Lords Sitting of 8 July 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Chancellor): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Mayhew
Christopher Paget Mayhew, Esquire, having been created Baron Mayhew, of Wimbledon in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Gladwyn and the Lord Banks.

Technology College Proposal
2.41 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the OrderPaper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to proceed with the concept of an "Open College of Technology" as a means of equipping young people with the relevant skills in a time of rapid technological change.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the Government were glad to be associated with the consultative document, An Open Tech Programme, published on 14th May 1981 by the Manpower Services Commission. This outlines a programme to promote open learning to help meet adult training needs at technician and related levels. Further developments will depend on comments received by September this year and on the availability of resources. There was another consultative document from the commission, which was called A New Training Initiative, and this sets training objectives for the 1980s. Among these objectives are the improvement of skill training and the improvement and extension of initial training and education for young people.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the high technology industries, particularly aerospace, are still woefully short of people with adequate technical training, both those who are young and those who are more mature? Will the MSC make use of the invaluable knowledge and experience the BBC has gained with the Open University and use these similar facilities for the Open Technical College?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the needs for technological training, especially in the industries my noble friend mentioned. Indeed, the open technical training is intended to work through existing education and training institutions. We believe that the Open University and indeed the BBC will both be very useful vehicles for this concept of the Open Tech.
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that there are available throughout the country facilities on quite an extensive scale, in polytechnics and colleges of further education, which could help in doing the kind of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has suggested, and which was earlier suggested, I think by Mr. Prior, with regard to an Open Technical University? Would they bear in mind that this is a matter of urgency, not something that should be left to the slow process of time with which we are only too familiar in this country? It could mean that we wait for 10 or 20 years to do something which needs to be done today. Would they remember that it means setting up a really effective central organisation analogous to the present Open University?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, indeed everything the noble Lord has said is very much in the mind of my right honourable friend in the Department of Employment, and the Government intend to use every educational opportunity and facility to further the concept of the Open Tech, be it the Open University, be it the BBC, be it television, be it colleges of advanced technology; every avenue will be used for this new concept.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, will the Government give a decision as to whether the computer language being taught to children, which is BASIC, is the one which will be used for further adult education in the open technical colleges that have been suggested?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I would have to take advice on the computer language being taught to children. The programme that I have outlined relevant to the Question on the Order Paper deals with postgraduates and young people who have left school and are receiving further education, either at work or before they go further into new technological industries.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, are the Government in a position to say that whatever computer language is chosen will be a standard one used for both elementary and adult education?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think that is a little wide of the original Question on the Order Paper, but certainly the noble Lord's comments will be noted in the department.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Lord take care to ensure that whatever computer language is taught it will not become as archaic as Latin by the time young people reach their maturity?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we shall take very careful note of the noble Earl's comments. As one who studied for two years and got an O-level in Greek, I believe it is particularly relevant that we should study newer languages.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord said in regard to the Government trying to use every educational means of extending technological education, what opinion is he expressing this afternoon on the UGC grants which are being cut

691
back on those technological universities? I mention Aston in Birmingham particularly, which has got the highest rate of placement of graduates from any university into industry and commerce.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are very interested to note the relevant points raised by the noble Baroness on the University of Aston. I think the first part of the noble Baroness's question was a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that some of us very much welcome the concept that the proposed Open Tech programme should build on existing resources rather than form a new institution?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord's comments are very welcome, and indeed he is very accurate; we accept them.
Lord Maybray-King: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Open University provides university education for so many who would otherwise be deprived of it, and the Open Tech could do exactly the same for technical education?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I hope that my earlier answers did give the noble Lord some indication that the Open Tech goes a little further than the Open University as such, but of course the Open University will be a very valuable vehicle for the overall concept of Open Tech, as suggested by the Manpower Services Commission.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this idea seems to have strong support in all parts of the House, and therefore it is a welcome initiative? I shall, therefore, seek to put down a further Question when we reassemble to see what progress has been made since this was launched at the beginning of May.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the House will have due warning of further Questions to be put down by my noble friend. Indeed, we are grateful for his interest.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sure every Member of the House welcomes the suggestion of the use of Open University facilities for this very important task. Will the noble Lord answer directly the question put by my noble friend Lady Fisher? Is it not the case that the present Government's policy is reducing technological training and technological apprenticeships at this moment when they are needed to a greater extent than ever before in the history of the country?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is rather like the curate's egg; it is good in parts and not so good in other parts. Indeed, the whole concept of Open Tech accepts that we need further and continuing efforts to improve the technological skills in training particularly as regards young people in our country. But, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, perhaps he or his noble friend would care to put down another Question, because it is not strictly relevant to the Question which was raised by my noble friend.

Incomes, Productivity and Unemployment
2.51 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree with a reported speech by Sir Harold Wilson whilst Prime Minister saying in effect that unless rises in real wages were matched by increased productivity massive unemployment was inevitable.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, over the years, big rises in money incomes without commensurate increases in productivity have increased our labour costs relative to those in other countries, so undermining competitiveness. This has meant loss of markets, severe pressure on firms' finances and profits, and so loss of jobs. Future prospects for unemployment depend crucially on reversing this decline in competitiveness through lower pay rises and improvements in productivity.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that long and erudite reply. However, I should like to ask him whether he realises that a great many people think that the Government's public relations statements have been inept, to say the very least; that they have failed to get over some of the very simple facts of economics; and that the impression still remains that what they are doing is wholly doctrinal and not really related to trying to put this nation on its feet? I think that there is lacking completely the slightest Churchillian touch.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Viscount does me less than justice. In the first major speech which I made in your Lordships' House, after we came into office, I said:
"the employer who accepts an excessive pay settlement damages his own profits and puts the viability of his business at risk. The employee who insists on an excessive settlement damages the company for which he works and puts his own job in jeopardy. These are the simple facts of the situation".—[Official Report, 19/6/79; col. 845.]
Lord Rochester: My Lords, shall we not continue to fail to match pay increases with productivity improvements or to alleviate unemployment until the Government, employers and trade unions are prepared together to establish agreed long-term arrangements for pay determination?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we do not agree with the noble Lord's approach to this matter. The ends that he seeks to achieve, of course, are the ends which are shared, I think, by all of us. However, experience shows that a formalised incomes policy unfortunately does not produce the results that he expects of it. We regard the responsibility as falling on the respective employers and the representatives of the workforce. In our own field, so far as the public services are concerned, we are, in fact, taking a firm line on this, and

693
we hope that the private sector will similarly face up to the realities of the situation as, indeed, it appears to be doing.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, if it is in order to ask Questions on the Order Paper making reference to speeches that have been made by past Prime Ministers, would it be in order for me to ask Questions about Mr. Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli, or, to be more modern, to ask Questions about Mr. Harold Macmillan, and even go so far—although I do so with the utmost respect—as to ask Questions which refer to the activities of the noble Lord, Lord Home? Would that be in order?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I regret to say that the noble Lord also does me less than justice, because if he reads one of my earliest speeches, he will find quotations in it from Mr. Gladstone's speeches. So far as the Question on the Order Paper is concerned, I have, of course, no responsibility for the terms in which it is phrased.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that Sir Harold Wilson did, in fact, say what he is alleged to have said?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I do not know whether I need detain the House on this, or whether the House would appreciate my detaining it; but what Mr. Harold Wilson, as he then was, said in a speech to the Durham Miners' Gala—a function, of course, with which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has been associated in a very distinguished way—on 19th July 1975 was as follows:
"I have never been allowed to forget that phrase 'one man's wage increase is another man's price increase'. In these grim days, it is more than that: one man's wage increase could mean another man's ticket to the dole queue".
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is not the noble Lord's continuing demand that justice should be done to him rather a dangerous request?
Lord Cockfield: Not in the least, my Lords; I frequently read my own speeches to my own great benefit.
Lord Pargiter: My Lords, the Question refers to "real wages". Can the Government distinguish between the increases in real wages and the increases which are due purely to catching up with inflation?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as a statistical matter, it is perfectly possible to distinguish how much of an increase in money wages represents a real increase in income, and how much represents merely an inflationary increase. It is a simple matter of statistical arithmetic.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that when the world was confronted with the horrendous problem of unemployment in the 'thirties, the then United States President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, accepted the policies and philosophies of Maynard Keynes and Kenneth Galbraith which were based simply on spend and prosper? By adopting
694
that philosophy, he overcame unemployment. We followed in this country the policy of spend and prosper. Would it now not be fair—in so far as the Government have had a long run and have failed lamentably—that they might try to tackle this extremely serious problem with the policies and philosophies of Keynes and Galbraith?
Lord Cockfield: No, my Lords; the world has moved on a great deal in the 50 years since 1931. Repeated attempts in the last 30 years to spend our way out of recession have merely resulted in higher levels of inflation and higher levels of unemployment.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that in 1931 and the years following prices were falling, although unemployment was high? The situation nowadays is entirely different: although we have high unemployment, prices are still rising. That is the problem with which we are trying to cope.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. While lessons can and ought to be drawn from history, one thing we always need to remember is that circumstances today may be, and indeed are, very different from what they were half a century ago.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, will the Government discourage the practice which is now so common, of justifying increases in price by saying that they are necessary in order to keep up with the rate of inflation, as though the rate of inflation was a natural phenomenon, or an act of God or of the Devil? There is no more certain way of maintaining inflation than by using the pretext for raising prices.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that one of the most important things to do is to break inflationary expectations. A number of major speeches have been made by my honourable and right honourable friends in another place, and have been designed to try to displace many of the inflationary expectations which, unfortunately, have grown up over the years.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, when he speaks of the world having moved on 50 years, would the noble Lord not agree that his Government are pursuing a policy of Adam Smith? The noble Lord is really saying that it is better to keep nearly 3 million people out of work and pay them something, rather than to have them gainfully employed, keeping their dignity and making a contribution to our nation.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I entirely reject both the allegations and the arguments of the noble Lord.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, I think the House feels that we should move on to the next Question.

The British Information Services in the USA
3 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what reductions have been made in the last 10 years in the strength of the British Information Service in the United States; and what are its present strength and geographical disposition.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the total staff of the British Information Services in the United States has been reduced in the last 10 years from 100 to 64, a reduction of 10 United Kingdom-based and 26 locally-engaged officers. The present establishment is made up of two United Kingdom-based officers in Washington and three in New York, supported by a total of 59 locally-engaged officers deployed as follows: Washington 8; New York 41; Atlanta 1; Boston 1; Chicago 2; Houston 3; Los Angeles 2; San Francisco 1.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for his illuminating statistics, might it not be held that recent events have suggested that, particularly in the case of those officers based in the United Kingdom, these were false economies, as the citizens of a country to which one is directing information can only act in a relatively minor capacity? Does not this reveal the constant pressure by the Treasury upon the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to reduce our facilities for presenting Britain's image and Britain's case abroad, whether through information services or through the BBC?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, I do not think that this service is doing a bad job. I do not think that the numbers have been reduced unrealistically. Staff costs at the Diplomatic Service's 10 largest posts have been reduced by 10 per cent. in the last two years, and of course information work cannot be excluded from this exercise. In addition, all posts in the United States are being inspected at the present time in accordance with the normal three-yearly inspection cycle.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend consider whether 41 in New York and only 23 spread throughout the immense rest of the United States is a proper weighting? The effect in New York does not seem to have been very substantial in spite of the numbers, and certainly not as far as Mayor Koch is concerned.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the reason for the large preponderance in New York is, of course, that the centralised information gathering services of the United States are situated in that city.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the numbers are needed in New York because they arrange the tours and everything else all over the country? Does he also agree that even 10 years ago—and at that time I was doing some lectures for the British Information Services—certainly my impression and that of many Americans was that the services were very stretched and the staff was a very small one? Does the noble Lord not further agree that the amount of benefit that results from the work of the British Information Services taking knowledge of
696
what is happening in this country to all parts of the United States is quite invaluable?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I said at the beginning of this Question that I was convinced that the Information Service in the United States was doing a very good job, and I would certainly agree with the noble Baroness.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, in view of the fact that, in some people's opinion, the IRA have done quite well lately propaganda-wise on the west coast of America, and as we have only one representative in San Francisco, as my noble friend said, could not some of his henchmen from New York go out to support him?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the entire Information Service is, of course, fully and continuously briefed from London through the medium of both Washington and New York, and any support that the outlying areas require is, of course, continuously and consistently given.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, following what the noble Lord opposite has said, will the Minister agree that there is widespread misunderstanding throughout the whole of the United States and not merely on the west coast, of the present state of affairs in Northern Ireland? While we cannot afford to have as many information officers as we did in the palmy days of long ago, could we not make a particular effort at the moment to send people over there with up-to-date information on what is in fact happening in the Province, so as to counter the propaganda of the IRA and in particular the monstrous raising of money publicly by IRA supporters for sending weapons into the Province, thus making the situation far worse?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Information Services, the Government here and Members of Parliament on exchange visits and so on are doing everything they possibly can to make absolutely clear to responsible opinion in the press and in the United States exactly what is the position.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the number of people that he mentioned as being engaged in this Information Service consist entirely of information officers, or does the number also include typewriting maidens and other subordinates?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that because I do not have the detailed breakdown with me.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, with the increasing amount of trade, particularly in San Francisco and Los Angeles, and of tourism, representation by one information officer in San Francisco and two in Los Angeles is completely disproportionate compared with the representation elsewhere in America? Will he review the situation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, earlier I mentioned that we were in the middle of a triennial review and obviously this is one of the matters at which we shall look.

