is that the owners of private cars are, on the whole, ready to assist people in rural areas in that way—otherwise the life in places such as my constituency would virtually come to a standstill.

We have here a modest proposal which would enable many small villages and communities in rural areas to breath again, to have some prospect of a modest transport service. All this, apparently, is to be halted while the Minister gives further thought to the radical proposals which he first mentioned on 30th January.

It is an extraordinary and quite deplorable state of affairs. In the coming months I shall have a great deal to say to my constituents about the Government's attitude on this matter. My constituents will be frankly astonished that any Government could interfere in this way and put on one side a measure for which they have been eagerly waiting. I know that my hon. Friends will press these clauses—I hope that the Liberal Party will, too—and I trust that the Government will be defeated.

I hope that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) will accept that just as he no doubt speaks sincerely on behalf of his constituents, so the same can be said of many of us who oppose his view. In opposing what he said and in supporting the rejection of the clauses I shall give voice to feelings I have developed after a fair number of years, if not exactly working in transport then in lecturing in it and doing research in it. I speak as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union which, in the main, is opposed to these clauses. It is interesting to note that, in spite of what the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) said, so also are the majority of bus operators.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Member shakes his head but he must realise that the amendments which the scheduled bus operators urged to be made when the Conservative Government introduced their Bill—which, as he quite rightly adjudged, were the amendments I put down when I was on the Opposition Front Bench—were put down because we were convinced that the Conservative Government intended to shove the proposals through with all their might. I can remember that the previous Minister had a sort of messianic glow in speaking about these proposals. He said that they would revolutionise rural transport, and it was because the Conservatives took that attitude that many of us thought that the only way we could make them more acceptable was by tabling the amendments we did.

From speaking with a number of trade unionists and a large number of bus operators I have found that they still feel that their industry and the needs of our constituents would be far better served if more time were given for a far wider-ranging discussion. To rush into the kind of proposals the hon. Member for Shipley has referred to and to make the alterations to the Bill to bring it into line with what his party was originally proposing would be highly detrimental to rural constituents.

I am intrigued that the hon. Member should speak for the operators with such authority. Is he simply referring to private conversations with individuals? The two major trade associations—one including the National Bus Company—have informed me that they would prefer the clauses to remain in the Bill.

I did not question the hon. Member's sources. All I can say is that my information, which I hope is fairly accurate, leads me to conclude that the bulk of the industry believes that rather than rush into this kind of thing we should make a far more serious study, and that they would prefer the kind of amendment we tabled when in Opposition.

I am even more surprised to hear the hon. Member talking as he does. I respect his sincerity, because he has taken a long-standing interest in transport matters generally. He knows, however, that his party introduced the 1972 Local Government Act which, in Section 203, imposed a statutory duty

"to develop policies which will promote the provision of a co-ordinated and efficient system of public passenger transport to meet the needs of the county."

That duty was placed upon the new metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties. The trouble is that before these authorities have even had time to draw up their public transport maps, before they have even had time to present their transport planning and policy documents to the Department, the hon. Member—who knows that this work has been going on—wants to change the whole basis of the legislation upon which these plans could be based. That is remarkable. He speaks as one who wanted to put the onus of local public transport planning on to the new local authorities, and yet before they have had the chance to complete their planning and submit the documents he wants to change the legislation.

If the Conservatives are to be logical they should allow the non-metropolitan counties—which includes Pembrokeshire—at least to complete the TPP documents and submit them to the Ministry before changing the legislation.

Would it not be helpful for the local authorities, in drawing up their plans, to be able to include in them the possibility of extended transport arrangements of the kind these clauses might permit?

I am amazed at the hon. Gentleman, because I know that he takes a deep interest in the travelling needs of his constituents. Most of the non-metropolitan counties—I pick them out particularly because they have never had transport experience—and the metropolitan counties have not yet had time to draw up their TPP documents. Why on earth, therefore, does the hon. Member not want to give his local authority enough time before changing the legislation?

I question the arguments of the hon. Member for Shipley for another reason. The evidence which led the Conservative Government to conclude that the licensing rules needed relaxing was based primarily on two studies of rural transport. One, perhaps purely coincidentally, was carried out in the constituency of the then Under-Secretary of the Environment. The other, perhaps again coincidentally, was carried out in the constituency of the then Minister for Transport Industries. Presumably, that led to the conclusion that the needs or the supposed needs of these two constituencies were precisely the needs of all rural areas. Surely the transport needs of Pembrokeshire are totally different from the transport needs of Yorkshire—which, again, are different from those of Bury St. Edmunds and Yeovil. That is why I support the Minister when he says that we should not only give local authorities more time to develop their plans and policies but should allow the Minister more time to complete his consultations.

There is an economic argument, to which the hon. Member for Shipley did not refer in detail. It is that the labour costs of a minibus, a 30-seater, a 42-seater, or a 70-seater, are all about 70 per cent. of the cost of the operation. In areas where minibus services have been operating for five years following the changes in the 1968 Act, the operators have been asking for exactly the same kind of subsidies as the National Bus Company.

Hon. Members have spoken on television about the "great minibus solution", and have touted it around their constituencies as the saviour of public transport in the areas they represent, but it has been found from hard practical experience that in most cases the minibus operators are now asking for exactly the same kind of subsidies. For that plain economic reason, I do not think that the minibus solution will work.

We must realise that under the 1930 Road Traffic Act the traffic commissioners have to take account of public need. They have to bear in mind the three Ps of the Act—priority, protection and public need.

I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to give the House the wrong impression. I never suggested that public interest was not within the consideration of the traffic commissioners. I said that we were now going to give it a fresh emphasis and make it the first priority.

The hon. Gentleman turns his back quite conveniently on some 40 years' experience of the operation of the 1930 Act. If the hon. Gentleman reads the 1951 report of the Thesiger Committee, which examined the workings of the Act, if he looks at the analysis conducted by the Jack Committee, the analysis in the mid-Wales study in 1961, and some of the Dartington Hall studies —in fact, pretty well every study apart from the two to which I have just referred he will see that they all recommend a continuation of the 1930 system augmented by bigger subsidies, administered either by the traffic commissioners or by the county council.

That is why I believe that the hon. Gentleman is not merely interfering at the edges. What he will do is to undermine the whole basis of cross-subsidisation as outlined in the 1930 Act. Instead of just one or two minibus operators and one or two larger operators asking the traffic commissioners and local authorities for bigger subsidies, we shall see even more operators asking for even more subsidies, and we shall return to the 1930 situation of people coming along on the other operator's timetable. All this will be permissible under some of the suggestions being made. I do not believe that that would be a step forward in serving the needs of the travelling public. It would decidedly be a step backwards.

