HC Deb 05 November 1975 vol 899 cc539-69

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty' praying that the Road Vehicles Lighting (Amendment) (No. 2) Regualtions 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1736), dated 24th October 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th October, be annulled.—[Mr. Snape.]

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Fox (Shipley)

I speak to Early-Day Motion No. 721 which is more explicit than the Prayer which we are also debating. I realise that the vote to annul this statutory instrument will be on that Prayer.

It is encouraging to know that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is supporting me. I hope that this is not the last occasion, when considering transport matters, that we shall be in agreement. We find the Minister's behaviour in all this matter precipitate, to put it mildly, or perhaps, as some of my hon. Friends might suggest, slightly arrogant. Whether one supports driving with headlamps or not, we all agree that the time allowed for consultation has been ludicrous and totally inadequate. We must remember that the decision will affect every driver in the land.

Often we feel that we are, in a sense, ridden over roughshod, but it is incredible that, on an issue such as this, this kind of charge should have been made. Not only Members of Parliament but certain experts in this sphere complain about lack of consultation. I am aware that the Minister will point out that about 150 bodies have been consulted in five weeks, but even those who say they are in support of what he is doing complain that the time given for consultation was far too short. We came back after the Summer Recess to discover that these Regulations would have been law by 31st October, but at least there is a breathing space until 17th November.

I must be careful in this debate, as a number of my hon. Friends may not altogether support me on everything that I say—that is not unusual in matters relating to road safety—to put the case for both the pedestrian and the motorist. It is too easy to be passionately pro or anti if one takes a point of view dominated by one of these two groups. But we must at all times seek the best balance in matters of this kind.

With that in mind, I trust that right hon. and hon. Members have seen the statistics for road casualties issued by the Department of the Environment within the last few days. They show a total 77,600 casualties. Of these, 17,000 were pedestrians and more than three times that number were people injured in vehicles. It would be ridiculous to take any action which would make the motorists' situation worse than it is now. I do not want to talk in terms of one set of accident figures, but of the total, and to seek a reduction in that number.

I turn to the matter of consultation. Did the Minister consult Professor Robert Weale of the Department of Visual Science at the London Institute of Ophthomology? Professor Weale said: Dipped headlamps will be an added irritant, especially for the elderly, to pedestrians and drivers alike. The Minister's reasons make sense from no point of view at all. The Association of Optical Practitioners, which is opposed to this measure, said: Pedestrians, particularly the elderly and infirm, would find glaring headlamps very confusing when trying to cross the road. Concerning drivers, the Association states: If eyes are continually subjected to glaring headlamps, the time taken for them to readjust to the dark will be significantly increased. The result will be a slowing down of motorists' reactions to the point where they may possibly only see obstacles when it is too late to avoid an accident. The effect of this will be even greater among elderly drivers. That could well include the Government Chief Whip.

Not all the police are in favour of this proposal. The Secretary of the Police Superintendents Association complains that the Association has not been consulted. He further expresses reservations about the plan, complaining that it will damage police-public relations regarding enforcement. The police have informed the Richmond on Thames council that they have not the manpower to enforce certain traffic regulations already in force. Therefore, it is incredible that we should seek to introduce further legislation. If hon. Members are not concerned about police reaction to these proposals, I am surprised, to say the least.

The Minister will no doubt make the point that some of the police are with him. We shall wait and see. We wait with bated breath to hear what he may say about the new information which has made him seek to legislate in this area. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), the present Secretary of State for Social Services, who is never hesitant to legislate, refused to legislate on this matter when she was Minister of Transport. No doubt we shall hear what additional factors have come to light.

I should like to mention two points made by the Minister in the publicity hand-out of 23rd September as his reasons for taking action. The first is parking without lights on well-lit roads. The hon. Gentleman talks about an appreciable rise in accidents and makes the point that headlights would pick up the reflectors on parked vehicles. I will resist the temptation to inquire what happens about cars facing oncoming traffic. Might not the answer be to look again at the whole practice of parking without lights? If the accident figure is as high as some imagine, perhaps that is a course of action we should take rather than seeking to legislate in this way.

It is interesting to note that the proportion of accidents to which parked vehicles contributed was 8 per cent. in daylight and 5 per cent. at night. These figures are taken from statistics supplied by the Department. I am bound to admit that they related to 1973. We are now told that there is an increase of 75 per cent. Such an increase on minimal figures of this kind is hardly the sort of evidence with which to justify the action the Minister proposes. There is also the problem of vehicles travelling with only one sidelight. Out of 2,000 carefully investigated accidents only four could be attributed to this condition. I suggest that the Minister consults Professor Smeed of University College London on this point. He has had about 20 years' experience as Deputy Director of the Road Research Laboratory.

No doubt the Minister will call in aid the Birmingham experiment. I have looked carefully at the results of that experiment as analysed by the Read Research Laboratory and find that the data are confusing, to put it mildly. Certainly a beneficial effect on the number of pedestrian casualties was noticed. There was a small adverse effect on the more numerous non-pedestrian casualties. Overall a negligible effect on total casualties was noted. The police said: It would be wrong to make any comparisons with accident figures now because of the big increase in traffic and the extensive redevelopment that has taken place in Birmingham. I move on quickly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I appreciate that this is not pleasant music for the Government. If they had looked carefully at this proposal they would never have introduced it. It is not unreasonable to suggest that street lighting has a part in this debate. A dangerous by-product can be observed in these Government proposals. My experience in local government is that street lighting is intended to get rid of the shadows at night. Now we are told that the use of dipped headlamps will help in this respect.

The Association of Street Lighting Engineers says that quite the opposite is true. Experience shows what happens if street lights are switched off, as may be the case if this legislation goes through. The Minister shakes his head, but my information is that a number of authorities have already contacted his Department with a view to doing this. Street lighting was switched off under the Conservative Government prior to the February election during the state of emergency. The increase in accidents was about 260 at a cost of £6 million. The saving in electrical energy was approximately £100,000. This is important because it is in the built-up areas that most accidents occur.