Interest Rates and Control of the Money Supply
3.7 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree that rewards to capital by way of interest, as with rewards to labours by way of wages, should be related to productivity.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the function of interest rates is to bring the demand for money into line with the supply. Increases in wages unmatched by increases in productivity reduce the demand for labour and hence create unemployment. If this is what the noble Lord means, I would agree with him.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said and I am always anxious to define an area of agreement with the noble Lord. But if the function of high interest rates is to reduce the money supply, would the noble Lord claim that they have been conspicuously successful in that attempt? Are we not really getting down to the saying that inflation is a matter of too much money chasing too few goods? If by high interest rates we reduce the money supply but at the same time reduce the volume of goods, are we not left with as bad, or even worse, an inflationary situation?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, no. It is perfectly true—and we have made no secret of it—that the control of the money supply is a difficult exercise. Nevertheless, it is essential that we continue to direct our best efforts to doing this, and it is what we are doing. The statement that the noble Lord made about inflation being due to too much money chasing too few goods is a popular truism, in the sense that the more money there is and the fewer goods, the higher prices will be. But the natural consequence of that argument is to point towards reducing or controlling the money supply, which is exactly and precisely what the Government's policies are directed to do.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to answer the one part of my question in which I put forward, as a fact, that the policy of high interest rates has had the effect of reducing the volume of goods?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the reduction in the level of output is due to the slowness of the economy in responding to the economic measures taken. The biggest problem here has been the persistence of a high level of wage settlements, way beyond what the economy could afford. This has produced severe
698
strains on the money supply and it has also resulted in a reduction in the level of output.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the phenomenon referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, of inflation produced by too much money chasing too few goods, is one form of inflation, but it is not the form of inflation from which we are now suffering?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we are indeed suffering from the problem of people demanding too high money incomes for the goods that they produce. It is this which ultimately leads to inflation. The main cause of the demand for too much money lies in the level of wage settlements. Fortunately, this level is coming down. The present level of settlements is about half what it was last year, and we must look forward to a continued reduction, which will be followed in due time by a fall in the rate of inflation.
Lord Alport: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he attributes any of the inflation which has taken place over the last few years to the increase in oil? Why does this not appear to be part of the answer which he gives on this occasion? It has always struck me that the increase in oil fuelled the inflationary tendencies of the last four years.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the increase in the price of oil—and there have been two great oil price explosions, one in 1973 and a further one in 1979–80—did in fact spark off very severe inflation throughout the whole of the industrialised world. Some countries however coped with this situation much better than did others. The German economy, for example, by following strict financial policies succeeded in keeping their rate of inflation much lower than we kept it in this country, which was due to a failure to follow adequately firm financial and monetary policies.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, finally may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware how grateful we are that he has at least spared us the claim he usually makes, that Government policy is bringing down interest rates?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the rates of interest have fallen from 17 per cent. last summer to 12 per cent. now. That is a very considerable achievement.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announced that dinner will be available today at the usual time. The Report stage of the Transport Bill will adjourn at approximately 7 o'clock for an hour. During the adjournment the Committee stage of the Armed Forces Bill and the Third Reading of the Zoo Licensing (No. 2) Bill will be taken.
At a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission Report on domestic gas appliances.

Transport Bill
3.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Provisions substituted for ss. 6 to 12 of the Road Traffic Act 1972]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 71, line 12, leave out from ("but") to end of line 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage I tabled an amendment to substitute the entire paragraph 8 of the Schedule that we are now considering. The main purpose of that amendment was to provide that a person would always have the option of providing a blood specimen or, in certain circumstances, a urine sample. As that amendment was very comprehensive, it covered a number of points, and in the light of some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about the drafting of the amendment, that amendment was withdrawn.
Noble Lords will notice that the amendment now before us is in much more simple form. The deletion of certain words concentrates now solely on the central issue. By deletion of the words as specified in the amendment, subsection (6) would provide that of any of the two specimens of breath provided, that with the lowest proportion of alcohol should be used, and these are the important words, but the person who provided it may claim that it should be replaced by a specimen of blood, or specimen of urine, according to the particular circumstances.
I must stress that this amendment has the full support of the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club, and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club. At the Committee stage, I referred to a statement issued jointly by the clubs on 6th May. For the benefit of noble Lords who may not have heard that statement, I should like to quote from it. The statement urged that all alleged offenders should be given the right to demand a blood test if they do not accept the findings of the proposed new breath machines. One paragraph states:
"While the motoring organisations fully support all reasonable measures to prevent drinking and driving, and the imposition of appropriate penalties for such offences, they are nevertheless anxious that there will be adequate safeguards to ensure no risk of injustice, and also to permit justice to be seen to be done".
Therefore, the issue before us is quite a simple one.
I would stress that the introduction of the new breath machines will be a completely new innovation. It should be the task of all of us to see how we can possibly get these generally accepted by the motorist and the public in general. This can be helped by ensuring that a person always has the option of providing a blood specimen should he, or she, so desire. For there are bound to be persons who will have serious doubts about the breath machine reading. They will consider it absolutely wrong to be found guilty by a machine reading without, so far as they will be aware, any opportunity at all to defend themselves.
I believe, and the motoring associations believe that, the majority of motorists will readily accept the new procedure, but others may do so in the course of time when experience builds confidence in the machines. At the outset the absence of any opportunity to challenge a machine reading without the option to provide a blood specimen will be considered by many people to be a gross injustice. This is in line with what was proposed on this question by the Blennerhasset Committee. Paragraph 4.7 of that report says:
"We also think that a suspect whose breath analysis is over the limit should be entitled to offer a specimen of blood. Analysis of this would then determine whether he was over the limit, and used in any proceedings instead of the breath reading".
And the actual recommendation of the committee refers to the blood analysis as a fall-back option.
In appendix 6 of the report, which sets out a draft law, the following appears:
"The constable must then offer him a blood test. if he then gives blood, the result of analysing this specimen supersedes the result of the breath test".
Therefore, the amendment that I am asking your Lordships to approve is in line with what has been stated on this matter by the Blennerhassett Committee. At the Committee stage I referred to some disagreements there have been over the accuracy of the breath machines. Although the Home Office tests show that there was a high degree of accuracy, it is plain that there were some defects; differences which could have affected the result in some court cases. Even if it is in only a small number of cases, justice says that we must pay attention to that fact.
Also at Committee reference was made to the advice of the Magistrates' Association regarding various periods of disqualification which could be determined according to the degree of alcohol contained in breath. The motoring organisations argue that their own scientific tests show that at the higher levels there is the possibility of greater inaccuracies, and it is at those levels that there is no option at all for a driver under the Government's proposals, of providing any blood.
I would also ask the noble Lord who will be replying whether the Home Office have carried out any tests as to whether the proposed breath machines are affected by interference from radio transmitters. I am given to understand that the machines have the same crystal content as in hand-held radar devices, which certainly have been found to be affected in this way. If such specific tests—and I mention specific tests—have been carried out, then I hope that the Minister will be able to give us information on the results. If there have been no such tests, they should be carried out as urgently as possible because they could affect the whole operation and procedure of these machines.
It is argued that the adoption of the option procedure which the amendment seeks to apply would take up the time of the police and courts. I remind the Committee that we are dealing with a person's possible conviction or innocence, and we may also be dealing with a period of disqualification. That fact should not be disregarded as a result of any suggestion that we should the wasting the courts' time. It goes even beyond the question of conviction and disqualification; for some, disqualification could affect their livelihood,

701
while for others the very stigma of a disqualification could have far-reaching effects on their lives. Therefore, it is not right that the matter should be determined solely by a machine reading, which is a new innovation which some will regard with suspicion, when the simple procedure of a blood option should be available if requested, either to corroborate the machine reading or to show there is a difference. The amendment seeks to deal with the matter as a question of fairness and justice.
The Blennerhasset Committee and the motoring organisations have all expressed the view that only a relatively small number of people are likely to avail themselves of the opportunity of the option if it is put into the Bill. Nevertheless, that small number should not be disregarded because we want the new procedure to be freely accepted. In time it may be, but for a period we need this optional test for blood.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I support the amendment which, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, reminded us, is in very similar terms to one moved at an earlier stage. I should at the outset thank my noble friend for arranging a series of demonstrations at which members of the department showed your Lordships a number of machines that might be used. The three machines demonstrated to us were all American—it seems a rather unhappy situation that the British industry has not been able to provide such a machine—and I understand that other machines are being evaluated by the department. If by virtue of the demonstrations it was sought to persuade us that the machines are as near foolproof as possible, one cannot accept that in that we did not see other machines which might be used. In addition, although we had quite clearly explained and demonstrated to us the way in which the machine could start at zero, take a reading and finish at zero, I am happy to say that we were not invited to provide our own blood or urine samples against which the machine could be tested and checked, so there could reasonably remain some doubt.
I accept all that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, but I would add the additional point that, in so many of the measures we have been discussing during the passage of the safety parts of the Bill, we have referred to public acceptance—the public relations element of it—and I do not know of any noble Lord who has spoken against tightening up the law in regard to alcoholism. Indeed, some of us have said we have not gone far enough. We are, therefore, after all the years since Blennerhasset, making a fairly major change in procedure, and I believe it would enhance the provisions if alleged offenders had the option which the amendment would provide, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I believe that within a year or two the option would not be exercised and the machine would come to be recognised as an acceptable device.
I was not much enamoured by the answer we received on 8th June from my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, in which he said—his comments appear at column 105 of Hansard—that if we allowed such a discretion to drivers it would inevitably perpetuate unnecessary delays and obstructions. I do not wish to weary the Committee with reminders of the exchanges I have
702
had with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in regard to justice, time and resources. I believe we should give an alleged offender all the opportunities he could reasonably require to prove his innocence. The amendment would provide one of those and therefore I support it.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, it might be helpful if I indicated that my noble friends on these Benches support the amendment very strongly, for reasons not entirely the same as those admirably put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—although I agreed with everything he said—but rather more for the point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. If we go back to the days before we came to the concept of a blood-alcohol level as being an offence, we were in an area of extreme difficulty because fitness or unfitness to drive was largely a matter of opinion. It was also a matter of opinion based on a recollection. Juries were asked to convict on the basis of an expression of opinion and there was no permanent record at which courts could look which gave incontrovertible evidence of the condition of the driver. It was for that reason among others that we moved on, sensibly and rightly, to the concept of a permissible or impermissible blood-alcohol level, and that did an enormous amount of good to get away from perhaps wrongful acquittals and prolonged legal processes which were entirely unnecessary, and that change got us on to a much more orderly footing.
If we are able to design and introduce new, rapid, efficient and reliable screening methods to discover blood-alcohol level, that is obviously for the public benefit. But I feel it right to remind the Committee that we live in an era when there is some suspicion of experts; perhaps there has been even more suspicion of forensic experts in recent months. It is absolutely essential, if a measure of this kind is to work, that the new method is fair, just and accurate, we should be and support of the public as a whole.
I believe that time must elapse before people will be entirely convinced that this new method of screening is wholly accurate. It is my view that time will show that it is wholly accurate, but until that time has elapsed and people have had an opportunity to develop confidence in the new method and to learn that the new method is fair, just and accurate, we should be very wise indeed to preserve this safeguard which, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, will be resorted to very rarely indeed. Thus, we support the amendment because we believe that in the long run it will be for the good of the new measure which the Government wish to introduce, and that that new measure will become much more effective if it is given time to earn public acceptance and confidence. Until that time, we should be wise to retain the safeguard which the amendment would provide.
3.29 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, not for the first time I find myself assaulted from all sides, but I am not daunted because the case against the amendment is not simply as powerful as the arguments adduced for it, but is more powerful. We afforded the opportunity for your Lordships to come and examine the machines,

703
which were displayed in another part of your Lordships' House. We did that because we appreciate the concern there is about the new breath analysis machines, and it is right that there should be concern because what we are proposing is an important and serious matter—not least to those people who one day, for whatever reason, might find themselves in the position of having to use one of these machines.
That is why we gave your Lordships the opportunity to see the machines in practice. We gave the machines some pretty severe tests; there are some Members of your Lordships' House, as I am sure all your Lordships will know, who would put such machines to a very severe test, and indeed some of them did. From the observations that I made at the time—and I certainly have no intention of mentioning any names—I thought that the machine stood up very well. I really do not see how anyone who observed or took part in this test could have any doubts about the accuracy of these machines. But it is a very important matter and perhaps I should spend a few minutes discussing it.
The use of breath as a means of establishing the concentration of alcohol in the body has been recognised for a long while. It has been in use in other countries for some years—for example, in some States in the USA since 1956. The technology of breath analysis has advanced considerably in recent years. In 1977 the Home Office Central Research Establishment evaluated a number of machines by extensive laboratory and field trials and concluded that breath analysis was a reliable and accurate means of determining the amount of alcohol in the body. Indeed, they discovered that the machines were accurate to plus or minus 2 milligrammes although the manufacturers only claimed an accuracy of plus or minus 5 milligrammes. Further tests are under way on a new generation of machines and I have no reason to suppose that they will be any less accurate.
As we are proposing largely to replace the well-established methods of laboratory analysis, we have provided a large number of safeguards for drivers. I consider it is important that I should give noble Lords some detailed information about this aspect. The machines will have to be approved by the Home Secretary. Before they are installed in a police station they will first receive a British Calibration Service certificate. The British Calibration Service is a branch of the National Physical Laboratory and, for a fee, provides a service to industry in checking measurements et cetera. The machines will be regularly inspected and, if necessary, recalibrated by British Calibration Service approved laboratories. Proper instructions for the operation and maintenance of the machines will be issued and a select group of police officers will be properly trained to operate the machines.
When a driver suspected of driving while impaired or while exceeding the prescribed limit is at the police station, he will be asked to give two breath specimens. A police officer authorised to use the breath analysis machine will first check it for accuracy in the presence of the suspect. He will do this by passing through the machine a standard alcohol vapour sample equivalent to the prescribed limit and certificated by the British Calibration Service. The driver will be required to provide two consecutive samples of breath only if this
704
test shows that the machine is working correctly. The machine will then be checked again by the same method, and only if it is still working correctly will the results of the driver's breath samples be used. The lower of the two results will be taken as evidence of the suspect's breath alcohol concentration, thus giving the suspect the benefit of the variation between the two samples. The suspect will then be given a copy of the print-out from the machine, showing the results of the two checks and the two breath samples. I should like to think that this very much covers the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
The machines which the Home Secretary will eventually approve for use could be as accurate at the prescribed limit as those already tested. However, an allowance will have to be made on top of the prescribed limit for machine variation, and therefore prosecutions are unlikely to take place below this level. This follows the current practice with blood, where analysts deduct 6 milligrammes from an analytical test below 100 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood and 6 per cent. from results above this figure. Although present prosecutions start at a certificated result of 81 milli-grammes per 100 millilitres of blood, the analytical figure obtained for such a result was in fact 87 milli-grammes per 100 millilitres of blood.
In our new arrangements we will also be providing the driver with an additional safeguard. In a small number of cases, it is possible for a person with an unusual blood-to-breath ratio to exceed the prescribed breath limit but to be under the limit on blood. All drivers whose results do not exceed 50 microgrammes (that is equivalent to an average of 115 milligrammes in the blood) may provide a specimen of blood for analysis to replace the breath test result. Similarly, if a machine is not available or is not working correctly, the suspect will be required to provide instead a specimen of blood. If the doctor then decides that a specimen of blood cannot or should not be taken, a specimen of urine will be required.
There is also provision that where the constable making the requirement for breath has reasonable cause to believe that for medical reasons a person cannot provide a breath specimen or should not be required to do so, the constable can ask for blood instead. The medical reasons could cover those who clearly could not give a breath specimen; for example, asthmatics and those who may have special problems, which they should make known to the constable. Again, if the doctor decides on medical grounds that a sample of blood cannot or should not be taken, the person will be asked to give a specimen or urine instead.
This is an extremely important amendment and it is right that we should spend the time which we have in discussing it. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that he was anxious that everyone should have the right to a blood test and that it was important that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done, and that in this way public confidence in the new system would be established. Indeed, that very point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. On the other hand, the Government believe that the breath analysis machines are sufficiently accurate and well-tried, that the built-in safeguards on procedures are sufficiently strong, and that the margin