What is suggested by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends appears to be innocuous, but certainly the Transport and General Workers Union—

Here we go again.

If hon. Members take the trouble to consult the National Bus Company, as I have done as the chairman of my party's transport group, and if they take the trouble to consult some of the private bus operators, they will find that it is not only the union that is concerned about these proposals. Most of all, it is the existing operators of scheduled services, because they can see that it is not only the so-called unprofitable routes but also some of the more profitable ones that the minibus operators will then wish to eat into.

Evidence already available to hon. Members shows that the minibus is not the answer. In the counties where we have a proliferation of minibus services, they have simply resulted in even more operators asking for even more subsidies. For that reason I hope that the request that the clauses should be withdrawn will be heeded by the Opposition, on the basis of experience, so that we can at least wait until my right hon. Friend has completed his consultations with the operators and the unions and until the local authorities have had the chance, which the Opposition wanted to give them, first to draw up their own transport plans.

I have taken a great interest in this matter for many years. The situation is getting worse in my constituency and the whole of East Anglia.

The Minister and his hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) both come from town constituencies, and I do not think that they have grasped the problems of a rural constituency. The hon. Gentleman knows far more about transport matters than I do, but I do not believe that he has lived and worked in the sort of constituency that I represent.

I spent the most formative years of my life in South Worcestershire.

The Minister talks of subsidies. Except for main runs, they are no use to a rural area such as mine. I cannot believe that the local authorities are objecting, although I think the Minister talked of their being one of the parties who were objecting. I was a member of my county council. It never objected through me to our Government when we introduced our clauses in the last Parliament.

The Government do not appreciate the immense, intractable problem in the countryside. In an Adjournment debate on 10th April I urged the Government to put back in a short Bill the clauses that we had had in our Bill, so as to relieve the anxieties of my constituents. The Minister then said that consultations were taking place on the matter. It seems to me that consultations have been going on for 10 to 15 years. Something should have been settled by now. If it is not settled, we must put the clauses into effect to give relief to our constituents.

There is a desperate need for a flexible system of rural transport. It will be realised that in a constituency such as mine, which is not unique, 45 miles long by 35 miles wide and has 120 polling stations, we need something that can be used flexibly.

We have seen a large influx of retired people of modest means from urban areas into my constituency from North London, Essex and elsewhere. The constituency has a large population of cars, but those people do not possess cars, and when they retire it is unlikely that they will have the money to buy them. It is also unlikely that all know how to drive them.

The need for transport to get to hospital to go shopping and even to see the countryside is obvious. The social needs are even greater. The social life of the average village is being destroyed because so many people cannot get out in the evenings. Women's Institutes and Mother's Unions, whatever organisations are a focal point in the village, cannot meet their neighbouring clubs and cannot go on organised shopping. The young people cannot go to pop dances in the local town in the evenings.

In 45 miles' length of constituency, I have only three small market towns. Any activity for youth takes place in the towns. It is far safer for a bus proprietor to run an evening service for the youngsters and to run them into town for a pop concert or a dance than for one of their number to drive an overcrowded car into the town. Such a service would make a real difference to the quality of life of thousands of people. This matter is of the most pressing concern for hundreds of people in isolated villages. Many people have come to Norfolk to settle in a county which they have come to like, but they rarely get the opportunity to see the countryside unless a friend, a son or a daughter comes from London, Northampton, Leicester or Nottingham to see them and to take them for a drive. Otherwise, they are confined to their village, their house or their garden.

The difficulty is that most bus companies and bus operators run their services into market towns only on Saturdays, when places such as the employment exchange and the social services centre are shut. We talk about minibuses but it is clear that other vehicles can be used in their place. I understand that large cars carrying a certain number of people can be used for this purpose. I have always found country bus drivers and conductors to be the most helpful sort of people. I am convinced that they would not wish to prevent this improvement taking place. If it is not allowed to take place it will be seen as yet another blow against the rural dweller, and from this Government they have received blow after blow.

We have only to consider the way in which agriculture has been hit and the way in which rates have been increased for rural dwellers under this Government—it is true that after four or five months of great dislocation the rating position has been reconsidered—to appreciate the care which they have for rural constituents. I do not believe that the Ministers understand the problems that face people living in isolated areas who want to go to their local town, who want to join with their neighbours in the activities of the next village and who want to go to various function once or twice a week. I urge the Ministers to think again.

In London I pay only 3p to go from the House to my digs, yet in Norfolk I would be paying 10 times as much to travel almost the same distance. I believe that the town dweller is well looked after by public transport compared with the country dweller. I urge Ministers to consider this matter closely. We have thought about it and considered it time and time again, until we are all fed up with it. Many of the people for whom I am concerned will die before there is any improvement in the life of the country dweller.

In his opening remarks the Minister made it clear that he had an understanding of the needs of the rural areas but that he was not prepared to put into effect the necessary measures to help them. I do not think that his understanding of the present position weighs very much against the picture over the past 10 years of those of us who have lived in rural areas. For over 10 years we have seen not only a tremendous contraction of the road and rail services that are available in the rural constituencies, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) has said—an enormous increase in the cost of travel, which is becoming insupportable for many people.

In the countryside we have split ourselves into two distinct groups—namely, the "haves" and the "have-nots". The "haves" are those people who are lucky enough to be able to afford a motor car for getting to work and for other purposes at the weekends. The tragedy of the present situation is that increasingly many people come into the category of the "have-nots". The position has been made much worse by the increased cost of motoring. The number of people who now come into the category of the "have-nots" and who cannot afford to use a motor car is very large, and is increasing. There is a clear understanding in both district councils and county councils that authorities cannot continue to increase the subsidy from the rates. The chairman of my local district council told me yesterday that he intends to consider carefully the rate subsidy that is now being provided for rural transport services. He felt certain that that attitude would be shared by county councillors.

There is also the problem of people who have a long way to go to work. In places like West Dorset the work is concentrated in the larger industrial towns. They are very often outside the constituency. Many people in my constituency and in the next-door constituency of South Dorset work in Yeovil, at Westlands. Yeovil is nearly 30 miles from Lyme Regis, and the same distance from Weymouth. The people at West-lands have been engaged in that work for many years and for them no alternative work is available. They find that the cost of travelling to their work in their own private cars or by an erratic public service will be impossible to support very much longer.

These clauses make sense to those who live in rural communities and who have to use public transport to get around very large areas. Above all, they provide flexibility. We need flexibility and not dogma.