No one seeks to disadvantage the motorist. We can make a case for improving lighting in many areas, but we cannot escape the fact that massive improvements have been made. I am concerned about the effect of dazzle and glare. We already experience this from time to time from inconsiderate motorists. We have heard the view of opticians.

There is another problem to do with the fact that a large number of cars have improperly aligned headlights. It is not encouraging when we hear from the Consumers Association that a recent survey showed that out of 66 new cars, only 22 had headlamps which had beams which could be dipped to meet the necessary standards. The AA conducted an experiment on cars emerging from vehicle testing stations that showed the tests on headlamps to have been widely inaccurate. Should not the Minister attend to that deficiency before seeking to introduce this kind of legislation?

I suggest that the Minister should consider lighting standards on new and used cars. He could do so quite easily through his own Department and MOT tests. Misaligned headlamps could cancel out any benefits that might be gained by these proposals. One solution is a course of action which would meet with universal approval—namely, to improve the present vehicle lighting system so as to give a less intensive beam than dipped headlights for use in well-lit streets but a more effective beam than sidelights. It is disappointing that we have to turn to a foreign car to find a manufacturer who has already acted in that direction. Is it beyond the bounds of the ingenuity of British industry to proceed in that direction? It should have been done a long time ago.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I hope the hon. Gentleman has not forgotten that the British Leyland Mini has a sidelight arrangement in advance of many other cars. The sidelights of the Mini are contained within the headlamp unit, thus providing a large area of light which may be seen by pedestrians relatively easily. That serves some of the purpose that the Minister is trying to serve by taking this misguided step.

Mr. Fox

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The old type of sidelight could be improved considerably. I have given one example and the hon. Gentleman has mentioned another. It might be said "It is all very well for new cars, but what about those already on the road?" Amongst the many letters that I have received—overwhelmingly they have been against this legislation—there is one from a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) who is an associate member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. For some 10 years he has marketed an adaptor at a cost of about £5. That is the sort of matter we should be considering.

It is no wonder, on the evidence, that the Minister has given the impression that he is inflexible. It seems that he is pushing through a pet theory on the basis of his experience in the United States, where there is widespread use of headlamps against a background of just about the poorest system of road lighting in the world. If this is not a pet theory, the Minister must tell us who has advised him to take this course. There are some who complain that he has paid too little attention to his experts. At worst it is suggested that he has acted in disregard of their advice.

I am the first to admit that many measures that improve road safety are controversial because they compel road users to act contrary to their desires. These proposals are controversial for another reason—namely, that many of the people who have studied these matters feel it desirable that headlamps should be used on poorly lit roads but that they should not be used in all circumstances as their use is likely to increase accidents rather than diminish them. It cannot be denied that such doubts exist. They must be removed by clear evidence before legislation is introduced.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that there should be open government, and participation and consultation that is seen to take place on matters of road safety. Further, there should be the fullest possible discussion inside and outside Parliament. I hope that the Minister, on reflection, will agree that these Regulations be annulled. We all accept that more needs to be done to persuade drivers to comply with the provisions contained in the highway code and to use headlamps unless the street lighting is exceptionally good. Tonight we must show the red light to this proposal without denying that one day we might well change to amber or green.

10.15 p.m.

The Minister for Transport (Dr. John Gilbert)

The Regulations which are the subject of the Prayer we are debating tonight have as their genesis one worrying area of traffic casualties—namely, the increase in the number of accidents involving parked vehicles. This type of accident outside London between 1970 and 1974 increased by no less than 75 per cent.

Hon. Members will recall that in 1972 one of my predecessors in office, the then Minister for Transport Industries, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), made Regulations permitting the parking of certain vehicles without parking lights in built-up areas. That proposal was supported by both sides of the House and those Regulations were in draft form before the right hon. Gentleman assumed office.

However, it is hard to argue that there was not a direct link between the right hon. Gentleman's actions and the subsequent rise in the number of accidents of this type. I wish to make clear that I think the right hon. Gentleman's decision, which was neither debated nor voted upon in the House, was correct. I think the right hon. Gentleman took the only possible decision. The previous law had become quite unenforceable. One of the principal purposes of the Regulations, though far from the sole purpose, is to require drivers when using headlights at night to ensure that the beams pick out reflective material on parked vehicles and so stem, and possibly reverse, the serious trend in this type of accident.

It has been suggested by some members of the public that we should revert to the pre-1972 situation and require all vehicles to have parking lights. The reason that led the right hon. Gentleman to his decision in 1972, on strong police advice, is precisely the reason that compelled me to the conclusion that the re introduction of parking lights was not the solution to the problem. Such Regulations would be just as unenforceable in 1975 as they were in 1972.

Mr. Raphael Tuck (Watford)

The Minister says that Regulations in respect of parking lights would be unenforceable. If he made the penalties high enough, does he not believe that we could enforce this law?

Dr. Gilbert

The answer is—no. I do not.

These Regulations were abandoned in London as long ago as 1955 for the same reason—namely, unenforceability. The reason some people have suggested that we should go back to parking lights is that there has been understandable concern about the increase in dazzle arising from widespread use of headlights. I recognise the strength of this concern, as appears from correspondence I have received, and I am sure that other hon. Members have also had a heavy postbag on this matter. It is part of the MOT test that cars should be tested for dazzle, and I know that there is a feeling that this test should be tightened.

There are three methods by which this part of the MOT test can be carried out. The first is by visual observation; secondly, by placing the vehicle a certain distance from a wall and measuring the distance of the centre of the beam from the ground; thirdly, by the use of a special beam-setting device. These devices cost from £200 to £300. Any of these methods has been acceptable up to the present time, although the beam-setting device is by far the most efficient. All new MOT testing stations are now required to have a beam-setting device. All existing stations will have to acquire them as part of the overall upgrading of MOT testing requirements. I am looking into ways of accelerating this part of the upgrading programme. I do not pretend that this will solve the problem of dazzle completely overnight. The problem will be with us until all vehicles are fitted with automatic self-adjusting mechanisms to deal with differences in loading. Clearly, that will be a long way in the future.