705
allowed for the right to a blood test is sufficiently generous to ensure that justice will be done without the need for this amendment.
I listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth because I know that he too, in associating himself with this amendment, is very concerned and anxious about this point. That is why I was very pleased that he, too, was present at the testing of the machines, and I know that he looked into this aspect very closely indeed. I had hoped that because of that I might have had my noble friend on my side, but I suspect that he is not really all that far away. Supporters of the amendment argue that there would be no harm in accepting the amendment, because once drivers get used to the breath analysis machine they will not bother to ask for blood tests unless they really believed that a blood test would give a different result. But no one can really predict with any certainty how drivers will react.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke about only a "small number" of drivers; but what if blood tests are asked for by large numbers of drivers, faced with the possibility that they will have a year off the road and who have nothing to lose by undergoing a second test—and that is a very likely scenario, because who would not elect for an alternative in case the result was different? The consequences would be so serious that it could undermine the whole objective. Not one of the noble Lords who have spoken against have objected in principle to what it is that we seek to do here. I do not make the whole of this case on the basis that police time and court time will be saved and that more police will be on the road. It will do more than that. The other aspects are far more important; the fact that a test will be done better, with more accuracy, and that the procedure will be better. All those noble Lords who have spoken said that something better than we have at the present time is wanted. Blennahasset did not go for this, but one must bear in mind that there has been much technological advance since Blennahasset reported in this whole area.
Before I finish I should like to refer to the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in respect of speed guns. My information is that all breath-testing instruments work on different principles from speed guns and that radio transmissions using various types of police transmitters have been made in the vioinity of evidential breath-testing instruments without any detectable effect. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.
I ask the noble Lords who have tabled the amendment to consider not pressing it, despite their concern, which I appreciate and understand. What they propose would drive a coach and horses through all our drink/ driving proposals in the Bill; and everyone is agreed that we must do something about this aspect of safety on the roads. That is why I believe that we are entitled to ask noble Lords at least to consider not pressing the amendment; but if they do press it, I hope that we shall have the support of your Lordships against it.
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, I sometimes think that on all sides of the House we are in
706
danger of minimising the virtues of simplicity. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the elaborate precautions that he is including in the Bill in order to prevent mistakes by the machine; it has to be tested beforehand, retested again afterwards, and so on. The great merit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is that it is perfectly simple. If the person who is suspect does not like the machine, does not trust it, he asks for the old-fashioned method. I am sure that the noble Lord is right in thinking that in the course of time the simple use of the machine will gain on the fuss of having to give a urine or a blood specimen.
Lord Noel-Baker: My Lords, I hope that I am in order in making some observations arising from the speech of the noble Lord who speaks for the Government. I thought that he was extremely persuasive in his account of the precuations that are to be taken to ensure that the machines are fair to the driver. Nevertheless, I would support the amendment put forward by my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench if he presses it to a Division. But I venture to make an observation before the vote is taken. We are dealing with drunken driving. Drunken driving is a matter of the very highest importance. If we want to reduce the appalling toll of death and mutilation on the roads, drunken driving is one matter on which vigorous action must be taken. I speak with feeling because my own driving career was finished by a drunken driver who struck my car sideways on against the back wheel axle at 40 miles an hour. He destroyed both his own car and my car. He spent the night in a police station because he was so obviously very heavily under the influence of drink. Had he been one-fifth of a second earlier in hitting my car, probably I should not be here. I had a miraculous escape.
It is right to have safeguards for the driver, but in my view infinitely more important are safeguards for the victims of the drunken driver. I venture to urge again what I urged at an earlier stage; namely, that the penalty for drunken driving should be much more severe than it has ever been in the past. I believe that fines are of no effect. I believe that suspension of the licence is of considerable effect, but it is not enough. I believe that for drunken driving there should be imposed long terms of imprisonment. Nothing but imprisonment will restrain the drunken driver who takes from the bar "one for the road" and then goes out and commits a murder. I submit that the driver who drinks and then drives is in fact committing a murder with premeditation. He knows that the drink may cause him to kill someone, but he drinks and then goes out and drives. I hope that before the Bill completes its passage the Government will be able to insert penalties that will really restrain people who are guilty of this most heinous crime.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am sure that no noble Lord in any part of the House wants to drive a coach and horses through the drink and driving laws, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. I humbly suggest to the noble Lord that he did not really take the point of my noble friend about public acceptance. It is quite true that the noble Lord was good enough to arrange a demonstration. Unfortunately, I was

707
not able to be present, but many noble Lords went along, and for all I know were well satisfied. But I suggest that that is quite different from satisfying the general public, who will always suspect new methods of this kind. As I say, I do not want to drive a coach and horses through the drink and driving laws, but I do not understand why it should be thought that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would do that.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do not want to extend the matter any further, but, with the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the noble Viscount's last point. I spoke earlier about the reality of a person who, when tested by the machine and found to be marginally over the limit, is then given the right regarding a blood sample. Almost always he will say, "Well, have a blood test as well". Surely that will be the almost inevitable reaction, and in such circumstances we therefore need not have the whole thing in the first place. That is why I was so convinced about this question.
Lord Wilson of Radcliffe: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government consider the question of whether a driver who requests a blood test should be responsible for all the costs involved in the event of the result of the blood test going against him?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, once more I ask for the leave of the House in order to reply to a point—and I had better not ask again! The noble Lord has made a very interesting suggestion, which of itself is not unhelpful. But we are talking about a situation which many of us believe will be on so great a scale that we might then have to abandon our proposals and start all over again. That would be a great shame. No noble Lords who have spoken have really doubted that basically the machines are accurate and that they will become even more accurate. The Government have given undertakings, as I gave in my remarks, that the machines will continue to be accurate and will become more accurate. For that reason we want the legislation to go forward, so as to make a major contribution to road safety—if I may use the phrase.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, surely we are getting out of order; this is not the Committee stage.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I have not spoken previously and so I think I am in order in seeking to speak now. I feel that I must support the amendment, though I understand the reasons why the Minister wants the machine to operate alone. Any machine, no matter how accurate, is only as accurate as the extent of the fallibility of the human being who is involved with it, whether he installs it, calibrates it, or operates it. Therefore I cannot believe that we ought to rely only on the results of a machine. We must give the individual concerned the opportunity of an alternative choice.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I always listen very closely to what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, says in his persuasive way. I, too, wish to thank him for the
708
facilities arranged regarding the demonstration. Unfortunately, I went along at the last moment, I had had no alcohol, and so I could not be tested; I had to wait for other people. In my opening remarks I made it quite clear that I am not challenging the general statements about the basic accuracy of the machines, even though the motoring organisations claim that scientific tests carried out by them show that there could be greater inaccuracies at the higher levels, which are very important from the point of view of periods of disqualification.
However, leaving apart that aspect, the important question is that of general acceptance by the public. It will be noticed that not one noble Lord has come to defend the Minister on this question. All noble Lords who have spoken have supported the principle of the amendment, and, as has been emphasised, there is certainly no intention of driving a coach and horses through the provisions.
In another place, reference was made to "rough justice". You cannot be satisfied with rough justice when you are dealing with an important issue of this kind. What we are endeavouring to do by this amendment is to ensure that at least in the initial period, while people are getting used to the machines, the Ministry, as I am certain they will, with all their information network, will be able to obtain sufficient publicity as time goes on for the effectiveness of the machine, and, where there has been a blood option, will be able to put one against the other. I am certain that will be done; and if the Government are right, then the numbers claiming the option will decrease rapidly.
If this amendment is carried, as I hope will be the case, there is nothing to prevent the Minister, if he so desires, coming back at Third Reading with an amendment to provide that what I am proposing should be there for only a period. But I believe this is such an important issue—it is a question of justice and public acceptance—and, obviously, so many noble Lords from all parts of the House believe in this amendment, that I must press it to a Division.
3.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 111.

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Caccia, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Caradon, L.

Amulree, L.

Chitnis, L.

Ardwick, L.

Clancarty, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Collison, L.

Balogh, L.

Cross, V.

Banks, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Barrington, V.

Davies of Leek, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

De Freyne, L.

Birk, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Bishopston, L.[Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Blease, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Blyton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Bowden, L.

George-Brown, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Glenamara, L.

Brockway, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gosford, E.

709

Gregson, L.

Porritt, L.

Grey, E.

Reilly, L.

Hale, L.

Robbins, L.

Hampton, L.

Roberthall, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rochester, L.

Henley, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Hill of Luton, L.

Shinwell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Simon, V.

Hughes, L.

Somers, L.

Inglewood, L.

Spens, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stone, L.

Kaldor, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathcarron, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strauss, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Loudoun, C.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]

Tweeddale, M.

Underhill, L.

McNair, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Milford, L.

Walston, L.

Monson, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Whaddon, L.

Northfield, L.

Wigoder, L.

Pargiter, L.

Willis, L.

Parry, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Peart, L.

Winstanley, L.

Phillips, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Gainford, L.

Alport, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Ampthill, L.

Gisborough, L.

Auckland, L.

Glasgow, E.

Avon, E.

Greenway, L.

Barnby, L.

Gridley, L.

Bathurst, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Bellwin, L.

Halsbury, E.

Belstead, L.

Hayter, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Bessborough, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blake, L.

Ilchester, E.

Boothby, L.

Kilmany, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kimberley, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Cathcart, E.

Kinross, L.

Chelwood, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Clwyd, L.

Long, V.

Cockfield, L.

Lyell, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Craigton, L.

McFadzean, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Margadale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Marley, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Melville, V.

Daventry, V.

Mersey, V.

Davidson, V.

Milverton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Morris, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Derwent, L.

Mountevans, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Moyne, L.

Eccles, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Effingham, E.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Norfolk, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Northchurch, B.

Elton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Energlyn, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Erne, E.

Orkney, E.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Exeter, M.

Portland, D.

Faithfull, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Falkland, V.

Renton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rochdale, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Romney, E.

Freyberg, L.

Salisbury, M.

710

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Thorneycroft, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Selkirk, E.

Vaizey, L.

Sharples, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Vickers, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vivian, L.

Soames, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Stamp, L.

Westbury, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Gas Appliances: MMC Report
4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will repeat a Statement being made in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the action which the Government has decided to take following the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of certain domestic gas appliances, published last year.
"I told the House on 17th June of the public interest findings made by the commission in their report.
"The considered that the British Gas Corporation's monopoly had acted against the public interest by restricting competition in the retailing of appliances.
"This had limited the number of independent outlets, suppressed competition, and possibly had increased prices.
"They also considered that the manufacturers' over-dependence on BGC had indirectly led to poor export performance on the part of the manufacturers, reduced incentives to improve efficiency and depressed investment; and that this was against the public interest.
"I told the House on 17th June of the options put forward in the MMC report.
"The Government have considered these, and others, with great care, bearing in mind that the Government's objective and first responsibility must be to respond to and remedy the adverse findings in the commission's report in a way consistent with the need to give consumers wider choice, better service, safety, availability and convenience, and at the same time to minimise as far as possible any adverse effects of any changes on our own manufacturing industry and the employees of the British Gas Corporation; I should like on this occasion to repeat the statement which I made in the House on 17th June that no solution that failed to maintain safety, at least at its present level, that generally inconvenienced consumers, or that was seriously damaging to manufacturers, would be acceptable to the Government.
"Having considered carefully and consulted widely, the Government have concluded that in

711
order to remedy the adverse effects identified by the commission, the BGC should withdraw from its current retailing operations and that the timetable of three years in the MMC's first option is too compressed a period.
"The Government have decided therefore that the corporation should be required to cease retailing domestic gas appliances and to dispose of their showrooms over a five-year period.
"This would be a carefully structured and phased programme of withdrawal, with the corporation being required to dispose of half their showrooms within two years, a further quarter in the following year, and the remaining quarter in the final two years.
"The Government will, if necessary, introduce legislation to give effect to this decision.
"As a counterpart to these steps, the Government are also considering measures under the Fair Trading Act to counteract certain adverse effects of the gas appliance manufacturers' monopolies identified by the commission.
"The Government are clearly concerned to minimise the impact of their decision on employment.
"In this context I must stress that the Government are not proposing to curtail British Gas's servicing and installation activities.
"The decision will therefore only have a direct bearing on those who are employed in appliance retailing, mainly in British Gas's showrooms.
"The Government would wish British Gas to maintain some customer contact points and since they have stated that 80 per cent. of showroom staff's time is spent on activities other than retailing the number of jobs which could be affected should be minimised.
"Nevertheless, the Government recognise that concerns about employment are deeply felt by Gas Corporation employees, although, in the Government's view, these fears are largely unfounded.
"The Government will consult British Gas and their unions closely at all stages about the detailed implementation of these decisions so that the impact on employment prospects can be minimised.
"The Government are well aware that a change of the kind they have decided upon will represent a radical move away from the gas appliance market as we know it today.
"But the Government would not have reached the decision which they have reached if they did not believe it to be right, justified and necessary, and a measure essential to the enhancement of competition in the public interest.
"We believe also that as this sector evolves away from its present monopoly dominated structure there will be positive benefits alike to the consumer and to gas appliance manufacturers, as competition between retailers develops to meet consumer needs and satisfy consumer demand, providing, as enhanced competition always does, wider choice and better service."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I first of all thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in the other place detailing the Government's reaction to the MMC report—that is, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report—published almost a year ago today and based on evidence taken in 1976. This is an appalling Statement. It flies right in the face of the expressed wishes of the National Consumer Council, the manufacturers the gas industry and the Gas Consumer Council. The only part of the industry which I understand is in favour of this Statement is the retailers.
This Statement and the intentions embodied in it will create a potentially serious industrial situation within the British gas industry where none has existed before. Your Lordships will know that the record of industrial relations in the gas industry has been almost perfect. These proposals will destroy that record. At a stroke, the Government are proposing—and I give these figures on the basis of the estimates made by the unions involved—to create between 20,000 and 30,000 job losses in the gas industry.
If British Gas is forced to sell off its showrooms, it will not be able to maintain the same level of service to its customers. Inevitably, the public will have to call more and more on the services of private gas installers—those who work for the Council of Registered Gas Installers (CORGI). The safety record of those involved in gas installation shows that a gas installation made by a member of CORGI is fifteen times more likely to result in an accident than one which is made by a Gas Board employee. That is because the employees of CORGI firms are not necessarily trained fitters. There must be a very great deal of public concern about this safety aspect.
The Minister said that the Government would start consultation with British Gas about the implementation of this Statement, and I understand that consultations started at 3 o'clock this afternoon between the Minister and the chairman of British Gas, and that there has been, bar one general discussion between British Gas and the Government, no consultation about the proposals in this Statement before.
The noble Lord indicated in the Statement that legislation could be needed before, in fact, British Gas takes the action proposed in the Statement. We believe that it will be necessary for the Government to bring forward legislation. We shall oppose that legislation, and shall seek to have it reversed in the next Parliament. I would ask the noble Lord to say what compensation the Government propose should be given to British Gas for the disposal of a successful business.
Briefly, what this Statement envisages is poorer safety in the gas industry, higher prices, and worse services for the consumer.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in thanking the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place. The noble Lord will understand that this is a very complex Statement, with very important and serious implications for those who work in this industry and for those who depend upon it for goods and services, and indeed for consumers in general. The noble