I support the remarks that have been made by my hon. Friends. I cannot help feeling that the Minister has paid little attention to the points that matter for those who live in remote areas. I like the right hon. Gentleman and say in his absence that I find him a pleasant person. In his short speech he made so few points and repeated so often that his prime consideration was to ascertain the views of the unions concerned that I could not help feeling that he was obeying the dictates of some former direction.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he was concerned with the plight of those living in remote areas. We went on to say that the clauses were not acceptable to the unions and to local authorities. He referred to them in that order. It may be that time has not allowed the new local authorities to form a view of the clauses. They are similar clauses to those in a previous Bill which the old local authorities thoroughly endorsed in principle and in detail. Before the right hon. Gentleman sat down he said that the unions had been consulted and that they had said that they did not approve.

2.0 p.m.

We feel that the Minister has completely and utterly failed to appreciate the position in remote rural areas. Trade unions are not concerned about this. The people we are anxious to get on the road, the people who ought to have legitimate use of the road, are those individual proprietors of garages and perhaps one or two minibus owners who have one or two vehicles which can each carry 12 or 13 people, who do a little bit of school contracting, who have a taxi service, and are able to provide in their own time, at different times of the week, a service enabling those living in remote areas to get into the towns.

The buses are there. The operators are there. They are not paid at union rates because they fit this in far more efficiently with their taxi-ing and funeral services. All we ask is for the right to release this potential which exists in the countryside to improve the lot of those who are cut off from the towns. This clause is similar to a clause tabled in the previous Bill introduced by the last Government. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment tabled such a clause because he had received a considerable number of representations from hon. Members, mainly my hon. Friends, on this point. The Bill does not provide all that is needed, but what this clause and one or two others do provide goes some way to improving the situation of those in remote areas.

Some of us regarded these provisions as the mimimum acceptable when they were first introduced. That was 18 months to two years ago. In that time we have suffered and are still suffering from an international fuel crisis which has greatly increased the cost of running a car—even supposing that people can afford to buy one. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) suggested a week or two ago that the price of petrol could possibly rise to as high as 80p a gallon.

The least the Committee can do is to maintain these vital clauses because they give country dwellers some chance of some forms of local bus service. Local buses are needed for a variety of reasons in the countryside today. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned some of the reasons, such as the school children who have to travel long distances, or the pensioners who have to go to the next village to pick up their pensions.

An other example is related to the network of health centres which the previous Government strove to introduce throughout the country. These are centred on one of a group of five or six villages which means that other villagers may have to travel five or six miles to get to them. A large bus is not available to take such people to the health centre and back to their homes. The ideal vehicle is the minibus. In Leicestershire, 18 months ago a survey revealed that over 50 communities, some with a population of 3,000 people, had no form of public transport by train or coach.

In my own constituency in the last two years 29 out of 30 passenger railway stations have been closed.

The bus services which were provided in their place were generally supplied by large buses running at a hopelessly uneconomic rate. Eventually, due to lack of patronage, or because they ran at inconvenient times or along the wrong routes, they were mostly withdrawn.

I hope that this clause will remain in the Bill. There is no doubt that the hand of the TUC is behind the attempt to reject it. This is true of so many of the Government's actions today. The TUC has no interest in the countryside or those who live there.

If the huge National Bus Company, which is the only large bus company operating in many parts of the country, cannot carry these country dwellers profitably, then it seems that they are ex-welcome the easing of the restrictions on petted to stay at home. I particularly rural transport licensing which Clause 19 begins to provide. I should like to see that made more comprehensive.

The message that comes through loud and clear from the Conservative side of the Committee is that we are concerned not so much with the interests of the unions or of the operators as with the interests of the public. I remember the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) speaking during the Second Reading of the Bill introduced by the previous Government in January. The hon. Member talked about pirate buses. I have never come across a pirate bus. No doubt they were a great menace at the end of the 1920s and no doubt they were one of the reasons for the introduction of the 1930 Act. But the world has moved on. The case for a relaxation of the restrictions imposed in 1930 has been made out for years.

I do not represent a rural constituency but I am absolutely convinced of the need to make relaxations which would permit the running of minibus services in the rural areas. My division is fortunate enough to be surrounded by beautiful countryside. People travel out to visit that countryside and many people who live four or five miles from my constituency travel into it to shop, to visit the doctor's and such like. The public bus service now operating outside my division is nothing less than atrocious. People suffer as a result of the decline in the service.

I wish to make one point which has so far not been mentioned. I refer to Clause 17(2) which deals not with minibuses but with ordinary cars. For years, because of some of the more absurd restrictions in the 1930 Act, we have been turning perfectly law-abiding taxi-drivers into criminals. The law says that if a taxi-driver takes, say, four people to work every day and accepts separate fares from them, the taxi-driver is committing a criminal offence, and each of the people travelling in the taxi is committing a criminal offence, namely, aiding and abetting the tax i-driver to contravene the 1930 Act.

The taxi-driver is committing an offence every time he carries people on a regular route for a separate fare. For years and years all over the countryside taxi-drivers have been doing that—thank goodness they have. Many people I know in the area in which I live would not be able to get their children to school, or would not themselves be able to get to work, unless they and the taxi-drivers contravened the law.

I am extremely cross at the Government's attitude in this matter. I was proud in January of this year to be able to tell numerous taxi-drivers whom I know in my constituency that Parliament was to see sense and that the law would be put right. But now this pusillanimous Government apparently do only what the TUC tells them to do. They obey the TUC's dictates when the TUC is saying something which I do not believe any other people in this country would accept, namely, that the clock should remain stopped as it has been since 1930, so that taxi-drivers who carry people to work for separate fares will continue to commit offences.

I support Clause 17, particularly subsection (2), and I would have thought that every reasonable person would support it.

I represent a constituency with similar problems to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins).

It is a large constituency, the rapidly growing population of which is evenly scattered over a large number of small villages, and a few large towns.

Two groups of people are particularly suffering because of the present situation. Many people who have come from London, Essex and elsewhere to retire in my constituency are finding that because of the rising costs of maintaining a car they are unable, as they had originally hoped, to motor from the villages in which they have settled into Norwich or other main centres to shop.

There are also young one-car families in which the husbands commute by car to Norwich, leaving the wives behind in expanding yet still small villages to face difficulties in trying to do shopping.

I have been struck by the number of letters containing queries and complaints that I have received, since being elected to Parliament, from both these groups of people. The problems they face are get- ting worse each year, because of the rising costs of maintaining a car and because many services which used to be provided in the villages are now falling away. Small sub-post offices are closing in some areas and it is impossible to replace them, partly because of the costs involved. Many people who would otherwise use sub-post offices are able to go into major centres such as Norwich, but pensioners and others, such as young single-parent families are dependent on sub-post offices and are concerned that some of them are closing. The solution of a mobile post office, which so far has been rejected, partly on grounds of cost, must be looked at again.

The owners of village shops are now wondering whether they can continue in business, not least because of the high increases in rates. Rate increases and rising petrol costs are changing the pattern of life in rural areas, and we must look again at solutions previously rejected.