The question I had to decide was whether the known risks of increased dazzle were outweighed by the introduction of increased visibility of parked and empty vehicles. In coming to a decision, I was assisted by the results of a statutory research exercise carried out by my Department. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) asked me a question about that exercise. I am sure that he is aware that it has never been the practice to disclose the results of individual inquiries or to give a list of those consulted, because confidentiality is part of the exercise. Bodies are free, if they wish, to disclose the replies they have given.

The results of that consultation show that 70 per cent. of those who responded positively take the view that the Regulations should be made. That figure of 70 per cent. includes organisations representing every type of road user. Needless to say, the normal procedures have been observed. Although consultation is in no way a referendum, I was bound to be influenced by that powerful expression of opinion.

However, there is one myth that has gained some currency, and the hon. Gentleman afforded it further publicity tonight. It is that the Regulations were brought forward without the support of, or even contrary to, the advice of my technical advisers. In that connection, I cannot do better than to quote a statement that has been agreed with the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, which is as follows: The TRRL tell me that their main concern is that something should be done about the highly unsatisfactory state of affairs at present obtaining in lit areas where a mix of both headlights and parking lights is permitted for moving vehicles and where the accident hazards have increased since unlit parking was allowed. This does not mean, however, that the TRRL would favour the use solely of parking lights in lit areas. Far from it. Like the majority of the scientific community both here and abroad, the TRRL favour the mandatory use of dipped headlights in less well lit streets, but would prefer a beam of lower intensity—but still brighter than a parking light—called a town light to be used in the very well-lit streets. I am entirely in agreement with this approach and am working towards such a development, although we have to recognise that it will take some time before such a system can be comprehensively introduced in the United Kingdom. In the meantime, the TRRL would support the adoption of mandatory dipped headlights everywhere as the Government's first step towards this ultimate goal. I emphasise the last sentence.

When we talk of accidents and accident statistics, we are not just talking of dented mudguards and fenders or broken headlights. Every accident statistic involves one of our constituents having been killed, maimed, scarred or possibly blinded. It is a very serious matter.

Proposals for changing traffic law are not made lightly. They are not brought forward without full consultation, and the weight of the evidence must be taken fairly into account before any Minister would dream of making such proposals.

However, having said that, and having made it quite clear that the full consultation procedures were gone through in this case, I recognise that the House would prefer further discussion of the matter. Therefore, I recommend to my hon. Friends that they do not divide on the Question. I shall have further discussions with all interested Members, and I hope after those consultations to bring the Regulations back before the House early in the next Session.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead)

It might satisfy the Minister, having eaten humble pie, that the rest of the House should not say anything. The Patronage Secretary seems rather upset that I rise to speak, as he frequently is on such occasions.

I rise because there are three things that need to be said clearly. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), who moved the motion, was right to say that the Minister should state his reasoning—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are now discussing the motion moved by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape).

Mr. Finsberg

I was making a passing reference to the speech of my hon. Friend, who helped the House considerably. I hope that there will be many more speeches of that kind. [Interruption.] In putting my views, I am having some difficulty in competing with the odd voices coming from below the Bar.

The first thing that needs to be said is that the statement agreed with the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, which the Minister quoted, will not satisfy many people, because it was full of qualifications: "I am working upon something…. It may take some time…." That is not good enough.

Secondly, the Minister said that he had consulted all sections of road users. Did the Minister consult the taxi drivers on this issue? They are amongst some of the busiest users of the London streets. It is right to give a brief quotation from a letter which I received from the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, which says: This Association is responsible for insuring some 3,000 London taxi-cabs for its members. Obviously we have considerable information in respect of the accidents that these vehicles become involved in and there is no evidence to suggest that such a piece of legislation as this would reduce the accident rate, in fact we believe that it would have the opposite effect. —[Interruption.]

I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can hear me. I have difficulty in hearing myself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

The disturbance may be due to the fact that some hon. Members may believe that there is no need to debate the matter further. That is a matter for the hon. Member.

Mr. Finsberg

This may well be one of the reasons. However it is right when back benchers have representations made to them—when those representations will not have been taken into account by the Minister—that those representations should be made known to the House.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Thanet, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should like your clarification on this point. Although the Minister has acceded to the facts and has said that the Regulations will not be pressed tonight, he indicated his intention to take the matter away, to look at it carefully, and to bring it back to the House. Would it not be right therefore to use this occasion to put forward representations for his further consideration before he comes back to the House? Otherwise there will be no opportunity for the House to make representations in the further consultations which the Minister will hold.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I suggest that there are other methods of making representations which may be more successful than a short debate in the House. I am sure that the Minister will willingly receive the hon. Member so that he can put his representations in greater detail than he may be able to do this evening.

Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was discouraged to hear your ruling.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Let me make it abundantly clear that this debate can go on until 11.30 p.m. The Minister agreed to take the matter back, to receive further representations, to take another look, and to do everything possible to satisfy hon. Members. However, if hon. Members wish to participate in the debate they may do so. I shall not rule them out of order.

Mr. Crouch

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), there is a reason why the House should debate the subject, notwithstanding the fact that the Patronage Secretary is sitting on the edge of the bench, giving the impression that he wishes to intervene and to cut short the debate once more. I am concerned that we have had only half an hour for the consideration of the thoughts of the Minister and representations from the Opposition. I am not sure how much time we may be given by the Government on a future occasion. Will the next debate last for one and a half hours or for six hours? A debate lasting one and a half hours would not be long enough. If the next debate is to last only one and a half hours I shall continue to make representations that we need more than one and a half hours in which to pray. I demand that we debate this subject fully and listen to the learned, skilled and technical evidence that may be forthcoming in the next few weeks.