713
Lord will understand that we shall wish to consider this Statement carefully before reaching any final conclusions. First, does he agree that this present tendency of the Government to privatise, to sell off or otherwise to eliminate highly profitable sections of nationalised industries, does not hold out a helpful example to people working in those industries? Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that the gas showrooms provide a whole series of services, apart from selling goods? From my own knowledge I can ask, is he aware that they give advice on safety, on energy conservation and on the economic use of fuel? Also they frequently give advice to elderly people on heating costs and heating allowances and help with matters of that kind. Finally, in the event that the gas showrooms are phased out and this void is left which will certainly not be filled by the commercial operators, have the Government any plans for replacing the important services at present being provided by the gas showrooms?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, may I first take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. As I said in the Statement—and I appreciate that the noble Lord may not have had a chance to study it—it is the Government's intention that British Gas should maintain an adequate number of contact points for the public so that the advice to which the noble Lord referred and some of the other services and activities which are presently carried out in gas showrooms, as, for example, the payment of gas bills, should continue to be possible on a local basis. It is the retailing activities on which we have made the decisions which are contained in the main thrust of the Statement.
As for the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, he started with what I must tell him is a wholly misinformed, inaccurate and quite wrong condemnation of the activities of the private installers. The CORGI installers are just as good in terms of safety as the British Gas Corporation. There are no statistics which show that they are less efficient than British Gas. What is the case is that there are a few "cowboy" installers who are not covered by the CORGI scheme. It was to the CORGI scheme that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, specifically referred. It is the "cowboy" installers who perhaps in some cases are not up to the required standards; and we shall want to ensure than any disadvantages of that nature are not continued in the proposals we shall be bringing forward. The insinuation—and I can call it no less—made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby in that respect is, as I say, quite wrong and I hope that the noble Lord will not persist with it.
As for employment, a point which the noble Lord also raised, as I said in the Statement, 20 per cent., or even fewer, of British Gas employees in the showrooms are presently engaged on retailing activities so that it is a small percentage that will be directly concerned in the phasing out of the retailing activities. But I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of British Gas to ensure that redundancies on any significant scale do not occur.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—
Several noble Lords: Order, Order!
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I think we speak from alternative sides of the Chamber, do we not?
Lord Denham: My Lords, the generally accepted point of view is that we do go from one side to the other. I think that is right. I think that my noble friend got up before the noble Baroness did, but certainly the noble Baroness got up soon after. I think it was my noble friend who rose first.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps I might continue with my question to my noble friend.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the House allow me to speak as Chief Whip of the SDP, to remind the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip that what he has just said is not entirely in accordance with the private agreement reached, and to ask the forbearance of the House when I say that we shall raise the matter again in private?
Lord Denham: My Lords, we have had discussions, of course, on various points outside the House, but I think it has been generally agreed that at the specific moment the noble Lord and his friends who find themselves sitting on that particular Bench do not get any particular preference in forms of statements.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his remarks will be welcomed as bearing out what the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommended and that it will be unquestionably in the interests of consumers? But is it not a very long time to phase out the retailing operation over the whole of five years? Is there any possibility that when experience has been gained after, say, two years this process could be expedited and that the three years that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommended could be adhered to?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the five-year period to which I referred in the Statement was arrived at after a lot of careful consideration. I think that there are dangers in seeking to expedite this process too rapidly. That was why we took the decision, as we did, that the three-year period recommended by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was unduly hasty. There are risks of putting too much property on to the market at the same time, although I should say in parenthesis that not all the gas showrooms are held on a freehold basis. But, having regard to all considerations of that kind, we came to the conclusion that five years was the right time.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I was under the impression that as we, the Social Democrats, had been given a copy of the Statement, after the official Opposition and Liberal speakers had asked questions we would come next. I apologise to the noble Lord the Chief Whip, but I believed that to be so. We on these Benches do not agree with what the Government propose to do. I should like to ask three questions. First, we feel that the presence of the showrooms in the high streets and the service provided from them are both of real benefit to the consumer. I should like to ask the Government whether they believe that the

715
same level of service will be provided by a fragmented network of private sector retailing outlets? That is something we cannot accept.
If I might move on to the monopolies point in the noble Lord's Statement, we must accept that there is a technical monopoly in gas appliances. I even think that service to consumers would be improved if steps were taken to reduce this monopoly. Certainly I think that the corporation should become more competitive in its retailing. I believe that monopolies do not create competition or the best choice of reasonably priced new products. Arising out of that, I want to ask the Minister—and I hope that he will agree with me—in view of that, can the Government not consider even now at this late stage the proposition that retailing and maintenance become separate sections as distinct and accountable parts of British Gas? Can he look at that? We are interested in what the noble Lord said about steps to be taken under the Fair Trading Act. We all hope to hear more of those.
But I find—and this is my third question—that the answers that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has given to previous questions were rather confusing. He says in the Statement that the Government have decided that the corporation should be required to cease retailing domestic gas appliances in their showrooms over a five-year period. Then he says that, in this context, the Government are not proposing to curtail British Gas servicing and their installation activities. Finally he went on to say that the Government would wish British Gas to maintain some customer contact points. I suggest that these statements are all contradictory. As we understand it, over a period of time the Government are proposing to sweep away all the retailing shops of British Gas. If they are not proposing to do that, may we be told what that means?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think there is any contradiction in what I have said. British Gas will be remaining in the servicing and installation businesses. However, those businesses are not necessarily conducted from the gas showrooms, which are concerned with retailing gas appliances, on which less than 20 per cent. of the staff time is employed. At the gas showrooms there are also certain other activities, for example, the collecting of accounts. Those activities will continue at the contact points to which I referred.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister very briefly this question: How many consumers—housewives—did the Government consult about this act of vandalism? We have had it before; we have been here before, and none of the women I talked to about this—and, after all, one knows about these shops closing—has been in favour of it at all. I think that it is an absolute scandal.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, this decision is, of course, in accordance with the main thrust of Conservative policy which was put to the electorate in May 1979, and the decision that they took then was a clear one.
Lord Noel-Baker: My Lords, looking back to the
716
early years of nationalisation when, as Minister of Fuel and Power, I was very closely concerned with the matter, would the Minister agree that gas suppliers are a national monopoly and that the nationalised board, by suppressing small gas stations of very low efficiency and introducing a grid, have made enormous profits and there have been enormous advantages for the consumer over all the years since then? Would he agree that the supression of the showrooms must inevitably reduce contact with gas consumers, and that the corporation will literally be unable to give the same kind of service, about which the noble Baroness has spoken, to consumers of all kinds that it gives today? May I express the hope that before too long a Labour Government may be able to reverse this decision?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords—
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, be that as it may, the fact is that in our view the consumer is much better served by having a wider range of suppliers from whom he can purchase his equipment than he is by having to go almost exclusively to the showrooms of the British Gas Corporation, which is the situation at present. As the report from the MMC showed, the results of this monopolistic situation which has existed for a long time now have been that the prices have been kept high and competitive choice available to the consumer has been much less. Those are the evils that we seek to correct.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I am sorry but I cannot agree with the statement that my noble friend has made today. I was the first chairman of the National Gas Consumer Council. I was chairman for five years. In that time I was able to assess what British Gas does for the consumers. It is only on the subject of safety that I am worried this afternoon, primarily because to my certain knowledge the people who give after-sales help to those who buy gas appliances, from British Gas or any other outside outlets and those who service these appliances, have to be highly trained. One cannot take somebody off the street—a plumber or anyone like that—and say: "Go and service this piece of equipment". I hope that the Minister will agree with me that safety for the consumer is paramount, and that wherever the gas appliance is sold there must be back-up sales staff who are highly qualified.
Reference has been made to CORGI. That is an excellent organisation. They have people who can give back-up sales advice. But, as I understand it—and I have not had the pleasure of a copy of the Statement—other private people will now be able to sell gas appliances without, presumably, the back-up sales staff. Is my noble friend aware whether British Gas and their staff will agree to service appliances that they have not sold? They have never done so in the past. I should be very interested to know whether the Minister has come to any conclusions with the British Gas Corporation on this subject.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said in the Statement, the installation and servicing activities of the British Gas Corporation are unaffected by the announcement that we have made today. However, it will continue

717
to be possible—as it is now, for that matter—for independent gas installers to do the work when the customer so chooses. We continue to think that it is the customer who is entitled to have the last word in this matter. I absolutely agree with my noble friend when she says that safety is of paramount importance. We shall certainly ensure that arrangements are made to secure the necessary safety levels in this matter, and we shall, if necessary, consider what "policing" arrangements can be brought into force.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I was seeking to intervene a few moments ago when the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was replying to my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker, when he referred to the monopoly situation revealed in the MMC report. What I wanted to draw to his attention was that this report was based on the retailing position in the industry in 1976—five years ago—and since that time there have been considerable additional outlets for gas appliances outside the showrooms of the board. The other point which the noble Lord took me up on regarding safety and its being 15 times more likely for there to be an accident if an installation is made by a non-employee of the Gas Board, I would agree with the noble Lord that I should have referred to a non-Gas Board employee as opposed specifically to somebody working for a CORGI firm.
The final point—which several noble Lords have touched upon—is the role of gas showrooms in helping consumers generally. The point here is that although only 20 per cent. of the time of staff in gas showrooms is spent in retailing, it is the fact that the retailing which takes place enables the other 80 per cent. of the work to be done.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, may I ask the Minister two questions? Is it still the standing instruction of the Government to the nationalised industries that they should in fact behave commercially? If that is the standing instruction, is this decision justified on commercial terms? The retail trade is not particularly lively at present. Due to the high rates that exist in the country at the moment, property values tend to be depressed. May I ask whether anyone acting commercially at the board would regard this as an appropriate time for disposal of these assets? May I also ask whether the realisations of these disposals will affect in any way the external finance limits and the investment ceilings of the board? Will they be credited with realisations of the assets for further investment purposes?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer the last point without some consideration. I shall write to the noble Lord. On the wider point of the need for the nationalised industries to operate on a commercial basis, we certainly continue to think that that is the right way to proceed. In this case that is not what was happening. The Gas Corporation were in an almost wholly monopolisitic situation. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, in the past two or three years there have been a few additional outlets, the fact still remains that the British Gas Corporation had far and away the largest retailing operation in terms of gas appliances.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I know that there are a number of noble Lords who would like to ask more supplementary questions; but this debate has been going on for the best part of half an hour. We have a lot of business before us, and if I get right the feeling of the House, it is that we should return to the main business of the House today.

Transport Bill
4.30 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 73, line 1, leave out ("has either") and insert ("either has").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the aim of Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 is to correct a grammatical error, and of Nos. 32 and 33 is to define the word "drug" for the purposes of Section 5 offences—that is, driving while unfit through drink or drugs. Conventionally, we think of drugs as substances used for a medicinal purpose to give a beneficial effect but which can unfortunately also impair a person's ability to drive; for example, by making him drowsy. However, other substances which are not used medicinally are taken by people because of their effect on the central nervous system; for example, glue sniffing. These substances can equally affect their ability to drive and this definition ensures that, if that should happen, the person concerned could be prosecuted under Section 5. I beg to move Amendment No. 30.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 73, line 3, after ("or") insert ("has been").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this just now, together with Amendments Nos. 30, 32 and 33. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 74, line 20, leave out ("6") and insert ("5").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 74, line 27, at end insert (" "drug" includes any intoxicant other than alcohol").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Compulsory wearing of seat belts]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 20, line 23, after ("persons") insert ("under the age of twenty-five").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 34, but, before arriving at the substance of it, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, whether he will be kind enough to confirm or deny the rumour that the Government intend unreservedly to accept Amendments Nos. 69A and 69B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of