I recognise the difficulties of costs in providing minibuses. I also appreciate that the labour costs involved are, proportionately, as high as for larger buses. But we ask that opportunities be given for people who wish to undertake local transport services to do so. They can provide flexibility for the small villages which larger bus companies cannot. In my constituency the larger bus companies serve mainly the major routes and provide few services in the country areas.

During the past four months a post bus has been introduced in my constituency. There were difficulties at first, and the service was losing money, but I am now told that it is improving and that another post bus is being considered.

The proposals we are considering are at least worthy of trial, to enable those who wish to operate rural transport services to do so. I am told that there are people in my constituency who would be willing to do so, if given the opportunity. No doubt they recognise that the problems facing rural areas are becoming worse every year.

I support the argument that has been developed by my hon. Friends. It is worth restating the issue. These are modest clauses designed to provide people in rural areas with some hope of improvements to their transport services. There is every sign that the Labour Government are fighting this proposal tooth and nail. I do not know whether Members of the Liberal Party intend to appear during the debate. It is a scandal that not a single Member of that party has been present so far. I trust that if the Liberals are not present if and when we vote on the matter, the fact will not be missed in rural areas, bearing in mind the fuss made from the Liberal benches about issues such as this in the past few months.

I have rarely heard a more shamefaced speech than that from the Minister. My guess is that he knows perfectly well that these are reasonable clauses, and I sense that for himself he would be quite happy if they were in the Bill. My hon. Friend said that this had nothing to do with the social contract, but my suspicion is that it has everything to do with the social contract, that the Minister has been told that the Transport and General Workers' Union wants these clauses out of the Bill and that, for a whole variety of reasons connected with the posture of the present Government, what the Transport and General Workers' Union wants is what the Labour Government will do. That is why they are now trying to take these clauses out of the Bill.

The response of the Minister, who has been very urbane and good humoured throughout the day, was rather aggressive on this particular point and seemed clear evidence of a guilty conscience on the matter.

If my remarks appeared to be aggressive, let me withdraw, but I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition that trade unions should not be consulted, along with every other relevant interest in a particular matter. That was the only point that I wanted to make clear.

Of course I accept that from the Minister. What we suspect, however, is that this is not a process of consultation but a process of veto.

I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) has now returned to the Chamber. I was out of the Chamber for a while and I heard only the last part of his speech, but I got the drift of the argument. I was deeply unimpressed by his argument. We heard from him a great deal of talk about subsidies and the disadvantages thereof, which comes oddly from the Labour Party, especially as the Secretary of State for the Environment was all too happy to make changes in the rate support grant which in effect increased the problems for the rural areas while helping the urban. So I am not prepared to listen to a long argument from the Government side about the disadvantages of paying subsidies in the rural areas to deal with this problem.

Of course we accept the need for consultation, but I am equally unimpressed by his suggestion that the National Bus Company may not like some of these proposals. I do not know what the National Bus Company's views are, but I am no more prepared to have public policy in these matters settled by the National Bus Company than I am prepared to have it settled by the Transport and General Workers' Union. Both bodies have a vested interest in these matters. Many of my constituents believe that the National Bus Company is taking advantage of what amounts to a monopoly position in many existing services to charge them more than they should be charged and to restrict competition that might otherwise exist, even under the present law.

I say that simply because it is not good enough for hon. Members opposite to say that the unions and the National Bus Company do not like these proposals. Our purpose as the House of Commons is to decide what we think is in the interests of the people of this country, and to do what we think is right after such bodies have been consulted.

About decisions from Brussels?

If the hon. Gentleman wants me to make a speech about the Common Market, I will do that on another occasion, but I am sure, Mr Gurden, that in this debate you would prefer me to deal with rural transport.

I should like to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) about the concentration of services. Rightly or wrongly—I do not mean to argue the merits at the moment—we have just carried through a major reform of local government and in my area that has meant putting four or five authorities together, with the concentration of many services in one centre instead of dispersing them over five.

The local authority in question—Braintree District Council—has made great efforts to make sure that there are proper information offices, but some additional concentration has been inevitable. Similarly, it is public policy to try to concentrate social security offices and to make the existing offices better and rather more attractive. These policies may be right and they certainly have advantages, but they become intolerable for people in rural areas and especially for those most in need of the public services if at the same time they cannot get to the concentrated offices.

The hospital problem needs very little elaboration from me. It has been the policy, aspects of which I have done my best to oppose and limit, to run down our local hospitals and concentrate on large district general hospitals. Again I do not mean to argue the merits of the case at the moment—I have made my view clear locally—but it is essential to make sure that people can attend these hospitals and that relatives may visit, and that is all too difficult in many cases.

Not everyone has a car, and that fact has important implications for Members of Parliament, too. In my constituency I am trying to hold surgeries as frequently as I can at 16 or 18 places throughout the constituency and not simply in the two main towns. I think that that is right, because many of the people who want to see me are precisely those who do not have their own cars and who cannot go dashing about the constituency to see their MP.

But even when people have cars—this has not been sufficiently emphasised in the debate—many families in rural areas need two cars, because the husband may have to drive a long distance to work or to the station in order to commute to London, and unless there are two cars his wife is stranded. There are many families with one car, but not yet many with two. This situation is a growing problem in constituencies such as mine, and in recent months the difficulty has grown in both suburban and rural areas. Mothers with young families have found it difficult to get to a chemist with prescriptions for their children, for instance, and old people have found it difficult to visit a doctor.

I hope that the Government will recognise these problems and will not continue their resistance to these clauses. Of course there will be problems and these clauses will not solve them all, but they can make a contribution to improving services where such improvement is badly needed. I hope that my hon. Friends will press their views to a Division if the Government maintain their opposition to the clauses.

I make a swift intervention. I regard these as the most important clauses in the Bill. Those of us who represent large rural areas know only too well that the closing down of post offices and the almost total ending of any form of organised public transport have meant tremendous hardship for many people.

I give one example. Many pensioners are having problems because of the failure to issue pension books. They are told that in case of difficulty they should apply to the local social security office. That is all very well for people living in cities or towns, but for those who live 20 miles from the nearest office, who do not have a car and who do not have a friendly neighbour, it presents considerable problems if there is no bus. The Minister has excluded a way of solving a major human problem.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) has mentioned people who give lifts in private cars in order to get people to work. Not only taxi drivers but hundreds of thousands of workmen give lifts to colleagues to get them to work every day. If they accept payment, without exception they contravene the terms of the insurance certificate and policy of insurance. If there is an accident, the insurance company is strictly entitled to repudiate any liability for damage, and there may be considerable difficulty about obtaining adequate compensation for those who are injured. One strong reason for retaining the clause is that it would legalise an existing situation.