It is no good the Patronage Secretary looking at me in an angry way. I shall not be put off by him. I shall be put off only by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It appears as though all the available time will be taken up with points of order. I have no objection to that. Earlier this afternoon the House agreed to the following motion: That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 4, the Motion in the name of Mr. Peter Snape may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, and at that hour or at the end of that period Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of those proceedings. I am concerned only that the debate should finish at 11.30 p.m. If hon. Members wish to continue the debate, it is entirely a matter for them.

Mr. Finsberg

I do not intend to be long, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I intend to put this point. The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association—the largest organisation of taxi drivers in the Metropolis—points out that there is no evidence to suggest that this legislation would reduce the accident rate and that it would have the opposite effect— as the continuous contrast of bright light forward and to one's right would put the driver at risk of having an accident with pedestrians or unlit parked vehicles on his near side. The Minister does not seem to be interested. The Patronage Secretary having left, the Deputy Patronage Secretary is distracting him. That is a discourtesy to the House. The LTDA further states: The situation would become even worse in wet weather when the road ahead of the driver would be completely distorted by oncoming headlights and their reflections on the road, together with the raindrops from the windscreen. The Minister said that 70 per cent. of the views expressed to him were in favour of his decision to lay the Regulations. He is not prepared to tell us which organisations were consulted. Just to give us percentages is no help. He does not tell us that the AA is in favour and the RAC against. It is necessary to weigh up the relative importance of the organisations.

I asked the Minister whether he had consulted the licensed taxi trade, but he has not answered my question. I assume, therefore, that he has not consulted the LTDA. His Department received a letter from that organisation, but we do not know whether it has been taken into account.

Dr. Gilbert

The hon. Gentleman has no basis for making an assumption one way or the other.

Mr. Finsberg

In that case, I assume that the Minister has not consulted the London taxi drivers.

Back benchers on both sides of the House have come along to debate the Regulations only to be told that the Minister is withdrawing them. It is wrong for him to expect hon. Members not to put forward their views. The Minister and the Patronage Secretary should not expect to get away with that.

The Minister apparently does not carry much weight in the Cabinet, as he was unable to get an Adjournment debate on seat belts. He was unable to get us a day to debate the draft highway code, but he managed to get time to slip through this nasty little piece of legislation.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)

Will my hon. Friend go outside and count the number of cars going past the Palace of Westminster with their headlights on, and will he tell the House whether the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association has complained about this alleged danger?

Mr. Finsberg

That is not the most helpful of interjections. My hon. Friend is usually much more helpful than that. Any sensible motorist will use his headlights when road conditions demand it. The TRRL does not recommend the use of headlights in brightly lit streets. It is wrong to enforce Regulations requiring bright headlights simply because there is nothing better. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) to consider that. We are all entitled to a view, but what he said in his intervention is wrong. I come back to the last comment I was going to make, which would have been five minutes ago if I had not given way. Accidents are caused through negligence and misjudgment or by drivers taking what they consider to be calculated risks, and not because every vehicle on the road is driving with sidelights. What the Minister has tried to put to us in the Regulations is that because some accidents are caused for the reasons he mentioned, other motorists should be obliged to have headlights at all times, when the road conditions might be made more dangerous by the reflection.

I am glad that the Minister has conceded on this matter. It will be interesting to see what comes back in due course. But at least he has seen that the House of Commons, on both sides, is able to make a Minister who tries to put legislation through without proper consultation think again.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Berry (Southgate)

I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) because he and I are London Members, and like others, when we leave this place tonight we shall drive through the streets of London, and therefore we all ought to have an opinion on whether we should have compulsory headlights.

We are grateful to the Minister for the view he has taken. I disagree with the way he introduced the Regulations, but he has now shown himself a big man in withdrawing them and agreeing to further consultation. The record of Labour Governments over the last 10 years on transport matters has not been good. Under both the last Labour Government and this one, transport appears to have been something to put aside and discuss late at night, if at all. Inevitably, transport debates seem to take place after 10 o'clock, with a one and a half hour guillotine hanging over us.

I remember in 1968 taking part in a debate to increase the cost of taking driving tests. That was pushed through late at night after a statement to the Press before Parliament even knew about it. In 1969 we discussed the new highway code, when even the Patronage Secretary was not able to keep enough Government supporters present, and when the closure was put at 11.30 p.m., fewer than 50 Members were present and the debate was adjourned. Then, Mr. Richard Marsh, who was a distinguished Minister of Transport, agreed that, in future, whenever a new highway code was to be introduced it should be debated in Parliament before it was published as an official Government paper.

The present Government honoured that pledge, but only to a certain extent. We had the Green Paper on the highway code nearly 12 months ago, and despite the mass of legislation and the long hours of this Session, we still have not debated it. I hope that the Minister will secure time for that debate early in the new Session.

We have not completed our debate on the Bill to make seat belts compulsory. Whatever our views, we all agree that this is something that Parliament should decide and that the Bill should not have been left in limbo for 12 months.

I had hoped that the Minister, having come from the Treasury to his present post, would have been able, even in these days of financial restrictions, to find ways of increasing the money spent on transport, but perhaps I was a little optimistic and was asking too much.

This debate is very important, because this is a House of Commons matter. We all have our views on whether these lights should be compulsory at night, and our constituents feel very strongly about it, too. It is a question we should discuss before the Government make up their mind.

In the case of the highway code, the Government thought they could decide before Parliament gave its views. They were wrong and they accepted that. I hope that the Minister will pay full attention to our views in this short debate and will be ready to receive the comments of our constituents and of the various organisations during the next month or two. I hope that he will then, with the leave of the House, allow a debate before a final decision is made.

There are suggestions that cars should have an extra light, for example, between the headlamp and the side lamp. I am sure that the Minister is considering this kind of suggestion in his Department with his experts. A statement that I received from the Greater London Council this morning refers to accidents to pedestrians in poorly-lit streets. There should be no poorly-lit streets. Either they should be lit or they should not be lit. Any street that is lit should be fully lit and should be adequately lit in all circumstances. We know from going round the country that not all streets are properly lit.