719
Guildford? As I understand it, these would have the effect of applying the affirmative resolution procedure to all the regulations made under this clause as it is now. If that is the case, it will not be necessary to divide on most of the earlier amendments, with the possible exception of No. 38.
Secondly, may I ask whether it is the Government's intention to accept Amendment No. 72, which provides for a Green Paper or other consultative document to be issued three months before the regulations are brought into force so as to give plenty of time for discussion of the regulations? If that is the case, then we need not spend very much time in ventilating all these earlier amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I can and do gladly confirm that these amendments, which will ensure that all regulations under the new section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure and will thus require the approval of both Houses of Parliament, are acceptable to the Government. Regarding Amendment No. 72 to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred, I am able to say that we are not unsympathetic to this and would most certainly want to consider it.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, may I just add a word or two in case the Marshalled List may have been unintelligible to any noble Lords who were not initiated? The disappearance of my Amendment No. 57A, which was on the Marshalled List yesterday and which had the intention of making all the regulations subject to affirmative resolution, was due to the fact that I knew noble Lords generally wished to see the regulations made subject to affirmative order; and indeed I agree with that wish myself. Naturally, consultations with the Government were necessary, and the parliamentary draftsman, who moves in a mysterious way, found my amendment to be defective in the form in which it appeared on the Marshalled List. He therefore advised that I should put down the two amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has referred. These have the effect of amending this Bill so that Section 199(4) of the 1972 Act, which defines what shall be subject to affirmative resolution, shall apply rather than subsection (3) of Section 199, which refers to the negative procedure. I just give that explanation because, on the face of it, the two Amendments Nos. 69A and 69B might not be intelligible without it.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, which I imagine he is going to do, I should like to suggest that no intelligent debate should ever take place with a view to making laws in relation to age, sex, colour or creed. If we are referring to drivers or to persons in vehicles, it seems to me that if you introduce these pieces of nonsense you have already got a lot of exemptions. We all know the way insurance companies operate. At one stage women drivers had to take out a greater amount of insurance, on the assumption that because they were females they did not drive as well as males. That can easily be disproved. Equally, if we are to have people of different ages, some having to wear seat belts and some not, the next thing we shall have is
720
people who have just arrived in this country and who may not be used to driving on the left side of the road, subject to seat belts, whereas residents of long standing are not. I would suggest that it is not a serious way of making laws ever to introduce these matters, which are totally unrelated to any law which is to refer to drivers in vehicles.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for his reply. The first part of it is very welcome and will be extremely helpful to the House this afternoon. I am not happy about the second part of his reply, indicating that the Government are not too happy about Amendment No. 72.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has just said makes it all the more important to explain the raison d'être of these amendments. There has been a suggestion, which received a great deal of support in another place, that compulsion should be confined to learner drivers on the grounds that it is legitimate to impose special restrictions on L-drivers and also on the grounds that once you get used to driving in a belt, that habit tends to stay with you throughout your driving career. I very much like that idea, but I did not feel it would receive much support in your Lordships House this afternoon. Therefore my amendment goes rather further and confines compulsion to all those under 25, whether they be L-drivers or not. My own view has always been that an adult is an adult is an adult, and that people between 18 and 25 deserve their freedom just as much as older people. However, I do recognise that there are those who take a different view, namely, that the state has a special duty to protect young adults: hence the rationale behind the laws relating to motor cycle crash helmets.
One must also acknowledge, for instance, that the freedom conferred by the 1967 Sexual Offences Act has not so far been extended to those between 18 and 21, and also that sentencing policy for young adults differs from that applicable to older people. Further, it is perfectly true that drivers between 18 and 25 are those who are most at risk. Insurance companies nearly always impose a higher premium for those within that age group, and car hire firms make it very difficult for those in that age group to hire a car. That is really the reason behind this amendment.
There is yet a further school of thought—I mention this because it is possible that the next amendment may not be moved—and that is that my amendment goes a little bit too far and that exemption should be confined to those over the age of 60 years. If I guess correctly what is in the minds of the noble Lords who tabled that amendment, they believe that anyone who has been driving for more than 40 years gets set in a certain pattern and it is almost cruel to change overnight the driving habits of a lifetime—habits which have been perfectly legal and legitimate up to that point. But I shall not say any more about that, because it is possible that other noble Lords may have something to say. Before I withdraw this amendment, I hope that the Minister will take note of what has been said on it this afternoon. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
4.40 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 20, line 23, leave out ("driving or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 36 and, with the leave of the House, I will speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 40 and 51. The purpose of these three amendments is to confine compulsion to front seat passengers—in other words, to exclude drivers from compulsion—and to allow seat belt wearing to be purely voluntary so far as drivers are concerned.
There are several reasons, both libertarian and practical, why this would improve the clause. First, it is somewhat less illiberal than applying compulsion to drivers, because, in most cases, if passengers detest wearing belts and find them uncomfortable, they can sit in the back seat. This option is obviously not available to drivers. Of course, it is not available to passengers in two-seater cars either, but there is nothing much one can do about that.
The second point is that the front seat passenger is definitely more at risk. It is not for nothing that the front passenger's seat is commonly known as the suicide seat. Next, we have heard in debates, both in this House and in another place, that there are some front seat passengers who are hesitant about belting up, because they fear that the driver will take offence; that it will be regarded as a slur upon his driving ability. I find this rather curious, but then one has to recognise that everybody is different and, we being the tolerant party, I like to think that we must cater for all cases. This may be a valid argument for some people.
The fourth reason is that a driver in a hurry—and I have seen this happen quite often on the Continent—may jump into his car, drive away and start to buckle on his seat belt while he is on the move, holding the steering wheel with one hand and tugging the belt across his chest with the other. It goes without saying that that is extremely dangerous, and could endanger other road users.
The fifth and final reason—and this is both a practical and a moral one—is that there is absolutely no question, but that many drivers drive less well when they are belted up, whether because of a sense of false security, irritation, imbalance or whatever. We did not need Dr. John Adams to point this out to us, although we are grateful to him for giving us statistical confirmation. In this context, I should mention that my Amendment No. 46A is a possible alternative to this one. it is a milder amendment; it permits drivers who testify that a seat belt impairs their driving ability to be exempted.
I hope that the Minister will study this argument carefully. Given that the country is so bitterly divided over the whole issue of compulsion, it seems a good compromise—not wholly satisfying both sides, but perhaps striking the right balance—to apply compulsion to front seat passengers but not to drivers. I wait to hear what the noble Lord has to say in reply, before I withdraw the amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord who moved this amendment could help me in one respect. He spoke as though, if you left out the driver, you would be dealing only with the front seat passenger. But the clause does not say any-
722
thing about the front seat passenger. The clause includes anyone riding in a motor vehicle, does it not?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will deal with the interesting point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to reverse by 50 per cent. the decision which this House took on the Committee stage of this Bill, and I cannot believe that noble Lords would really wish to do that. It would, of course, automatically remove half the people who would be subject to the law, if we made the wearing of seat belts compulsory only for front seat passengers. The number will automatically be halved if we take out all the drivers. In fact, rather more would be taken out, because a good many people drive on their own without passengers. So the effect would be substantially to reverse the decision which we took before, and I feel sure that noble Lords would think many times before wishing to do that.
Just to deal very briefly with the noble Lord's technical points, he said that a passenger would be frightened to belt up because it might offend the driver who had not done so. There is another amendment about this later. But I cannot see that that is a fear which would loom very large in the minds of most people. Certainly, whenever I get into a car I always put on the seat belt and I have never known a driver take offence at that. Indeed, if it is made the law of the land that drivers must belt up as well, it might even be of assistance to the driver and remind him that he has an obligation, too.
On the noble Lord's point that drivers drive less well when belted up, that is completely unproven. The noble Lord must know that already there have been some authoritative comments and Professor Adams' paper is by no means proven. It is an interesting idea, but no more than that, that wearing seat belts makes people drive with less care than if they do not wear them. I think most of us would shake our heads over that, and I should be very surprised if, when it is time to make a complete analytical study of Professor Adams' figures and his thesis, they are found to stand up to any serious argument.
On the noble Lord's point that the passenger seat is the suicide seat, of course this depends on the driver. For myself, I feel quite happy with most of the drivers whom I go with, especially if they put on a seat belt before they start. This would seem to me to be good evidence that I was in the hands of a cautious driver. Returning to my first point, I would urge noble Lords, and, indeed, I would urge the noble Lord, Lord Monson, not to press this amendment to a Division, in the light of the earlier decision by the House.
Lord Noel-Baker: My Lords, may I support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent? It would, to my mind, be quite unthinkable that your Lordships should reverse a decision earlier made. I want to voice an objection to the use of the word "illiberal", as applied to compulsion in wearing seat belts. What would be illiberal would be to allow people not to wear seat belts, when the results are known to be disastrous both to the driver and to his passengers. The case is proven.

723
As I am on my feet, may I make an answer to what I regarded as a very important speech made at an earlier stage by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which was not answered in the debate then, and which I was not able to answer owing to my grevious defects of sight and hearing. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made two points to which I took great exception. He said that some members of the medical profession have stated that road accidents are a handicap to the medical services of the National Health Service. It was not "some members of the medical profession". I think that to use that phrase—with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—was a grievous misrepresentation of the facts. It was the British Medical Association which drew up an official memorandum, which it sent to members of this noble House, and which said that the toll of surgical work imposed on the National Health Service by road accidents was an extremely grievous handicap to the surgeons of that service, because it meant that they had to postpone surgery on other patients who urgently required it. This, for the National Health Service, was a matter of the highest importance.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I wonder whether I could interrupt the noble Lord. We are on the Report stage at the moment and should be speaking to the amendment that we are now dealing with. We have listened to what the noble Lord had to say on the Ntaional Health Service. if he wishes to continue, I hope he will speak on this amendment.
Lord Noel-Baker: I do wish to continue, my Lords, because the point is one of very great importance. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, spoke slightingly about what he called the so-called serious cases of injury and mutilation due to road accidents, and implied that a very large proportion of the serious accidents were not serious at all; they simply had to be reported to hospital and were then dismissed. With great respect to him and with, as I think, vital relevance to the Bill which we are discussing, the 200 cases of serious accidents which happen every day impose an appalling load of suffering and economic loss upon the victims of the accidents and upon the community as a whole. In their memorandum, the British Medical Association speak of brain injury, facial disfigurement—
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, if the noble Lord would kindly give way, may I observe that this is not the Second Reading?
Lord Noel-Baker: My Lords, I bow to the authority of the noble Earl, but with respect and with consent, I will briefly finish the point I am making. Accidents which are called serious accidents impose the most appalling burden of suffering and economic loss on the victims and on the community. They include, as the British Medical Association have said, brain injury, broken necks, facial disfigurement, breaking of the pelvis, crippling for life and ruination of life for a victim and for his or her family. This is a matter of vital importance. I trust that the decision previously
724
made will be maintained and, if possible, strengthened by the inclusion of compulsory seat belts for children on back seats.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, I should like to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for the reasons which he has given. The effect of his amendments are compulsory seat belts for front seat passengers only. That is very desirable. It would be accepted by the public. It has the further advantage that if in an emergency a passenger is wearing a seat belt the driver can put on the brakes really hard if, say, a dog crosses the road and he has to stop suddenly.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I should like to make three very brief points. In an earlier debate we talked about driving a coach and horses through legislation. This surely we should do if we passed this amendment. I am certain that it is not the wish of your Lordships that today we should overturn a clear decision which was taken during the Committee stage. On the other point suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that drivers wearing seat belts drive less well, I am certain that the motoring organisations would not accept it. Even the RAC, which does not support the compulsory wearing of seat belts, as distinct from the AA, believe in the value of wearing seat belts. Therefore, that point has got to be emphasised. I am certain they would not say that they do not believe in the value of seat belts for all occupants of a car. My only other point is that there are cases of severe injury when drivers who are not wearing seat belts hit the steering column very forcibly. I believe that the wearing of a seat belt can assist in preventing that happening.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, could I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about Amendment No. 72, if the House will allow me to do so as I think it has relevance to this whole series of amendments, that I ought to put right a misapprehension which he may have as a result of what I said before. Although we feel the amendment will need checking and altering for drafting purposes, and although we feel that it adds little to what we should do, anyway, we have no objection to it in principle. I felt that I should say that now, because I hope it will be helpful as our proceedings continue.
Turning to Amendment No. 36 and speaking also to Amendments Nos. 40 and 51, I suppose that in fairness it can be argued that there is a difference in applying compulsory seat belt wearing to drivers and passengers in that the driver then has no option but to wear one while the passenger at least has the option of travelling unbelted in the rear seat. On the other hand, to exempt drivers would surely substantially erode the potential benefits of compulsion. The statistics are very revealing. Every year the statistics show that about 1,500 drivers are killed and some 18,000 seriously injured, whereas the number of passengers in both the front and the rear seats is less than 1,000 killed and some 14,000 seriously injured. In fairness, I would have to say that exempting the drivers does not raise the same practical problem over enforcement as do the earlier amendments which the noble Lord withdrew, but it is part and parcel of the

725
compulsion issue. For myself, I could never accept that drivers drive less well when belted up. I just do not know how anybody can say that. Certainly in my own experience and knowledge—not of myself but of many others—I have never found this to be so. If anything, it has been quite the contrary. However, it is a personal view, and I had better stress that it is a personal view!
We understand the purpose behind the amendment as, frankly, we do about a number of other amendments of this kind. However, after much debate your Lordships' House decided to go along with compulsion being written into the Bill. That having been said, there must be room for discussion as to reasonable exemptions. That is right. However, this amendment certainly goes far too far, as I see it, against that principle. That is why I think, speaking for myself, that it should be left as it is.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Monson, as the mover of the amendment, why he feels that his amendment is necessary? His idea was that a driver would be intimidated if his passenger put on the seat belt. One might just as well argue that the pilot of a plane would feel rather hurt if all the passengers on his plane belted up.
Lord Monson: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, I did not say that the driver would be intimidated. I said that it had been said in this House last December by pro-compulsion speakers that an argument for compulsion was that many passengers felt unhappy about putting on belts. It was the pro-compulsion people who put forward this argument, not me.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I put down my name to this amendment, so I must explain the reason: that I am utterly opposed to compulsion in the wearing of seat belts. In my case it is a personal reason, but I think I ought to give it to your Lordships. My eldest son, some years ago, turned his car over on an icy road. He was flung from the car and is still alive. If he had been wearing a seat belt, he would be dead. That is sufficient reason for me to support this amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, it is not very often that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, but since I do on this occasion I would like to mention one or two reasons why. My noble friend Lady Phillips spoke about pilots of planes not being belted up when their passengers are. I think she is mistaken, in that whenever there is turbulence in the air, the pilot puts on his safety belt.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I did not say that. In fact, I did not get an opportunity to elaborate what I was saying, which is quite usual for the females in this establishment who speak much less frequently but much more to the point! I would only say to the noble Lord that I was making the point in order to answer the curious idea that the driver of a car would feel hurt if his passenger belted up. I said that a pilot would not feel hurt if he thought his passengers were
726
using their belts. I did not mention anything about the pilot not being belted up.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am very sorry if I misrepresented my noble friend. I took up her point because from my own personal experience, not as a car driver but as a pilot in the Navy during the last war, I wanted to give two examples following my noble friend's account of his unfortunate son. During those years I was unfortunate enough to have four total engine failures and in two of those, one over land and one over water, I suffered quite severe injury, although as a pilot I was wearing a safety belt. On the first occasion, when I landed in the Firth of Forth, despite the wearing of the belt I was struck by the instrument panel and lost consciousness, the plane began to sink and I only recovered consciousness as I disappeared under water. It then took me over a minute to get out of my cockpit—and a minute is rather a long time in those circumstances. Therefore I would advise all noble Lords that if they do wear seat belts they should not drive into rivers.
In the second example I was flying a dive bomber over Oxfordshire and experienced engine failure at 800 feet, which meant that I had to come down in rather a hurry. The only available landing spot was a potato field, and having rumbled over that for about 100 yards the 'plane turned over and I was hanging upside down in the cockpit, only slightly hurt. But fortunately I remembered—because I had been trained—that if you are hanging upside down by your safety belt you must be very careful how you undo it; that if you undo it quickly you will break you neck. It is important to go through that training, preferably with a dummy run because you should put up your hand on to the floor above you, then removing your safety belt and then lowering yourself gently on to the potato ground. That is another lesson for noble Lords, that they must be very careful with safety belts if their cars turn over after accidents.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am very grateful first to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for what he said about the Government's favourable attitude to Amendment No. 72 and I am grateful to all the other noble Lords who have spoken. In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, it is my understanding that there is no intention at the moment to require rear seat passengers to wear belts. This may come about but it will surely take many years, for reasons which perhaps we may come to when we discuss the next amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, implied that I had said that all drivers drive worse when they are wearing seat belts. I never said anything of the sort, nor would I ever do so; what I do say and I shall continue to say it, is that many drivers do. I have received countless letters on the subject and I have spoken to innumerable people, and I would estimate that about 33⅓ per cent. fall into that category. Those who are not adversely affected by wearing seat belts would tend to do so voluntarily anyway, but those who are adversely affected surely ought to be exempted.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that the Adams' thesis was completely unproven; but we do not need it to be proved when we know subjectively that this