If the clauses are not retained and something is not done for rural transport, county councils will continue the kind of subsidies that they are already paying. It is interesting to examine the routes that have to be subsidised in many areas. In Northamptonshire, and especially in my constituency, it is not the rural but the urban routes that are most heavily subsidised, funnily enough. The rural routes are not so heavily subsidised because they virtually do not exist. The trouble comes with the regular routes to and from the medium and small towns. The cost of running those services is proving to be very expensive.

Without these clauses, the ratepayers and taxpayers will be paying even more subsidies to urban dwellers, while people who live in the rural areas will get poorer and poorer services. That is why it is essential to press these clauses, and I hope that we shall be victorious in the Lobby this afternoon.

On Second Reading I warned the Minister that we should wish to have a major debate on this subject. I am sure that he must have been impressed by the strong feeling expressed by Opposition Members throughout the debate.

Any hon. Member representing a rural constituency must know that rural transport is a sensitive subject. I have represented a rural constituency in Wiltshire for the past 12 years and I claim to know what I am talking about. The people who are suffering most are the worst-off members of the community. Many people today have their own cars and they can manage, but the poorest—and that, of course, includes old-age pensioners—suffer from the totally inadequate bus services of the rural areas. These clauses, which the Minister seeks to exclude would be of enormous help to such people. We intend, therefore, to do all in our power to keep these clauses in the Bill.

I cannot see how the industry can possibly object. We recognise that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huck-field) knows a great deal about transport matters, but the safeguards are clear. Minibuses will be exempt only if three conditions are satisfied—first, when they are not operated in the course of a commercial business; secondly, when the passengers make special arrangements for that particular journey; thirdly, if there is no advertising to the general public.

The hon. Member for Nuneaton said that we should not rush into these proposals. That is a misuse of the English language. Ever since I have been in the House we have been discussing rural transport and the time has now come to take action.

2.30 p.m.

Several powerful speeches have been made by Opposition Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) said that in his constituency people simply could not get to work unless they were given lifts. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said that local authorities in his area supported us. I am sure that local authorities in all rural areas support us in our efforts today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) emphasised that we were seeking to give greater flexibility in transport matters. Surely we all agree that it is badly needed in the present circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Fan) said that we should release resources to deal with the problem. Again, surely we all agree with that point of view. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) raised an important point arising from the absurdity of the laws on taxis. It is time that we tidied up the situation. Many other hon. Members made speeches of which I am sure the Minister will take due note.

We are convinced that the time for talking is over and that now is the time for action. The House of Commons has the opportunity to improve the quality of life of thousands of people in the countryside. I regret the fact that no Liberal Party representative is present for this debate to speak and vote on this important topic. We advocate only a modest advance, but it will be welcomed throughout the land. I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in voting to allow the clauses to remain in the Bill.

We have had an interesting debate—a debate which many of us have heard many times before. There has been a change in the situation on road traffic matters since the Labour Government took office—although we have been in office for only a short time and have had a great deal of work to do. Therefore, I hope that I shall be able to say a few words about what we as a Government have been trying to do.

The point has been made that on previous legislation I intervened to say that I hoped that the advances which we should like to see in rural transport would not be held up by pettifogging regulations. That is still my view. I hope that when, ultimately, we are able to present our proposals on rural transport, they will be bold and general proposals and will not seek to solve only a particular problem, which is always easy. I think I would be able to solve any one of them individually. However, it is when we are seeking to deal with the entire country and to consider all the varying points of view that things become slightly more difficult.

It has been suggested that we on the Labour benches are completely dominated by the actions of the TUC. I have never been able to understand that argument. Some Conservatives constantly see members of the TUC or the Transport and General Workers' Union under the bed and would be extremely disappointed if, instead, they found Liberal Party members there. I am not sure at the moment who constitutes the bête noire of the Conservatives—the Liberal Party or the Trades Union Congress.

I repudiate the idea that we are merely concerned with the TUC, the trade unions bus operators or local authorities, but we cannot make important decisions in a vacuum. We must consult those involved—the unions, the local authorities, and the operators—since they have important interests to be considered.

Is the Minister seriously suggesting that when the Labour Party was in opposition it did not then consult the trade unions and operators? Surely at that time it had ample time to decide its attitude to a relaxation of the restrictions imposed in 1930. Why on earth does it need more time now?

Of course we had talks with various people, but only since March have we had the power to introduce legislation. That is why my right hon. Friend asked me to become involved and to chair a committee representing all interests on rural transport. We have set up that committee and so far have had preliminary discussions. It is not easy to get all the people together on a certain date. We have had some meetings with the operators and trade unions, we are hoping to have meetings with the local authority associations. This is not an easy problem but, in combination with other people, we ultimately hope to find a workable solution.

Hon. Members have mentioned fares for regular journeys. Operators find this point difficult and object to the idea that it should be possible to charge fares for regular journeys, although they would not be stage journeys.

On the matter of public interest, I agree that Conservative Members represent rural communities, but that is not to say that the Labour Party has no connection with rural communities. I have very close connections with rural areas and frequently visit such communities in Scotland. I am well aware of the problems of people who have only one bus per week to enable them to reach the market town—or indeed, sometimes no bus at all. We are concerned about this problem, as are the local authorities. Therefore in rural matters the Conservatives do not have a monopoly of interest.

Local authorities have asked for more time. One association expressed doubts about the Lords amendments and thought that there should be more time for consideration. This is what we are trying to do. I believe that my right hon. Friend needs more time to complete consultations and that it would be wrong to present the House with a fait accompli We need more time for study, but such studies will be carried out urgently. We must try to solve some of the hardship in rural areas in transport matters and local authorities are coming forward for consultation.

I am strongly advised that the clauses contain many technical defects. I appreciate that the Conservatives are intent on voting on this matter and I can only attempt to argue that we are acting in good faith. My right hon. Friend and I have met the people concerned. We believe that it is not possible out of thin air to bring in a series of clauses seeking to solve difficult problems which Conservatives agree are complicated and intractable. I hope that the method we propose, involving consultation with all the interests and putting forward suggestions, is a bold and effective process. Therefore, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the inclusion of the clauses in the Bill.

I should like to put on record that in the other place no suggestion was made that there were any technical defects in our proposals.

On a point of order, Mr. Gurden. Is the fact that the Liberal Party voted in both Lobbies further evidence that the party wants it both ways?

That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Gurden. On a Friday afternoon when the House is occasionally a little thin, is it permissible for hon. Gentlemen to go into both Lobbies and lead you to think that more hon. Members are present than in fact there are?

That is not a point of order for the Chair.

We are taking in this debate Amendment No. 38, in Title, line 2, leave out 'operators' licences and drivers 'hours' and insert 'and operators' licences'.