I hope that the Minister, who has the advantage of a big Department, with influence on local authorities all over the country, will bring pressure to bear to ensure that streets are lit adequately. We are all very seriously concerned with the safety of our constituents and I hope that he will bear that in mind.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

I had not originally intended to intervene, after formally moving the Prayer to annul the Order. It is only because hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to wish to continue the debate that I have intervened.

My hon. Friend the Minister of Transport would agree that there is a deep feeling in the House about this issue. Consultation was lacking in two particularly vital areas—first, the Parliamentary Labour Party, of which he is a member, and, second, the House of Commons, of which he is a Member. Members on both sides were rather concerned about the fact that this fairly Draconian measure was being introduced without any consultation at all.

I hope that my hon. Friend and his hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench will remember that there are those of us in the House who continually face the task of defending legislation introduced in the House over which we are neither consulted nor have our views considered.

As for the attitude of the motoring organisation to this measure, while the Automobile Association has come out already in favour of it, the Royal Automobile Club has come out rather strongly against it. I quote from a letter which I understand the Assistant Secretary of the Road Safety (Vehicles) Division of my hon. Friend's Department received quite recently from the RAC: …the RAC is not satisfied that it would be desirable to introduce the proposed regulations. The time allowed for consideration of this matter is very short. In our view, it would be premature to make such a decision without a thorough investigation of all the implications of this measure which would be extremely controversial as revealed by comments received from many RAC members and views expressed in press reports. The fact that our senior motoring organisation expresses some concern is indicative of the concern felt in the country generally at my hon. Friend's proposed measure.

The subject of vehicle lighting is not one which has only recently been discussed and only recently become a matter of controversy. As long ago as 1967, the Ministry of Transport formed a Lighting Working Party to look into this very issue. It was made up of representatives of some very distinguished organisations, ranging from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, through bodies such as the AA and the RAC, to the road haulage industry and the Transport and General Workers' Union. There were also seven representatives of the Ministry of Transport. Surprisingly enough, there was a great deal of unanimity amongst the members of that committee eight years ago that this proposal was neither essential nor desirable.

Referring briefly to the conclusions of the working party, I see that para. 21 recommends that The existing regulations regarding the dipping of headlights and the avoidance of dazzle be looked at as a matter of urgency to see whether they can be modified in such a way as to reduce glare. As far as I am aware, no action has been taken since 1967.

The final conclusion of the report is probably the most important and most relevant to this matter. It says: Further research should be undertaken with a view to evolving a more satisfactory beam or lighting system which might in due course become obligatory for new vehicles. Eight years after that recommendation, as far as I am aware, no such research has been undertaken, and the variety of motor vehicle lighting, even amongst British-made vehicles, is immense.

I accept my hon. Friend's view that parking lights, as he calls them, or sidelights, as they are more usually referred to, are not particularly safe on some vehicles and are extremely dangerous on many roads. But that again is a matter for legislation. It is matter for his Department. Why does not his Department lay down minimum required standards of lighting? Why does not it come up with the suggested prototype town lamp to which my hon. Friend referred? It has not done so.

In the original order, my hon. Friend is saying that all vehicles regardless of type must use dipped headlights regardless of road conditions, which, in my opinion, is inherently dangerous at certain times of the day and under certain road conditions. Only last week, I went to speak, as a loyal back bencher, to the Harrow Constituency Labour Party—

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

There was very little publicity.

Mr. Snape

When Harrow voters read about the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page), they say that they do not particularly like to read anything about politics in their local newspapers.

I drove along the A30 to Harrow during the tail-end of the rush period. All three lanes of the road were very busy, with the usual traffic to be found at that time. I estimate that about 80 per cent. of the cars on that road were driving on sidelights, perfectly safely.

Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury)

The hon. Gentleman is an ardent supporter of the rail system. There are excellent rail services to Harrow. Why did he not go by train?

Mr. Snape

If that is the best that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) can do, he would be well advised to put up his feet and relax.

As I was saying, about 80 per cent. of cars on the A30 were being driven on sidelights in perfect safety. The road is well lit. If any vehicles had used headlights, in my view there would have been not only a dazzle problem but an inherent safety risk.

If my hon. Friend's Regulations had been laid and had come into force before 17th November, everyone driving along the A30 on sidelights would have been breaking the law. I suppose that it could be argued that the police would use their discretion and natural common sense and that where traffic was very heavy they would not expect every moving vehicle to have its headlights on. But the view is expressed frequently by the police that they are there to enforce the law and not to interpret it. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume that a bright young policeman would have felt quite free to fill his note book because of the number of vehicles using that road at that time with only their sidelights on.

Despite my hon. Friend's Regulations, I think that situation would continue because common sense alone would dictate that with heavy traffic, particularly in wet weather, it is not practicable, sensible or desirable to use headlights at all times.

On the question of enforcement, what such a proposal would do to police-public relations I shudder to think.

Mr. Wiggin

Oh, come on!

Mr. Snape

The hon. Gentleman says "Come on!" If he catches the eye of the Chair, he may be able to enlighten us. Apart from the difficulty of enforcement in a large city, I do not see the slightest justification for such a proposal where road lighting is adequate.

The Minister will be aware that the M5 and M6 motorways run through my constituency skirting Birmingham, and that they are very well lit. In the West Midlands where the headlights campaign lingers on from the 1960s, 50 per cent. of the vehicles using those motorways, particularly in heavy traffic periods, have only their sidelights on because the motorway lighting is extremely modern and efficient. I find that on the very rare occasions on which I use my motor car on those motorways, in wet weather, when a vehicle approaches from the rear with dipped headlights, it is impossible, especially with the dazzle from the road, to judge exactly how fast that vehicle is travelling and how far it is behind me. It is particularly difficult because of the optical effects of the heavy rain. Like most hon. Members, despite my railway connections and my preference for travelling by rail, I do not think that I could be classed as an inexperienced driver.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for seeing sense in this matter. I should not like to have an argument with the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) about who is supporting whom this evening. I rest my case on the fact that had a Division been called it would have been my Prayer that the Opposition would have been supporting. I trust that this is the first and last time that I shall find the Opposition on my side on any issue.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). I do not know whether he was about to join the Bishop of Southwark in some sort of prayer, but I congratulate him on tabling the motion, which has had its effect on the Government. I also congratulate the Minister, who has had the common sense and courage to say that he will look at this matter again.