727
is so in our own case. The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, has a curious interpretation of the word "liberal". Presumably he would classify the introduction of prohibition and the banning of tobacco as liberal measures, but we will let that pass. We have had a good debate on the subject and perhaps we may return to it again when the regulations are introduced; but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.5. p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 20, line 25, at end insert ("by the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment (because many of your Lordships may not understand it) would be to prevent any obligation being imposed upon car owners to install at their own expense rear seat belts or improved designs of front seat belts; in other words any obligation of that sort would apply only to new and hitherto unregistered cars. It would be particularly onerous, particularly for those less well-off sections of the community, to oblige them to spend £50 or more on installing rear seat belts, for example, when they find it hard enough at present to pay the annual road fund licence. This is an important point. I do not imagine that it is the intention of the Government to impose this obligation on the owners of existing cars, but I should like an assurance from the Government that I am correct in this assumption. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the power to prescribe is defined in Section 196(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 and it simply means prescribe by regulations made by the Secretary of State. The power to prescribe descriptions of seat belts is already found in Section 40(5) of that Act and the Construction and Use Regulations already contain provisions as to seat belts. But there are other regulations which stem from that subsection and other regulations will stem from this new clause 27. The manner and location in which the relevant descriptions are prescribed is, I think, one of form which I suggest is best left to be determined in the future. It may be, for example, that it would seem most appropriate to have one self-contained set of regulations applicable to this clause alone. However the Government would of course ensure that there was no conflict between different sets of regulations. There is no intention to use Clause 27 to impose the obligation on cars which already have seat belts compulsorily fitted and I hope that the noble Lord may perhaps feel that he need not go further with this amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, the last sentence of which entirely satisfies me, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 38.
Page 20, line 25, at end insert—
("Provided that such regulations shall not require the wearing of seat belts on private roads or private property.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides that such regulations will not apply to the wearing of seat belts on private roads or private property. It is generally assumed—and it was certainly assumed by me to up a few weeks ago—that the word "road" whenever it appears in a road traffic act refers to a public highway, but curiously enough that is not so. A road is defined as any road to which the public has access. This would include, therefore, a farm road which for all or part of its length was also a public right of way; the entrance drives to stately homes open to the public, or any other place similarly open to the public; roads on private housing estates; large car parks which can be found round hypermarkets and discount stores; public house forecourts, possibly the forecourt of the House of Lords, although I am not so sure about the forecourt of the House of Commons; roads on light industrial estates, and so on.
I cannot believe that it is the Government's intention to permit this. It seems to me to be an extremely unconservative thing to apply this sort of law to private roads and private property, but I wait to hear from the noble Lord who is to answer on this particular point. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I think this amendment is based on a misunderstanding of the extent of the present clause. This makes it an offence not to wear a belt when driving or riding in a vehicle on a road. By virtue of Section 196(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 a road is "any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes".
While all roads are not highways, a road would not be within the statutory definition unless there were a sufficient degree of public access. This is a point which I gather is well settled by litigation and an attempt to distinguish between roads within the statutory definition and those outside it would lead to confusion. I have in front of me, and, if pressed, will quote the examples in point, but I suspect that may not be necessary. I understand, for example, that a person's drive would not be considered a road unless the public had access to it for a considerable period. This would not be the case if for a fee the public were allowed to enter on certain days of the week between certain times. In those circumstances the public would only have an implied consent to using the drive. Similarly, reference to private property also seems misplaced, as the clause is only concerned with roads. In effect, the amendment is not necessary and may in fact lead to some confusion. For that reason I hope the noble Lord will take the point and feel there is no need to press further.
Lord Monson: I am not entirely reassured by what the noble Lord says. I am reassured in so far as he refers to the drives of stately homes and other places open only on certain days of the week between certain times, but he has said nothing about farm roads which also happen to be public rights of way, nothing about roads on private housing estates or on light industrial estates, for example. I feel quite strongly about this, but I think it is perhaps something we should

729
both go away and look at, and return to it, if necessary, at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 39A:
Page 20, line 34, leave out ("such") and insert ("local rounds of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in previous debates on the issue of compulsion over the years the Government have always been prepared to say how they would use the regulation making powers should Parliament decide to grant them. A category we have said we would consider for exemption is people involved in delivering goods or mail when they were engaged in such activity. Obviously the reason for this is that people who are frequently getting into and out of such vehicles would otherwise need to belt and unbelt themselves every few minutes. Clause 27(2)(b)(i) spells out the possibility of exemptions for such people, but in the Government's view it goes too far. We are surely concerned with the local roundsmen, the people who are stopping and starting outside every other house or in every other street. The same grounds for exemption cannot be mounted for delivery men who have to travel long distances between each stop. We therefore think that this subsection should be restricted to local rounds. This would not, of course, preclude the possibility of other exemptions if they could be justified. I beg to move.
Lord Stone: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether this applies to doctors on their rounds?
Viscount Simon: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies to that, from time to time we have been castigated for having drafted our amendments badly. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us what is the definition of "local rounds".
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, can I say first of all, with the leave of the House, that I understand that this does not apply to doctors. With regard to the definition of local rounds, I tried a few moments ago to draw a distinction between rounds where there is a need to stop frequently every few yards and those where there are long distances to travel between each stop; yet a delivery man could be said to be a person in charge of a vehicle that was having to stop. I think it is a question of the regularity of the stops, distance between them, that is the distinction. Like much in this legislation, this amendment is an attempt to try to meet a very fairly raised point, that it does not make sense to have compulsion on people where clearly it is not practicable. We want legislation that makes sense. It is an attempt to meet that; we are trying to find a form of words that will achieve that.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, could the Minister kindly answer two questions on this? If he cannot answer now, can he say that the answers will appear in the regulations to be issued in the future? The first is with regard to milk floats; do they come within the definition of "goods"? My second question is: Can he define what is a short delivery, because Harrods send out their vans to Fleet, to Basingstoke,
730
to Brighton. Is distance going to be defined in terms of mileage? If so, I can understand it. But I cannot accept entirely in my mind the general vagueness of "short distance".
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I wonder whether I can be of help to my noble friend, since he has been very helpful to me. I would refer to Amendment No. 72, the consultative document. I would have thought that the answer to Lord Balfour of Inchrye's question could very well be contained in that kind of document, when the various representations of milkmen, doctors, Harrods and any other person can be made to the department. It would seem to me that if we press my noble friend this afternoon he is going to have to write for us a series of regulations and make certain decisions on questions which have not yet been discussed by the interested parties. That is what is behind my Amendment No. 72. I think my noble friend might be able to rest behind the assurance he has given earlier, which is unlikely to be challenged when we get to Amendment No. 72.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, not for the first time I am grateful to my noble friend for coming to my aid on this matter, and as a general principle I entirely endorse what he said. It is in the regulations that we shall have the answers to lots of these points. Nevertheless, I think I would go back, on the particular question put to me by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and repeat what I said; that we are surely concerned here with local roundsmen, people stopping and starting outside every house in every other street. Once we go beyond that we are coming to something else. Nevertheless, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said, there is clearly much area here for further definition and clarification in the regulations.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, is a milk float under the heading of "goods".
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am told the answer is yes.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will bear in mind, when it comes to the consultation, the unfortunate enforcement officers who have to determine if the person is really telling the truth? Everybody, from my experience as a magistrate, will be on a local round, whatever they are delivering. I would warn him that we do not want any more legislation which makes it impossible to define what was in the mind of Parliament when making the law.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind the unfortunate housewife doing her shopping in the local town or village? She is not delivering; she is picking up, because no one now will deliver.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hear what the noble Lady says. When my noble friend Lord Balfour asked "What is a short delivery?", I was very tempted to say that now the Test Match is over I do not think a definition is required.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 20, line 41, at end insert—
("The Secretary of State for Transport in consultation with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services and any other bodies he might think fit shall provide official guidance on the medical grounds upon which such certificates should be issued.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, first, may I say how very grateful I am, and I am sure others are, to my noble friend the Minister for agreeing to Amendments Nos. 69A and 72. It seems to me that if we speak very briefly—and I intend to do so—to amendments this afternoon, because of his agreement to those two amendments we can move on a little more quickly. With your Lordship's permission, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 together. If I had known that the Government were going to agree to Amendments Nos. 69A and 72, I would not have put down this amendment, because it is quite obvious the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport will definitely consult with the people mentioned in my amendment. Therefore, I will, of course, withdraw it in a moment.
Amendment No. 42 is slightly different. I do feel it is very serious and quite right that pregnant women and nursing mothers must automatically be exempted from wearing seat belts. This also, presumably, will come under Amendment No. 41, but it has had a good deal of publicity and I wanted to make certain that the Minister would look at this particular point separately from all the others.
I have no knowledge myself and I am wondering whether the spokesmen for the BMA have knowledge when they say, as I gather one or two of them have said, that it is not necessary to have nursing mothers and pregnant women exempted. If that is not correct I hope that they will say so. However, I doubt very much if the spokesmen for the BMA are nursing mothers or have been pregnant or have tried to wear seat belts when they are pregnant. That is why I do not think that they know completely what they are speaking about. I suppose that I should not have said that, but I feel rather strongly about this matter and I have been asked by several young people to make certain that when they are pregnant they will not have to wear seat belts. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as regards Amendment No. 41 I should just like to say that I am grateful to my noble friend for what she has said. The point which she has raised is an interesting one. Apart from what I have said about the ultimate need for the regulations, I want to give her an assurance that guidance in one form or another in any case will certainly be issued.
As regards Amendment No. 42 I should like to say that as a mere male I hestitate to become involved in arguments about pregnant women. But my understanding is that many medical and safety experts take the view that it is better for pregnant women to wear seat belts than for them not to do so. I gather they take that view on the basis that wearing a seat belt may at least save the life of the mother to be, whereas not wearing one may result in the loss of both mother and child. I imagine that their belief in the desira-
732
bility of nursing mothers wearing seat belts would be even stronger. But let me immediately say "Enough, no more" as regards this matter at this moment. I can only lose, I cannot win by saying anything further on that point. I gladly give the assurance that, yes, of course we would have to have and would expect to have the utmost consultation with the medical profession on this matter.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as it seems possible that Amendment No. 42 may not be moved I should like to point out for the Minister's consideration that I have done a little investigation into the statistical aspects of this matter. During the eight months that a woman is aware that she is pregnant—because obviously she is not aware from the start—compulsion would have the effect of reducing the number of moderately severe and severe injuries sustained from eight per every 10,000 pregnant women to five per every 10,000 pregnant women who travel an average of about 170 miles a week. As regards nursing mothers, where obviously the time involved is shorter, the reduction in injuries would be down from four per 10,000 to two per 10,000—that is to the nearest whole number, of course.
Every injury saved is worthwhile, but let us bear in mind that the other 9,997 women who are not affected by this during their pregnancy will suffer severe discomfort in hot weather and at other times as well. The average inertia-reel locks, in my experience, about once every 500 miles, under relatively sharp braking at a roundabout, or perhaps when a dog or cat runs into the road. In those circumstances they will be thrown up against the locked belt. We must not just pay attention to what doctors think; it is the women themselves who have a right to be heard on this matter. I hope that the Minister will take that into account.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, will the Minister clarify a little more one or two points as regards this very excellent amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve? It seemed to me from listening to the Minister that he was almost encouraging pregnant mothers to wear seat belts. He was quoting medical science saying that it is really excellent. I do not know what medical advice the Minister will obtain, but certainly I hope that someone who has been pregnant several months will not fall under that category.
Secondly, we are to introduce, particularly so far as nursing mothers are concerned, a new form of exemption certificate—a certificate of limited time. The doctor is to give a certificate that during pregnancy the mother has no obligation to wear a seat belt. How is the doctor to judge for how long the mother intends to feed her child? Will the exemption certificate have a limited time, expiring on the date which the doctor agrees with the patient? Will the woman be compelled to produce that certificate to any policeman to whom at once it will be revealed that for a limited time she is a pregnant woman? Pregnancy is something rather personal to many women.
Those are small points but they are points of great importance to the women who may be affected. All

733
that I would ask of the Minister tonight is to make sure that such points, and probably many other points which other noble Lords may wish to raise, will be dealt with adequately in the regulations.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I should just like to say a word or two in support of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. First, as regards the wearing of seat belts by pregnant women, I personally have tried to wear a seat belt—an intertia-reel seat belt—when pregnant and it was extremely uncomfortable. I can speak to that matter from personal experience.
As regards Amendment No. 41, there are a number of disabilities which could make the wearing of seat belts a misery. However, a great many of these—and pregnancy, too—are not necessarily matters which a woman, or a man, would wish to be publicly known. May I ask that exemption certificates will simply give exemption without saying the reason for the exemption?
Also, where the disability is permanent will it be possible for the certificates to be granted for life? For example, a woman who has had a mastectomy will not grow new breasts. I know that this is something which is, not very sensibly, done in the case of medical certificates for disabled drivers to enable them to get disabled parking discs. If you have lost a leg you have to apply again every now and then for a new medical certificate to get a new permit. Nobody who has lost a leg will grow a new one. I think that it would be a lot cheaper if a little common sense could be brought into this aspect of the matter.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the medical authorities with whom there will be consultation on this particular matter. Will they include the Royal College of Midwives?
Lord Porritt: My Lords, I feel, as has already been said, that one speaks with considerable trepidation after what one has already heard. I hate to differ from the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, but I feel that it is only right that we should look at the other side of the matter. I am not an obstetrician and I never was, but I have had a good deal to do with obstetricians over a long life both inside and outside the Royal College of Obstetricians. I have no difficulty or doubt in saying that the consensus of their opinion would be what I was taught, and what I have always believed ever since, that pregnancy is a normal physiological process.
If we decide that it is right to pass this amendment then we are turning pregnancy into a pathological condition and very nearly, as far as I can see, into a secret society if you do not say why you are getting an exemption. I think that that is a great pity because pregnant women are ordinary people, but very special people and we should pay them the compliment of only exempting them from seat belts if they have a genuine medical complaint. Pregnancy is not a medical complaint—a discomfort, yes. Have your Lordships ever thought of the gentleman who perhaps has reached the age of 50 or 60 or even a little more and is far more rotund than many pregnant women? Are we to exempt him too? He does not have a
734
pathological condition: he is just too greedy, or does not take enough exercise.
I think that a pregnant woman is far more important than that, but I do not think that she should be spoilt by being made to be exempt from wearing seat belts. I think that she should be treated in an ordinary, straightforward way. If she has some condition that makes it uncomfortable or impossible, then let her get an exemption certificate, and be proud of it.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister a question. This point was raised by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. How are the police to tell who has been granted a medical certificate, and is there to be a licence on the windscreen of the car when a certificate has been granted? How are the police to tell who has had a certificate and who has not?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with such a list of questions posed to me I think that your Lordships would agree that the best thing I can do is quickly to retreat behind the magic word, "consultation". That I do, I readily confess. It would be fair to say that, in fact, under the proposed regulations medical certificates could be for either a limited or an unlimited duration of time, for specific periods or not. We would not envisage that they should state the condition on them which has justified the issue of the certificate. However, as I say, we shall read very carefully what has been said. We shall ensure that the points raised will be included in the consultations which have to take place with the medical profession.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister very much for what he has said and to thank those who have contributed to this debate. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, that pregnancy is a fact of life and, as he rightly said, it is one of those things to which perhaps one looks forward, but I can assure him that it is a jolly uncomfortable nine months. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 41.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
5.33 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 20, line 41, at end insert—
("(iv) drivers or front seat passengers whose physique would make the wearing of a seat belt unduly uncomfortable and impractical, or whose seat belts are designed or fitted in such a way as to make it dangerous or difficult for them to be worn").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 43, briefly. The purpose of this amendment is fairly straightforward. It is to exempt automatically:
"drivers or front seat passengers whose physique would make the wearing of a seat belt unduly uncomfortable and impractical, or whose seat belts are designed or fitted in such a way as to make it dangerous or difficult for them to be worn".
This, basically, is something which should be dealt with under the regulations. But I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, so that he can