I ask the Committee to leave out this clause because it was included in a previous Bill in the context of the European situation and I cannot predict how that is likely to develop. There is no great demand by operators or trade unionists to have tachographs fitted, and I cannot in present circumstances advise the industry to incur that cost.

Amendment No. 38 is consequential. The Short Title was amended in the other place so as to include the clause, but that amendment will not be required if the Committee accepts my advice to delete the clause.

I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 29, line 42, after 'dimensions', insert 'duration'.

With this Amendment we are to consider Government Amendments Nos. 20 and 21, and Amendment No. 22, in page 31, line 14, at end insert—

'(c) no experimental road hump shall remain in situ for more than 15 months'.

I wish to insert the word "duration" in the clause because I am not certain that we want the "sleeping policeman" as a permanent feature. I said on Second Reading that I had some experience of them in different places when I was on Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visits and that in my view they were not completely safe for both cars and cycles. There is a case for experiment, but the experiment needs to be carefully designed, which is why I suggested to the Minister that the legislation should lay down the duration and say that no experimental road hump or "sleeping policeman" should remain in situ for more than 15 months.

In his generous way, the Minister said that he would consider between Second Reading and the Committee stage what I had said. I observe that he has gone somewhat further than I suggested, and is now talking of a period of one year. For that reason, I need say no more.

I hope that the Committee will decide to accept Amendment No. 19, which is technically necessary. I do not think that the Ministry draftsmen can say that it is not technically correct. In the event of the Minister being able to satisfy us that Amendment No. 20 is technically in order, at the appropriate moment I shall seek leave to withdraw my amendment in order to enable the Government amendment to be accepted.

The Minister will remember that, when we debated this matter on Second Reading, the Opposition expressed reservations about this experiment of "sleeping policemen" or road humps.

There is considerable anxiety about this matter in the motor cycle industry. It is clear that warning will be given when these artificial obstructions are placed in the road. There will be warnings for motor cyclists. However, when the weather is bad, especially in snow, the warnings may not be seen, with the result that a motor cyclist travelling at a fairly fast speed may be unaware of these artificial humps in the road.

On Second Reading, the Minister said that he would be meeting representatives of the motor cycle industry. I gather that he did so yesterday. Will he tell us about those consultations and whether he gave assurances to enable motor cyclists to accept the concept of road humps? This is a very important matter, and there are many motor cyclists who will be listening to what the Minister has to tell the Committee.

I believe that I am one of the few hon. Members who regularly ride motor cycles—a form of transport which I recommend to the Committee.

Anyone going over a road hump or "sleeping policeman" in a car finds it uncomfortable. For a motor cyclist, however, it is painful and dangerous, especially if it is placed anywhere near a corner where a cylist or motor cylist is already at an interesting angle. I hope that humps will not be placed near to corners or underneath trees. In the autumn when there are wet leaves on roads, it is dangerous enough, anyway. If there is also a road hump, it is yet another threat to negotiate.

In my view, the clause has been drafted with the car and not the motor cycle in mind, especially the dimensions of this hump. I hope that the Minister will ensure that there is no danger of the footrest of a motor cycle, or the pedal of a cycle, catching on a hump. I hope that he will assure the Committee that a hump goes across the whole width of the road. If it does not, there is a danger of a motor cycle or cycle being tilted where the hump becomes flush again with the road. It is essential to have adequate warnings where these hazards are.

If the Minister would like me to test these humps personally, I should be happy to do so. Perhaps I might invite him to sit on the pillion. I guarantee him a very interesting experience.

On behalf of the motor cycling fraternity, may I press the right hon. Gentleman for these specific assurances?

I have a double interest in this matter in that there are a number of humps on a private road near my home which have been there for some time and in that there is also a proposal to install a number of these humps on roads in my constituency. I have some reservations about them, quite apart from the valid arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing and Acton (Sir G. Young), the motor cyclist.

There is a problem about foreign visitors to this country. Nowadays, a substantial number of people use our roads who do not have a command of English and who could well approach these humps, however carefully marked they were, without realising what they were about to hit. I wonder what study has been made of the alternative suggestion that, instead of installing a hump where it is wished to slow down motorists and motor cyclists, a patch of road perhaps a yard or two wide should be left unmade. A driver who did not see the sign saying that there was a hump ahead would then be aware that he was approaching something a little rough and would slow down without being thrown into the air.

I think that there is room for experiment with these humps, particularly because on many private housing estates where the roads are adopted there is a tendency for all kinds of vehicles to use them as short cuts. I am satisfied that many purely residential areas have road safety problems of that kind. However, we should proceed cautiously with this experiment.

I should not like it to be thought that it is only the motor cyclist who is concerned about this matter. There is considerable dissension among other people. The Road Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and the RAC have strict reservations. They would prefer that the clause were left out of the Bill and that experiments should take place at the Road Research Laboratory. I agree with them that the clause is somewhat premature.

3.0 p.m.

Many firms, which have constructed and used humps on their own property, not on the public highway, have discovered various difficulties. There have been problems with damage to transmission and steering mechanism. There is also the potential danger to drivers and passengers, which we have all experienced when we have gone over hump-backed bridges which we did not anticipate. In some cases the existence of humps has considerably increased vehicle repair costs. Therefore, I believe that the clause should not go through lightly.

Furthermore, I believe that there is potential danger or loss of right to the road user. I tabled an amendment, which has not been called, about this matter. I am concerned that if the humps are put into operation the highway authority cannot get out of its statutory obligation to maintain the highway in a safe condition and to warn road users that the highway is in a dangerous condition. If we are to experiment—I think it is a useful idea—we must lean over backwards to see that road users are not injured.

I, too, have some doubts about this provision. There are many occasions when a driver's attention is distracted when driving. There are occasions of poor visibility when the signs may not be seen. There are times when snow, especially when it has been blowing in a wind, covers one side of a notice. These humps in the road can be dangerous. I do not know whether I was fortunate enough to have the Minister's attention on the last point. I was referring to occasions of snow being blown in the wind and obscuring one side of a notice, according to which way the wind is blowing. It is easy for notices to be obscured in that way. If a driver is not warned about the humps and goes over them at a fairish speed he can cause damage either to the vehicle or to himself.

This matter has to be approached with great circumspection. It is all very well to carry out experiments on private drivers and small private roads where we may be dealing only with delivery vehicles, but on the public highway different considerations apply.

I am not happy about this matter relating either to motor cars or, much more important, to two-wheeled vehicles. I think that some nasty accidents may occur. I am not suggesting that we should vote against the amendment, but I hope that the Minister will keep an eye on the situation. I believe that we should be prepared in our minds to reverse this decision and to stop the experiment if we do not like the results.