The Minister referred to his research department at Crowthorne and spoke about the town beam—a light of intermediate intensity between that of sidelights and the normal dipped beam, which enables vehicles to be seen in well-lit streets without causing dazzle. I hope that he will study this system in more depth. I do not think the Minister referred to what is known as the dim-dip system, which employs a dip filament, with only 10 per cent. intensity of the normal dipped beam. It is a cheap system to install. I understand that it costs about £5 to fit on an existing vehicle and about £1 to install on a new vehicle. There are, unfortunately drawbacks, because both systems are manual.

I also understand that the Minister has consulted about 150 organisations. I should like to know whether he is satisfied that the 40 organisations which are said to be in favour of his proposal are all qualified to speak. Has he consulted the Illuminating Engineering Society and the Association of Public Lighting Engineers, which, I believe, have some views on this subject? I agree that the Minister has been in a dilemma.

The AA has been in favour of the proposal and the RAC has been against it. We read the other day that eminent policemen were worried about it. When the Minister has considered the proposal more deeply, I hope that we shall have another chance to debate this matter again.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Newens (Harlow)

I congratulate the Minister on his decision. It is extremely important to reduce accidents, so we must consider carefully his point about the increase in the number of accidents involving parked vehicles and those driven on sidelights only. Research shows an increase in this type of accident, but there is no information relating increased accidents to different qualities of street lighting.

In Britain, street lighting has codes which discriminate between Group A and Group B lighting, the former on main traffic routes and the latter on residential streets. It would be a mistake to compel the use of dipped headlights on main traffic routes if the problem arises primarily—as I believe—on residential roads. It is particularly important not to introduce regulations of this sort if dipped headlights diminish visibility on well-lit roads, as I believe they do.

Street lighting is emitted on to a road surface without the source of the light being beamed into a driver's eyes. However, even dipped headlights project the beam directly into a driver's eyes and thus cause him instinctively to adjust his eyes so that other unlit objects are not so visible. I invite those hon. Members who, like me, are drivers to test this for themselves. That is why it is possible to see the outline of an oncoming car lit only by sidelights whereas it is frequently obscured when the headlights are on.

Dipped headlights produce what we describe as "visibility glare", limiting the powers of vision in conditions in which street lighting is good. That means that a driver's ability to see a pedestrian or any other object before it is picked up by his own headlights is probably less when dipped headlights rather than sidelights are used in well-lit streets.

There have been three significant studies of this question in recent years— by the British Road Research Laboratory, the Netherlands Institute for Road Safety Research and the Australian Road Research Board. All show that the detectability of objects near the centre line of the road, 100 ft–400 ft ahead, is reduced when dipped headlights are used on well-lit roads. This sort of information must be carefully considered before we permit such Regulations as this to be introduced.

What I have said detracts in no way from the need to use dipped headlights where road lighting is of a poor quality, but this should be left to the discretion of the driver. Drivers should be strongly encouraged to drive in a manner that will secure the maximum degree of safety, and that includes using the appropriate amount of lighting.

There are several other points which should be considered, although I suspect that other hon. Members will dismiss them as worthless. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with them. I am informed that the use of dipped headlights requires an increased consumption of petrol. It is only a marginal amount, but with dipped headlights needing the generation of 90 watts, petrol consumption is increased by between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. In the course of a year it is calculated that this would require an additional 2.5 million-5 million gallons of petrol. Hon. Members may think that this is inaccurate, but if it is we should be told so. That calculation was made by people who should know their job.

If there is to be an improvement in lighting it must be in the form of a dimmed and dipped town beam. That has already been commented on this evening. It would have been a mistake to make these Regulations tonight, and I am grateful to the Minister for taking note of the pressure and withdrawing them. I hope that before any further effort is made to introduce this change there will be opportunity for a debate, so that a decision may be made which takes account of all available information on the subject.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Hall Miller (Bromsgrove and Redditch)

I very much regret the Prayer that we are debating this evening. I do not believe that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) helped his case very much by the remarks he made. If he had been driving on dipped headlights he might have taken the correct road to Harrow. The A30 leads in the opposite direction. I think that the A40 was the road that he should have taken.

Mr. Snape

The road to Harrow is as obscure as the Member of Parliament for the district in which I was due to speak.

Mr. Miller

I understood the hon. Member to be saying that no Regulations of any kind were enforceable, and that motorists therefore should not be required to drive on any form of lighting. The working party report that he seemed to be referring to appeared to be dated considerably earlier even than the Regulations abolishing the need for lights on parked cars. It is therefore not entirely relevant.

A further matter for regret is that the Minister has had to bow to pressure and withdraw the Regulations. Some of my hon. Friends were considering forcing a vote. The danger was that the Minister might be forced to vote against his own proposal—the unhappy state of affairs that beset his predecessor over the compulsory wearing of seat belts. The Government had supported a similar measure in the other place, and several Opposition Members supported the Bill here in the Division Lobby.

The important question that we are discussing tonight is how to improve road safety and get the necessary legislation through the House. The present state of affairs does the House no credit. Indeed, it is doing nothing to advance road safety. I hope that the Lord President, in conjunction with the Minister, will bend his mind to considering how the Government should get the necessary road legislation through the House with the required measure of support.

I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), to the effect that we should have a debate on the new draft of the Highway Code; and then introduce a comprehensive measure to include seat belts and driving with dipped headlights. A great point has been made about the dazzle of these lights. Other countries, notably France, seem to have solved the problem. I hope that the Minister, as part of his comprehensive legislation for road safety, which is so badly needed, will consider amendments to the Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations regarding the fitting of headlights which would eliminate dazzle.

The police have been called into question. I am pleased to say that my own chief constable is unreservedly in favour of driving with dipped headlights, and that all members of his force do so. Therefore, there is no reason to fear lack of police support in this matter.