735
pass it on to the Minister, that, for example, in West Germany exemption can be obtained for drivers or passengers who are under 1½ metres tall—that is to say, about 5ft. tall—and also for those drivers or passengers who are more than 1½ metres tall but for whom the positioning of anchorage points is such that the protective effect of the seat belt is not achieved. I think that it would be wise if we were to follow West German practice in this respect. I hope that the noble Lord will give an assurance that this will be passed on to the Minister.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with equally commendable brevity, might I say that this is a difficult area and is certainly another which must be left for regulations. However, it would be fair to say that it could be open to much criticism on a number of counts; for example, impracticability is one thing, mere discomfort is quite another. However, I think that we might leave this one with the assurance that the Government are aware of this particular problem and would consider how best to deal with it under regulations.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 20, line 41, at end insert—
("(iv) military personnel, fire service personnel, ambulance service personnel or police officers while on duty.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be brief. The reason for this amendment is that all these personnel—military personnel perhaps to a lesser extent—but certainly the fire service personnel, the ambulance service personnel and police officers are, respectively, all in a hurry to quench, we hope, a fire, to help someone in distress after an accident or perhaps to chase burglars or deal with other crime. They will all be in a hurry to get into their vehicles; they will all be in a hurry to get out of their vehicles. Therefore, I am asking my noble friend to ensure in regulations that when they are on duty they should be exempted. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, again—and I keep saying this because it is the position—we shall look at this in regard to regulations. But it is right to say that the police, for example, may feel that they do not want to be exempted. In fact, when enforcing a law they might feel very inhibited if they are not themselves wearing seat belts. But we are talking about compulsion, are we not? Even so, we must look at this and the other categories referred to in the amendment very carefully, and we certainly will do so in the regulations.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, as a result of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 45:
Page 20, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) driving test examiners and professional driving instructors;
736
( ) any qualified driver sitting in the front passenger seat and accompanying a learner driver.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that this is a matter which is best left to a later stage and, therefore, I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 46:
Page 20, line 41, at end insert—
("(iv) persons who from genuine anxiety are unwilling to use seat-belts subject to such conditions, financial or otherwise, as the Secretary of State may require").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as my name is also down to this amendment, I think that I had better speak briefly to it. Again, this is a matter which could well be left for the regulations and, therefore, we do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 46A:
Page 20, line 41, at end insert—
("(iv) drivers of vehicles who have made a statutory declaration before a Commissioner for Oaths that they conscientiously believe that their driving ability is materially impaired by wearing a seat belt.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 46A which deals with conscientious objections. In many respects this amendment is a watered-down version of Amendment No. 36 which exempted drivers in toto. This amendment confines it to drivers who find that wearing a scat belt adversely affects their driving ability and, therefore, not only endangers them but, far more important, endangers other road users. I estimate these drivers to amount to about one-third of all those who are regular drivers.
The conscientious objection question is rather interesting. With the leave of the House, at the same time I shall speak to Amendment No. 46C, which is a much expanded version of this. It does not confine the exemption to drivers but to all persons—that is to say, to drivers and passengers—and it follows closely the closed shop exemption provisions. Although I am told that there are a number of misprints in it, it does not really matter because I have no intention of pushing it to a Division this evening.
On the question of conscientious objection, I think that it is worth noting that the spokesman for the British Medical Association recently equated compulsory wearing of seat belts with compulsory vaccination and made the point that there had been compulsory vaccination in mid-Victorian times. I think that he omitted to make clear that the compulsory vaccination applied only to destitute people in workhouses, and I think that mature, literate, able motorists today would take rather unkindly to being regarded by the pro-compulsion lobby in the same way as the mid-Victorian bourgeoisie regarded the mid-Victorian destitute poor; but that is another point.
He also omitted to point out that from 1898 onwards it was open to parents of children, who hitherto had had to have their children vaccinated, to opt out by means of a declaration, first, before a magistrate and then subsequently, in 1907, before a commissioner for oaths that they had a conscientious objection to vaccination.

737
It is only right that the same should apply, if we are doing this equation with vaccination, to the wearers of seat belts. Again, I think this is something with which we could deal at a later stage, but none the less I should like to hear the Minister's reactions to what I have just said.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before the Minister replies—
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that we are out of order unless the Question is put.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, amendment proposed, page 20, line 41 at end insert the words as printed. The Question is, That this amendment be agreed to?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I should like to ask the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches what particular type of religion he has in mind which would inhibit people from wearing a seat belt? I understand that there are people who, on religious grounds, object to vaccination on the theory about the putting of noxious substances into the body. Although I do not happen to share that particular view, understand it. Perhaps the noble Lord would illumine my mind and tell me what type of religion exists that has religious conscientious objections to wearing a seat belt? At the moment I am rather puzzled.
Lord Monson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will reply to that. It was suggested in another place—it may have been after the noble Lord left there—that Calvinists, who believe in predestination, ought to be exempted.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I think that is a most effective reply, if I may say so. I would just make two brief points on these amendments. First, it seems to me that they really would have a rather dramatically adverse effect upon compulsion because they would potentially enable all drivers to obtain exemption if they wanted it. The amendment provides for no kind of test of the declaration, and indeed I do not see how one could be provided. If very large numbers of drivers obtained exemption, the consequence would be, as I have said in relation to earlier amendments, that the law would be impossible to enforce effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, may well feel justified in proposing his amendment on driving ability because of Professor Adams's thesis that the failure of countries with compulsion to make the expected savings in casualties can only be explained by changes in driving performance brought about by seat belt wearing. Our view on this is that while Professor Adams has raised some questions which require further study, he has not proved that his own particular thesis provides the right explanation. Furthermore, if there were anything in his thesis, this seems to me to be an argument against the introduction of compulsion as a whole rather than for leaving decisions to be made by individuals.
In any case, how many of us are capable of really making an assessment of our own driving performance. I think we would all perhaps have different ideas from
738
those which others may have of it. I think that, rightly or wrongly, it is only human nature to put the blame for all sorts of problems on things we dislike. As we know, people even blame the Government for the weather, but not today, I hope. The noble Lord wanted to hear what was the Government's feeling at this stage, and I hope I have given him that.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am interested to hear what the noble Lord says, but am rather disappointed. I have always felt that there has been a certain failure of imagination in the pro-compulsion camp. Everybody is different; that is the point. Every single motorist is of different build, different psychology, and so on. What is good for one person may not be good for another. There is no reason why this particular exemption could not be dealt with at a later stage. By that time perhaps we can amass more evidence to prove our point by testimonials and declarations from people, and so on and so forth.
As regards Amendment No. 46C, which I do not propose to move, it was evident in earlier debates that there are a large number of people who are mildly opposed to compulsion, and they would not go to the trouble of going to a commissioner for oaths, which costs a certain amount of money and takes a certain amount of time. It would be only the hard core of people who would testify thereby, and therefore you would get almost the same results (because a lot of people who oppose belts will not wear them anyway) and you will probably get perhaps a 75 per cent. wearing rate instead of an 80 per cent. rate. You would achieve almost all you have set out to do in the first place but without the aggravation. Be that as it may, I can only beg leave to withdraw this amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 46B:
Page 20, line 41, at end insert—
("(iv) a person who before being apprehended for an offence under subsection (1) above has entered into a valid policy of insurance or is otherwise in possession of funds sufficient to ensure that the Costs resulting from any driving accident for which he may be held liable do not fall upon public funds.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 46B. It is clear that the only legitimate interest that any third party can have in what another individual does is the financial one: I do not think "Do goodery" on its own nowadays is acceptable. It is totally insulting for the person at the receiving end. Therefore, it seems to me that if a person insures so as to cover the consequences of an accident he ought to be exempt. Again, this is something I do not propose to press tonight because time is getting on and there are other and more important things. But this is again something that might be considered by the Minister as a possible compromise. If there is no compromise made by the pro-compulsion lobby the bitterness in the country will remain very strong. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do not dissent from what has been said about the cost of accidents. However, I should like to point out that such a provision would give rise to a number of difficulties. What would

739
happen, for example, when a person who had suitable insurance cover or, for that matter, a large enough bank balance, decided he did not therefore need to wear a seat belt but was then involved in an accident which was not his fault? If the intention is that he should still pay his own bills, then the amendment is obviously defective. But if not, then who pays when, for example, a claim cannot be made upon another driver? This amendment may also have an adverse effect on everyone's insurance premiums if the companies are going to have to provide cover for such circumstances. One could enumerate a series of other such hypotheses, but I think perhaps at this time there is no need to do so. I hope that the noble Lord would feel similarly.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. With reference to his point about insurance cover, of course it is the drivers who opted not to wear belts who would pay considerably increased insurance premiums of their own free will, and that would seem to cover the point made by the noble Lord. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46C not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 21, line 4, after ("amount") insert ("not exceeding £2").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 47. It has been suggested that it is possible that penal rates may be charged for the issue of a certificate in order to deter people from applying for them. I very much hope that this is not the case, and that it would be the intention to keep the charge for issuing the certificates as low as possible. A £1 fee was suggested to me; I built in 100 per cent. inflation and raised it to £2, but I hope the noble Lord can give an assurance that something in the order of that figure is in fact contemplated.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I would imagine that the purpose of this amendment is basically to provide a safeguard against the possibility that fees for medical certificates may be unreasonably high. I gather that is what the noble Lord is saying. I certainly understand this feeling, but in our view the power in this subsection is very much a reserve power which we would not wish to use. Fees must be decided by the medical profession or at the very least in agreement with them. If we attempted to impose limits which were totally unacceptable to them, they could simply refuse to issue certificates and we would have no power to compel them to do so.
In fact, I understand that there have been discussions with the profession in the past on this issue. Basically the size of the fee would depend on whether an examination were required. If it were not, and this would probably apply to the majority of cases, then the likely fee would probably be less than £2, though what it might be in years to come would presumably depend on the rate of inflation and who knows what. Where an examination was required, then I think the fee would certainly be more than £2, perhaps in the region of £5 to £10, and rather higher, I suppose, if the examina-
740
tion were by a specialist. In general, therefore, fees should be modest, but there could possibly be rare cases of hardship and we would certainly consider what might be done to meet these, though at this stage I could give no undertakings. I hope that your Lordships might agree that this is a matter which would really best be left for the Government to negotiate with the medical profession.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his assurance that there would be no question of any penal element being built into the fee. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.49 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery The Earl of Cork and Orrery moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 21, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding subsection (2)(a) above, regulations under this section shall include a requirement for the fitting to each and every seat belt of a quick-release device having the following characteristics—

(i) it shall be actuated by the simple pulling of a conspicuous loop or handle; and