There is a little misunderstanding here. In this country one rather expects that when anything new is contemplated everybody is against it.

Of course, we are quite properly urged by all quarters to do something about road safety and the prevention of accidents. Unfortunately, there are road users who do not slow down, however many notices may be put up, and so on. But notices are one way of helping to give warning of dangers.

We are asked whether we might introduce measures to stop heavy lorries taking short cuts through residential areas, and so on. This might be one way of preventing that nuisance. We have a completely open mind, because this is entirely experimental. It is right that we should have to come to the House before embarking on such an experiment. In any event, we have no powers unless they are granted by legislation, which is the proper way of going about the job. There are no powers to do other than conduct experiments on the authority of the Secretary of State. Therefore, they are open to Parliamentary Questions, and so on. There is a whole list of safeguards. The highway authority has to be consulted, objections can be heard, and so on.

It is necessary to know whether these humps will be acceptable to road users and will serve a useful purpose and that cannot be known if the experiment is conducted only on private establishments. It is necessary to know the reaction of the public in all conditions.

That this is entirely experimental is shown by the fact that, in response to questions on Second Reading, I immediately put down an amendment to require the hump in any particular location to be taken up at the end of a year, because that should be a reasonable time in which to assess its value. These humps must be tested in all weathers, and I hope that nobody driving a vehicle will travel at such a speed in a snow storm as to be a danger to others.

I think that there is some misunderstanding here. We do not claim that we have the perfect answer, but we have in mind something that is different from what one finds in other countries and on some private estates and campuses. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory is trying to find a hump that will lead to some discomfort but avoid damage to the load or vehicle or risk of loss of control. Numerous tests show promise for a hump 12 ft long and 4 in high. The length of this hump in relation to the wheel base and the flattened, gentle profile means that it affects the vehicle itself rather than the suspension and avoids the risk of damage to tyres, exhaust systems, and so on. Discomfort to drivers is progressive beyond a speed of about 15 to 20 mph for a car, and 10 mph for lorries. This lower threshold for heavy vehicles raises the possibility of using the device to deter heavy vehicle drivers from using residential roads as short cuts.

At the other extreme, the effect on two-wheeled vehicles is negligible. Thus the claim that is made cannot be substantiated, and I should be happy to make arrangements for the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) to visit the Transport and Road Research Laboratory and test this device for himself. I cannot guarantee to be his pillion passenger unless we can fix a mutually convenient date, but if I were able to arrange that I should be happy to do so.

The intention is to carry out only a certain number of these experiments. Each one will be authorised by the Secretary of State, and everyone knows that Ministers are answerable to the House for things that go wrong. We want to give this experiment a reasonable run, and if it gives rise to great difficulties I am sure that the Minister concerned will be among the first to ask that the experiment should be brought to an end.

There are no powers to carry out these experiments generally on highways, even if everybody says that they are marvellous. It will still be necessary to come back to the House to consider the matter, and we would do that the moment it was thought that the understandable fears of motorcyclists and others were being realised.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the experiment lasting for one year beginning with the day on which the construction of the hump begins. Does the right hon. Gentleman regard that as satisfactory? Has he thought this through? Let us suppose that the Minister authorises the construction of an experimental road hump and that two days after construction starts there is an industrial dispute which drags on for three or four months during which no work is done on the hump. The right hon. Gentleman will then have only a short period for his experiment, and he will not have the benefit of a full 12 months in which to test public reaction. My amendment suggests 15 months from the date on which the experiment starts. Does the Minister think that 12 months will give him what he wants?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I was trying to bend over backwards to give assurances in response to the genuine and understandable fears of motor cyclists, motorists and others. These will just be experiments, and there will be very few of them. It is possible that one might be held up by an industrial dispute or something of that kind, but in that event it would not be an experiment at that point in time.

I can see some advantage in accepting the hon. Gentleman's amendment rather than my own, but I am advised—I make no complaint about it—that mine are in the correct form, having been drafted by parliamentary counsel. If the Committee wished, I suppose I could consider a manuscript amendment to make the period a year and a quarter. I should not complain about that, but I think that for practical purposes the period of one year will be sufficient.

It must be understood that these will be experiments. I do not want anybody to think that we are about to build the things all over the place.

I am advised that there is a serious technical defect in Amendment No. 19 in that a hump cannot have a duration. The point of this amendment would have been more apt, I think, even if the wording itself were technically defective, if we had left out any reference to a date. But now we have a definite date, and everyone knows that these experimental devices cannot be there for more than a year, it is not so important to make the reference to duration which the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) had in mind. I hope that he will agree that his point has been met or, indeed, even over-provided for by my two amendments which together do what he rightly had in mind. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the matter because, if he had not done so, my amendments might not have been put down in this way.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Did the Minister have his meetings yesterday with representatives of the motor cycle industry, and was he able to satisfy their worries on the whole question of the proposed humps?

I did not meet them myself. I arranged, at their request, for them to meet experts in the department. They had several points to raise, and further meetings will be held. I should like to meet everyone who wishes to see me, but in the past few months I have found a great restriction in that there are only 24 hours in a day. The demands of the House in recent weeks have been fairly considerable, too.

With this Question we may discuss Schedule 5 and the following amendments:

May I speak to amendment No. 31, which deals with a matter which I raised in Committee but on which I failed to get a satisfactory reply? The Minister pointed out that it was a Home Office matter but at that time the appropriate Minister was engaged a few Committee Rooms away on other business.

I do not understand the purpose of the alteration in page 59. I would have thought that in London, particularly, this problem was affecting a large number of local authorities who are finding fake coins in their meters and people tampering with the meters. I would have preferred the Government to deter people by a more substantial fine. At the moment, anyone tampering with a parking meter or using a false coin is liable to a maximum fine of £50 or three months imprisonment, or both. The Government are proposing simply to make the maximum punishment a £50 fine.

I appreciate that that means £50 per coin and that anyone putting four fake coins in a meter would be liable to a maximum fine of £200. But if that person two weeks later does the same thing again I am advised that he would start again at the maximum fine of £50. It is wrong for a subsequent conviction to be subject to the same maximum as a first offence. The court should be told that on a subsequent occasion the maximum fine per offence should be £200.

I do not necessarily argue with the decision to delete the provision for imprisonment, but to retain the £50 maximum is wrong and does not meet thy, needs of some London boroughs, particularly my own borough of Camden, where people have been tampering with meters and where the borough has offered rewards to people who report such offences. I hope that the Minister will think again.

Unless he can convince me, whatever my hon. and right hon. Friends will wish to do, I should like to press the amendment. I feel most strongly that on subsequent conviction the fine should be more than £50.