I hope that I have the Lord President's attention and that the Government will give serious consideration to introducing the necessary package of measures in the next Session. I hope that the necessary consent will be forthcoming from both sides of the House on this important matter.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

I did not intend to participate in this debate, as the Minister had adopted the sensible course of accepting the Prayer, so that debate became somewhat superfluous. However, I shall make a speech in greater detail when, I hope this matter is raised under the Affirmative Resolution procedure. Clearly, a matter of such importance, which affects many millions of people, would be better discussed under that procedure rather than under the annulment procedure.

In future it may be prudent for consultative documents which are circulated to outside bodies—I know that the Minister has engaged in long and diligent consultations—to be available to hon. Members at the Vote Office. Although long and detailed discussions take place, it often happens that Members of Parliament read about the nature only of those documents which are circulated in the Press. As the Labour Party believes firmly in open government, I expect it to seize the opportunity and to provide its Members of Parliament with more information. Many Opposition Members will not bother to take advantage of the information, but I believe that it should be available.

I look forward to consultations, certainly within the Parliamentary Labour Party. Our aim is to improve the safety of motor vehicles. However, it does not necessarily follow that the compulsory use of dipped headlights in well lit areas would increase safety standards.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who signed the Prayer with me, mentioned a Ministry of Transport document, "The Use of Headlamps. A Working Party on the Lighting of Motor Vehicles", which the then Minister of Tranport instituted in 1967. I shall not quote from it extensively, because I am looking forward to a further debate in the House on this matter. However, I should like to quote from one of the conclusions about the objections to the use of dipped beams in well-lighted streets.

The House should bear in mind that this report represents the most comprehensive study of the problem by a representative body. It states: Apart from the general objection to the use of dipped headlamps mentioned in the previous paragraph, there is the more sophisticated objection to their use in well lighted streets. This objection is that the use of headlamps in well lighted streets would impair the value of the street lighting. This is because modern street lighting is based upon lighting the carriageway and the background so that vertical objects (e.g. pedestrians) on the road ahead show up in black silhouette against the lighted road surface. A vehicle's headlamp by lighting the object reduces this contrast. This cogent objection can be demonstrated on a stationery object and is confirmed by the experience of police on traffic duty who feel they are in greater danger because motorists will not see them. Whatever the view of the police—presumably they have been consulted—certainly at that stage it was very different from an uncritical acceptance of dipped headlamps.

These Regulations involve criminal sanctions. The laying of an Order on 27th October and its being brought into operation on 17th November allows only a short time in which to make the public aware that the law is an obligatory force upon them, and that breach of it will involve them in criminal penalties and sanctions. I suggest that before the Minister reconsiders the introduction of statutory enforcement he should introduce a campaign for motorists to use some element of discretion—which is not a bad thing—in the use of dipped headlamps and ensure that the measures for the accurate measurement of headlamp beams—measures which he said are only partial—are brought into much wider use. The apparatus to which he referred tonight is used for vehicles when loaded. Neither the Regulations nor the Minister's statement tonight referred to the fact that the headlamp beam is considerably altered when the vehicle is loaded at the rear. Neither the Regulations nor any of the apparatus referred to by my hon. Friend, although it can measure deflections of this kind, involves a statutory requirement. Perhaps this point could be considered in conjunction with any future Statutory Instruments that the Minister intends to lay before us.

I look forward to the debate when I can enlarge in greater detail on this matter. Meanwhile, I hope that the Minister will accept the many representations from both sides of the House on this matter. I welcome my hon. Friend's acceptance of the Prayer. He has shown a sensible and reasonable attitude to the legitimate representations of the Members of the Labour Party, who together put down the Prayer and made representations to him. Acceptance of it in a true democratic spirit reflects great credit on the Minister.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. As I have already indicated, I shall put the Question at 11.30 p.m. The hon. Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) and Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) wish to take part in the debate. I think that between them 15 minutes will be sufficient.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

I shall be very quick, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am extremely grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to reply to the disgraceful smear placed against my name by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) who said that my views were obscure. I pride myself on the fact that my views are always crystal clear. It is usually because of that fact that complaints are made against me.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East paid a visit to Harrow recently, and I am sure that his political education was improved while he was there. We in Harrow have taken a great interest in the education of Parliamentarians. There have been Peel, Palmerston, Winston Churchill, Pandit Nehru—and myself. This debate is an educative moment for the Minister for Transport. If he had come here in a previous incarnation and asked us to increase the Government's borrowing powers by £2,000 million, it would probably have gone through on the nod, or with a poisoned dart from my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). Once the Minister starts mucking about with the headlights he will realise that the willing horses have changed into the turning worms in the grass roots.

Before the debate closes, I would like to know the answer to the important question asked by my hon Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), about how long we shall have for a debate. We ought to have a day, or at least half a day.

Will the Minister tell us what manufacturing possibilities there are for "dipped-in" systems? I used to have one, but forgot to take it off my car when I sold it. The system was excellent. I now have the ordinary system again.

Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the question of increased petrol consumption and reduced battery life in Sweden, where, day and night, the Swedes drive around with full headlights on, like Zombies?

The hon. Gentleman is introducing a new protocol, to the effect that he must not tell the House the names of those with whom he has had consultations. I agree that the Minister should not give the views of those he consults if he has not obtained their permission, but if permission has been given there is no reason why he should not disclose the names of those with whom he speaks. I hope that in the later debate the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us what those people think.

I am glad that you have given me the opportunity to defend my honour tonight. Mr. Deputy Speaker.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough)

I should first declare a tenuous interest. Since that interest was in favour of approving the Regulations tonight and I was opposed to them, I do not think that my judgment will be affected in any way.

We have had a useful debate. Despite the behaviour of the Patronage Secretary at the beginning, there was strong feeling that it was the stifling of comment and debate which caused much of the opposition to these Regulations.

We welcome the Minister's statement. I shall take one or two moments to make plain the official view of the Opposition. We were not totally committed to oppose the Regulations on any grounds. We are ready to consider the situation again, when longer and deeper thought has been given to them.

I want to be assured that the likely results of any further Regulations will be effectively assessed. This will mean that a certain amount of research will have to take place before and after Regulations come into force. Without such research and assessment many of the questions which hon. Members and outside organisations will ask cannot be answered. I also ask that outside organisations which are concerned with this subject should be given the opportunity to put their views. Here I refer specifically to the National Association of Driving Instructors.

We have had a useful debate. Two points made by the Minister deserve comment. He spoke of the increase in the number of accidents involving parked vehicles, particularly after dark. The road accident statistics provided by the Department of the Environment for 1973 show that only 5 per cent. of all accidents at night were partly the result of parked vehicles. Even with a 75 per cent. increase the figure is only about 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. However, in 1973, 8 per cent. of all daytime accidents were caused by parked vehicles. Therefore, too much can be made of such statistics.

The other point relates to dazzle. No one, so far, has mentioned that it is possible to be dazzled by a vehicle travelling behind one. Far too few cars are properly equipped with an interior rear mirror that can be adjusted to deal with this dazzle. A strong campaign should have been mounted—perhaps even Regulations introduced—to require the fitting of such mirrors in all new vehicles.

It would be wrong if we did not make it plain to the Minister that he has aroused opposition mainly because there was a strong feeling, shared by many members of the public as well as hon. Members, that this issue had been rushed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) has said, these Regulations will affect millions of people. Yet without the motion and the Prayer, and despite widespread concern, the Regulations would have become law without an opportunity for adequate public or parliamentary debate. Those hon. Members who tabled the motion and the Prayer, and those who added their names to them, have done the country a constitutional service.

One of the reasons for this reaction to the Regulations is that we read in newspapers comments to the effect that dipped headlights would be compulsory on 17th November. It is such comments that make many of us feel that this is not the way to treat this House or to introduce legislation. Many of us feel that far too much legislation slips through with too little discussion and investigation. We ought to consider why the Minister has put himself in what can only be described as an invidious position. Why, one wonders, with all the enormous problems facing transport, has he chosen to bring forward these Regulations? This is a rather puny matter in comparison with the great difficulties that his Department is facing.

Is it not the case that in many parts of the country, especially in the rural areas, bus services are being slashed? Is it not true that there is a danger of conflict between the unions and management in British Rail over plans for service cuts and possible redundancies? Is not the whole future of public transport in the balance, to a certain extent?

With all these problems, the Minister has chosen to bring these Regulations before us. This is surprising, because we have had a number of Press conferences and ministerial briefings threatening all kinds of action. Yet these Regulations are the first fruit. Undoubtedly, the Minister wishes to save life. It has been reported—whether it is apocryphal I do not know—that he had a narrow escape from a vehicle displaying only sidelights. If that has sharpened his interest in the matter, we can understand it. All politicians must possess a strong sense of self-preservation. We appreciate that his desire to decrease accidents is genuine, and we give him full credit for that.

We have some doubts, however. We wonder whether the flurry of publicity is a cover for something else—for example, a realisation that there will be little money left to solve our future transport problems. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was wondering what his future record as Minister for Transport will look like. Over the next few months it is obvious that he will not always please Opposition Members. Judging from Question Time today, he will not please some of his hon. Friends, either. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman saw himself as an energetic Minister, coming new to his job and anxious to get something on the statute book. We have no quarrel with the hon. Gentleman showing energy, but we are worried whether that energy is misapplied. We feel that there may be an element of wanting to get something done. We wonder whether his eagerness to do something has created the situation in which we find ourselves in difficulty.

We welcome the hon. Gentleman's decision, because it has been shown already that there are many points which make it clear that some degree of caution and delay is wise. It has already been mentioned that there is a likelihood that increased loss of life will ensue from introducing the Regulations, even if some accidents are avoided. There is also the need to see that road users' equipment is up to standard to ensure that the Regulations succeed. There is a need to evaluate more fully all the technical problems, as well as the possibility of a change to a new form of lighting. There is a need to allow the fullest consultation, and to allay the fears that have been aroused by the Minister's rather precipitate action. Above all, there is a need to show a proper deference to the House. That is why, to quote one of the Minister's own staff, he was "shattered"—that was the word used in the daily papers—by the opposition that ensued from his proposal.

The matters that I have mentioned are only some of the many reasons for the Minister's being right to delay the implementation of this measure. I make it clear that we are not against some form of legislation at some stage. Our position is that we do not feel that the necesssary safeguards and the full implications have been fully appreciated. We shall not be dogmatic. We are glad that the Minister has thought again. We take his point about human life. We want to be convinced that more lives will be saved and more injuries prevented by bringing these Regulations into force. Until we have that assurance it would be wrong to agree to the Regulations. It would have been wrong not to have opposed them tonight.

We thank the Minister for what he has had to say, and we look forward to being given a longer period in which to discuss the Regulations when he brings them before the House again in the new Session.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)

What I want to say has nothing to do with headlights. In the two minutes that remain I want to talk about the House of Commons and its Members. It has been said by Members from both sides of the House that we have not been sufficiently consulted, and that our constituents have not had the opportunity to make their representations to us. We have not had sufficient time to consider the problem. We welcome the fact that the Minister and the Government have had second thoughts and have decided to give us more time.

Notwithstanding all the good will that has been showered upon the hon. Gentleman tonight, will he please remember that when he lays the Regulations again it is not the Regulations we want to hear about, but a debate. We want to hear the detailed arguments. We have had but a glimpse of the arguments tonight, and we want to know more. It is only right that the feelings of our constituents should be represented.

The Regulations represent a matter of life and death for hundreds of people during one year. This is a vital matter. It has been a valuable hour and a half, but I hope that the Minister will not go away complacently. In fact, I am sure he will not do so. However, I hope that he will remember that we want full time to discuss this important measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Road Vehicles Lighting (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1736), dated 24th October 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th October, be annulled.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.