On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Before you call the next speaker, may I suggest that since the amendment referred to by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) is out of keeping with the other amendments in the group I could reply to the hon. Member and any other hon. Member who wishes to speak to it. Hon. Members could then raise points on the other amendments in the group and I could reply to them subsequently.

I am not sure where I stand after that, Mr. Murton, but I wish briefly to intervene on the amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) referred to. Since I have agreed with him on other occasions today, perhaps he will not mind if I disagree with him now. Fines imposed for this sort of offence rarely, if ever, reach the maximum, and therefore the matter is somewhat theoretical. My hon. Friend is concerned simply with the offence of tampering with, or putting a foreign coin in, a parking meter. Of course, if there is any question of someone stealing money from the meter or damaging it different and far more serious offences are involved. They are offences of theft or malicious damage of property and they carry much higher penalties.

Therefore, we are dealing solely with some form of tampering with the meter, which does not amount to abstracting money from it which would be theft, or damaging it, which would be malicious damage to property. It comes to nothing much more than putting in an Irish coin instead of a British coin, for example which I am sure is wicked, but a fine of £50 would adequately represent at any rate my sense of horror at that dreadful thing, and I should not want it to be £200.

Perhaps I may reply on this point now, and wait to listen to the discussion on the magistrates' powers.

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). It is clear that however much of a nuisance tampering with meters is to boroughs in London, the difficulty is to catch people doing it. When they are caught and brought before the courts, the penalties that get anywhere near £50 must be very few. I should think that only oil sheiks getting into their Rolls-Royces are likely to be fined anything like that sum. Therefore, it seemed to us that when we were removing the power of imprisonment for good penological reasons it was not appropriate to increase the maximum fine.

Although there could be an argument for putting it up to £100 or so, the amendment adds a figure of £200 for subsequent offences, and in principle we take the view that it is wrong to have accelerated fines for subsequent convictions, that it is better to have a large maximum fine and to leave the matter to the discretion of the bench, because it will know the appropriate amount to tine in any case.

Even on a second conviction of this comparatively minor offence, it seems unlikely that any bench would fine anywhere near £50. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. If the offence amounts to something much more serious, there are criminal provisions which can deal with the matter, and even a sentence of imprisonment and trial by a higher court are open to the authorities. I am sure that the situation should be left like that.

This is one of the few offences for which the penalty has been reduced, because it was £50 or three months' imprisonment, or both, and the Minister is now making it merely £50. At least from what he said there seemed to be a case for raising the maximum to £100, if not £200. Will the hon. Gentleman see whether, in the light of the figures that are at his disposal and not at my disposal, that is warranted? If he feels that it is, he might like to move a manuscript amendment to make the fine £100. Will he consider that?

indicated assent.

I do not wish to press my amendments, because I understand that, with the exception of Amendment No. 52, they are covered by those of some of my hon. Friends. But we have this interest in common: we are very concerned about the rights of drivers to apply for trial by jury under some of the provisions of the Bill.

Considerable attention was paid in the other place to the dissatisfaction of magistrates about the removal of their powers, but there has not been sufficient attention so far to the existing rights of drivers to elect trial by jury, nor, I understand, has there been widespread discussion with the motoring organisations on what is a quite far-ranging change in the law. I very much hope that the Minister will accept the amendments of my hon. Friends, so that this important right will remain. The right to trial by jury is one of the most important safeguards that we have. I do not believe that anyone would say that that right is particularly abused in motoring offences.

It may be said that the conviction rate is somewhat lower when people take the opportunity to elect trial by jury. The answer must be that only those people who believe that they are right will go to the Crown courts. They do so knowing that if they are found guilty the penalty will probably be higher. On that basis only those who believe that they are innocent will avail themselves of the choice. Of course, it is likely that some of those people will be found not guilty. I hope that the Minister will take the matter very much to heart and that he will be able to make some concessions.

I speak to Amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34. The Committee will be aware that the Bill, in addition to its provisions relating to safety, the convenience of administration and the highly important topic on which we divided earlier, has the effect of drastically curtailing the powers of the magistrates' courts. It is to that subject that I shall address myself.

In Standing Committee I addressed my remarks to the Minister for Transport and he listened with characteristic sympathy, but this afternoon it would be more appropriate if I addressed my remarks to the Minister of State, Home Office. Clause 26 and Schedule 5 have the effect of removing completely from magistrates' courts the power to impose imprisonment for any offence other than driving whilst disqualified. I suggest that the power of imprisonment should be retained for serious offences of dangerous or reckless driving and for drink cases.

As the Committee knows, drunken driving convictions are rising steadily. That was brought out on Third Reading in another place in January of this year. If the possibility of imprisonment is removed that must inevitably lead to the downgrading of offences which are already becoming equated with minor driving infringements, whereas quite often they entail widespread danger to the public. With great diffidence I suggest that we turn to current judicial opinion. In the case of the Queen v. Tupa before the Court of Appeal the judgment read:

"It has been suggested to us in argument that it would in any event have been wrong in this case, where the blood alcohol content exceeded by some three times the permitted limit, to have passed a custodial sentence. If that view is in any way prevalent at the present time, the Court wishes to make it as clear as can be that in many cases of this kind where the amount of alcohol imbibed … is anything like the quantity in this present case, whether the conviction is at a Crown Court or in a Magistrates' court, a custodial sentence is entirely proper and ought not to be interfered with on appeal."

Then there is an administrative matter. It is contended that if the magistrates' courts are no longer allowed to imprison offenders the load on the Crown courts may be diminished. In fact, the reverse is more likely to be the case. There would always be the possibility, in all cases in which the accused had a right to trial by jury, that the defence would insist that the case should go to the Crown court. That would lead to a serious overloading of the Crown courts. A committee is currently examining the congestion in the Crown courts. If this measure were passed it would impinge on or pre-empt the decisions of the committee. If the defence were to remit all cases to the Crown courts because on account of the amount of alcohol imbibed, there was the possibility of imprisonment, that would lead to an extra 15,000 cases a year being sent to the Crown courts.

3.30 p.m.

I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that under the Criminal Justice Act 1972 the reference of an accused person by a magistrates' court to borstal or an attendance centre, or even to community service, is restricted only to those cases where the court has power to impose a custodial sentence. Clearly, if this power is removed from the magistrates there will go with it the power to sentence an accused to a custodial sentence of less than three months.

The Committee will recognise that this power is particularly important with persons up to the age of 21, who constitute an increasingly large proportion of traffic offenders. Consequently, I ask the Committee to view these amendments favourably, on administrative grounds in that they will be helpful in relieving the load on Crown courts, on grounds of pure administrative protocol in that if they were rejected they would pre-empt certain commissions currently sitting, and on grounds of humanity in that they would preclude justices passing custodial sen- tences other than imprisonment upon juveniles and those up to the age of 21, when this would clearly be appropriate.