(ii) the said loop or handle shall be attached to the seat belt so as to be visible to and easily reached by a person situated outside the car and at either side thereof.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, if one thing is more certain than another in connection with this part of the Bill, it is that a large proportion of people do not wear seat belts. A great deal of research has been carried out into finding out the reason why this is. I have been supplied with a lot of reports of such research from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. It has in my opinion a curious picture of extraordinary diversity. I say there is a lot of research. There have been a great many attempts at research of different kinds, and any noble Lords who have studied this material would probably agree that they do not in fact add up to much in the way of a coherent whole at the end. The reason for not wearing seat belts is what is referred to, though rarely, as "entrapment". Whatever researchers may say, I think it will be agreed by most people that many drivers and passengers do not like wearing seat belts because they feel they will be trapped. It is not a phobia—there is no "beltophobia" or whatever word one might construct —but a perfectly rational fear, the fear of being trapped.
There are of course many other ways in which people fear being trapped. When you get into a lift and shut the doors, you are fairly certain that they will open and you will be able to get out on arrival at the desired floor. But that is not always the case. You are almost certain that, when you press the button, you will be able to release yourself from your seat belt and get out at the end of your journey, but that does not always happen either. This apprehension is in the minds of many people and it highlights a great shortcoming in the design of seat belts, of which there are I do not know how many different sorts. In the last five motor cars I have owned I have had five different sorts of belt with five different sorts of fastening, and the fastening is usually down on the floor between the seats, which is about as inaccessible a position as you could find.
However, I am not particularly concerned with the fastening, though in my view that should be standardised. I am more concerned with the unfastening. It is all very well for me or anybody else who drives a motor car to put on his seat belt and, without thinking about it, unfasten it and step out of the car at the end of his journey; he would be able to do that even if he had an accident because he knows how to get out of the seat belt. But what do you do if you get into somebody else's car and you are strapped in by a belt of a different sort from your own? First of all you do not know how to fasten it, though that does not matter much because you can be shown how it is done. More important, you do not know how to get out of it; that is much more important if you have an accident because there is no automatic reaction which will get you out.
Furthermore, you may possibly be unable to release the belt if you have an accident. It will not necessarily be the case that you are unconscious, which will obviously make it impossible; you might be turned on one side, on either side—if noble Lords think about it, it does not matter on which side the car is lying—and it will be difficult to undo the seat belt if the fastener is at the bottom, between the seats, whether you are lying on top of it or whether your driver or passenger is lying on top of you. Furthermore, nobody else can come to your help, and your neighbour on your right or left will probably find it no more easy to undo it than you will.
Suppose you are unconscious; suppose you are the only person in the car; suppose you are old and infirm; suppose you are just naturally dotty; or suppose you are an ignorant child or a child who has not been properly instructed. How would anybody else get you out of that car? They would not know how to do it, particularly if the fastening was down between the seats, as I have postulated. They would not even be able to reach it, much less know how to work it when they had reached it. Bearing all that in mind, the amendment proposes that there shall be a quick release device and it says that the unfastener—or fastener, because it is the same thing—should
"be actuated by the simple pulling of a conspicuous loop or handle".
That does not have to be on the fastener mechanism itself; it can be somewhere else, but it has to be somewhere where it can be easily found and easily seen by anybody, including by somebody outside the car (for example, a would-be rescuer) and it must be the same in respect of all seat belts so that whoever is wearing it or whoever comes to undo it will know exactly where to put his hand to find it—and what he will find is not a metal knob, which might cause injury to the wearer, but, as I have described it, I think with some sense—
"a conspicuous loop or handle".
The amendment says that it shall be attached to the seat belt, although whoever drafted it might have been better advised to have said "connected to the seat belt" or "connected to the seat belt mechanism"; I do not mind which is chosen. The point is that it has nothing to do with the actual act of fastening it. It would probably be on the chest, but it would be for the experts to find out the best place. Perhaps it should be on the dashboard, or on the roof of the car, but it
742
must always be in the same place so that anybody would know exactly where to find it in an emergency.
The final point to which I would draw the Committee's attention in relation to the amendment is at the beginning of it, where it says:
"Notwithstanding subsection 2(a) above, regulations under this section shall",
which is different from other regulations, in that it is mandatory. The subsection in the Bill says that regulations "may" make different provisions and so on for different kinds of belt and different people, whereas the amendment says:
"Notwithstanding subsection 2(a)…regulations under this section shall".
We might as well accept straight away that, if the amendment is accepted, the Bill, or this part of it, is bound to be held up until the necessary standardisation has been achieved by the department and the makers of seat belts. That would be worthwhile because if that standardisation is not done before the Bill passes into law, I do not believe it will ever be done. If there is any doubt about that, it might be as well to consider for how long we have been using seat belts, yet even now we have not managed to standardise the method of doing them up. What the amendment proposes should be done, and I suggest that it should be done straight away. I beg to move.
Viscount Cross: I support the amendment because it would achieve an important improvement. In this country in the winter months there are many multiple accidents on motorways and often there can be fires. Rescuers using the device described by my noble friend would very easily be able to undo the seat belts and get the people out.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: I too support the amendment but I have reservations about the type of release device. I think one would have to leave that to the experts, but, with respect, I suggest that the release device selected must be something which both the rescuer and driver can get hold of in a crisis, so probably it should be connected at the point where the seat belt is attached to the car, on the left- or right-hand side of the car according to where it is fixed, and not down between the seats. As noble Lords will agree, some seat belts are difficult enough to unfasten anyway. Indeed, it is sometimes almost impossible to get out of them in the dark, particularly if one is in a strange car. I therefore feel that if some quick release device were invented and standardised, then, if we are to have the compulsory wearing of seat belts, that would be a considerable reassurance to those who have to wear them.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I too support the amendment, though not the sort of device my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery has in mind—a string loop or something of that sort—though I agree it must be possible to release the seat belt not only from a position on the floor of the car but at the door post as well. What I have in mind is an ability to unhook the seat belt at the door post at three points. I would, therefore, have three hooks at different levels down the door post. If, then, people must wear seat belts—which I am against, but your Lordships have decided

743
we shall wear them—then if there were three hooks, anybody could undo the hooks at the door post, and the lowest hook could accommodate a child's seat belt.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I should very much like to support my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery, but I cannot. I believe the amendment is defective, in that it would not do what he wants it to achieve because he is attempting to put design criteria into a requirement. Indeed, were he to press the amendment and win, we should find that he has inhibited all advanced design, which I do not think is his intention. If I take the more generous view that the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, put forward the amendment in order to draw attention to the difficulties which are being experienced with current and different safety belts, then I can support him along those lines, but I have to tell the noble Lord that it would be absolutely wrong to force on to motor vehicle manufacturers a design feature of this nature because, again, one would inhibit their experimental work.
I have recently visited Volkswagen and Audi in Germany, where I talked to their safety engineering people. They showed me a new passive restraint system—which is just a way of calling a seat belt a different name. It is a very good system—vastly superior to and very much more comfortable than almost anything to be found on any United Kingdom motor-car currently being produced. We want to encourage this kind of development. The Americans also have an alternative passive restraint system—in fact, the Americans have developed three or four new systems over the past 15 or 20 years. What we have to do is impress upon my noble friend the Minister that he must have the Department, the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, the belt manufacturers and the car manufacturers and anyone else who can be involved devise more acceptable and safer seat belts. If that is what really lies behind the amendment, then I am with it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, spoke about fitting a device to the door pillar of the car. With respect, I do not think the noble Baroness means that at all, because in a passive restraint system one end of the belt is attached to the door. It would be quite wrong to tell designers what they are to do. It is right for your Lordships, in this debate, to tell designers what we expect their products to achieve. We cannot tell them the design factor but we can tell them the result we want to achieve and ask them to design something that will achieve it.
In conclusion, I should like to remind your Lordships of the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in respect of price. Two noble Lords have asked me about replacing parts of a seat belt. One was told that it was going to cost £34 to replace a part and the other noble Lord said that the cost of the part would be £48. This is nonsense, and the department must talk to belt manufacturers and to car manufacturers to get the right balance of price for original equipment and for replacement equipment. It is, of course, part of the MoT test to prove that the seat belt is effective, but many older belts are now becoming defective and customers are finding themselves involved
744
in very heavy expense. It is to the whole of this area that I ask my noble friend to give very careful consideration.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, may I join with other noble Lords in asking my noble friend the Minister to make progress in this particular field. If the compulsory wearing of seat belts is to be the law of the land then a major improvement in their design is very much needed. My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery has provided us with a useful debate which calls attention to this point. All of us are very much aware of how slow progress has been and how much scope there is for improvement. I was interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth had to say about the Volkswagen development. The American experience is turning away from mainline and air bag safety arrangements and turning back to belts.
Whatever happens, we too want progress in this field and if the wearing of seat belts does become compulsory, this should give a big impetus to manufacturers and designers. It will certainly strengthen the position of the Ministry of Transport in dealing with manufacturers and designers to make real progress in this field in terms of comfort and safety and particularly in the very important area of the release gear. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some encouragement to believe that we may expect to see some progress.
Lord Bowden: My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord the Minister whether it is possible to obtain any help from the experience of the armed services? On the rare occasions when I have been driven by an official army driver my experience has been that the driver has insisted on the wearing of a seat belt by both himself and the front seat passengers. This has been the practice for several years and I wonder whether there are any statistics available relating to accidents involving service vehicles, and whether any experience has been gained in the relative merits of seat belt designs.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, we all want seat belts to be of the very best possible design and no one would claim that present designs are the ultimate. However, in the context of the Bill my concern is that the devices called for in this amendment do not exist at the present time. I imagine that their development and fitting to all cars would take many years. My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery was fair enough in saying that he appreciated that, should this amendment be pressed and accepted, then implementation of compulsion would have to be shelved for a long time. How long it would have to be shelved I do not know.
That position might have to be accepted if there were at present no requirements for seat belts to be easily released, but, in fact, seat belts already have to comply with very strict regulations. Under the EEC directive which applies to all seat belts now fitted to new cars, the release mechanism must be coloured red and be clearly visible to and be within reach of the wearer. The belt must be capable of being released by the

745
wearer with a simple, single movement of either hand in one direction. Also, the buckle must be located in such a position that it is "readily accessible to a rescuer".
That is not to say that we should not seek to go beyond that, as, for example, in the way described by my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford to the extent that manufacturers will have an expanded market and will therefore have a tremendous incentive to step up their development work in this field. I hope that they will do so.
To return to the amendment as such, the fact is that even if the amendment limited itself to new cars manufactured after a specified future date, it would almost certainly be impossible to achieve its object for many years. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth very fairly made the point that the amendment as it is drafted applies to all cars. The term "all cars" would include existing vehicles and in many cases conversion might be impossible and compulsory wearing of seat belts might never be implemented. As your Lordships' House has come to the decision that the compulsory wearing of seat belts should be so, then I am sure that the implications of the amendment will be appreciated. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery, is well aware of this fact and I am hoping that his intention in putting forward this amendment was to bring out the points which have been very well brought out in this debate and which will make a contribution to the whole debate on our attitude towards seat belts.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I have the impression that, on the whole, there is approval for the intention that lies behind the amendment, faulty though it may very well be; I do not pretend otherwise. I am slightly puzzed by the criticism of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who accuses me of making a design requirement, which of course is not the right thing to do—I think that that was the phrase he used. I was so greatly aware of the impropriety of placing on the manufacturers a design requirement that I drafted the amendment with the deliberate intention of not doing so, and I thought that I had succeeded. As I reread the amendment now I do not see in it any requirement on a manufacturer, telling him how to do anything. The amendment states that there is required a simple device for releasing a seat belt—one that is easily accessible and can be easily understood by everybody, including someone standing outside the car. How the manufacturer achieves that is his business; I do not presume to lay down a design requirement for anyone.
My noble friend the Minister referred to the EEC requirements. I would say, with great respect, that perfectly well understood and excellent though they are, they are requirements and not standards. I know that the seat belts are required to be designed in accordance with various restricting limitations. The fastening or unfastening device must be positioned where it can be easily found by the wearer or by a rescuer. The release point should be easily seen, and it should be possible to release the belt by one stroke of a finger. But there is nothing to say where
746
the release device should be, and so the wearer of the belt, if he is in a car that is strange to him, or the rescuer, must first find out where the device is. He then has to find out which of the EEC requirements the device follows, and how it works.
I believe that there is some point behind my amendment. In my introductory remarks I said that I thought the delay would be worth it, but in point of fact I do not think that it is worth it. The Bill ought to go through and should not be totally frustrated by this particular point. However, I hope the case has been made sufficiently strongly for the Minister to take it away and use it as best he can in the future so as to encourage this kind of proposal to be implemented—and the sooner, the better. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 21, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) Any applicant for an exemption certificate shall be entitled to appeal to the Secretary of State for Transport against refusal to issue a certificate.
( ) The Secretary of State may order any person who refuses to issue a certificate to pay compensation to the applicant in respect of any expenditure incurred or other losses resulting from an unjustified refusal.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 49, the purpose of which is to ensure that there will be adequate safeguards to protect the motoring public against unjustifiable refusal of exemption certificates and, secondly, to achieve uniform policies in all parts of the country in relation to the issue of certificates. This is a worry. For instance, we know that the abortion laws are applied extremely unevenly. In some parts of England and Scotland one can get an abortion quite easily, while in other parts it is almost impossible. I believe that there is a fear among motorists that the ease with which exemption certificates are obtained might be equally patchy, and I hope that the noble Lord can give an assurance in this respect. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I have to say that I am not in favour of the amendment. With regard to the first part of it, it seems that it is rather unnecessary to set up a further piece of bureacratic machinery. If a doctor refuses to issue a medical certificate, there is nothing to stop an applicant going to as many other doctors as he wishes, and I cannot believe that if several doctors concur in the view that he should not be issued with a certificate, the Secretary of State would decide otherwise.
With regard to the second part of the amendment, I find it hard to imagine what would constitute an "unjustified refusal". Grounds for medical exemption are bound to be matters of medical opinion, and it would be something of a slur on the medical profession to suggest that they would not give such an opinion fairly and reasonably. Furthermore, I doubt whether the profession would agree to issue certificates at all if its members were under constant threat of proceedings from disappointed applicants, many of whose views might be coloured as much by their fear or dislike of seat belts as by the medical issues involved. If the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will look at the matter

747
that way, perhaps, like me, he will feel that his proposals are impractical in terms of what the Bill is trying to achieve. I hope that on reflection he will agree with me.
Lord Monson: My Lords, of course I take the points of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, but what he has said adds to my fears about the implications of the clause as a whole. In practice, the result might be more disharmony and irritation than one could imagine. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 21, line 7, after ("who") insert ("without reasonable excuse").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, by inserting the words proposed in my amendment the subsection of the Bill would read as follows:
"Any person who without reasonable excuse drives or rides in a motor vehicle in contravention of regulations under this section shall be guilty of an offence".
In other words, if one has a reasonable excuse, one is not guilty of an offence. This provision of the Bill is somewhat contentious, and it is very difficult to know exactly how it will work out in practice and what effect it will have on the morale of both drivers and the police. Therefore, it is just as well to ensure that if there is a reasonable excuse for not wearing a scat belt in the particular circumstances of the time in question, that should be a consideration. Thus the police would not then bring a prosecution, simply because they would be convinced that there was a reasonable excuse, or if a prosecution were brought where there was a reasonable excuse, the court would discharge the accused.
In this connection I wish to point out the opening words of the new Section 33A of the Road Traffic Act 1972, which appear on the previous page. The opening words are:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, persons who are driving or riding in motor vehicles on a road to wear seat belts of such description as may be prescribed".
Immediately after that the section states:
"Regulations under this section—
…may make different provision in relation to different classes of vehicles, different descriptions of persons and different circumstances".
Can anyone seriously claim that the regulations will be so framed that all the circumstances in which it would be reasonable to hold that there was a reasonable excuse could be foreseen? I simply cannot envisage anyone having such omniscience and being so far-seeing.
On the other hand, it seems to me that there is no provision at all for letting off an accused if there is a reasonable excuse. There ought to be such provision. I think here of an example related to what was said on the last amendment. A man might drive to the doctor to get a certificafe stating that it is inadvisable for him to wear a seat belt, and that would be a reasonable excuse. Bearing in mind what my noble friend said on the last amendment, the man might be refused
748
a certificate by the first doctor, and so he would go on committing an offence by driving around, visiting a number of doctors to try to get a certificate. One can easily carry the point to a ridiculous absurdity, but the fact remains that such cases are bound to crop up.
Another thing worries me about this question. If a person knows perfectly well that he has a reasonable excuse for not wearing a seat belt in particular circumstances—and I agree that this is a matter of morality, rather than of law—he will be extremely angry if he is brought before a court. Such a situation would reflect adversely on relations between the police and the public, and I should certainly not like that to happen. So I hope that if my noble friend feels that this is not properly drafted, or something of that kind, he will at any rate take the point into consideration and see what can be done about it. In a free society you cannot really be treated in the same way as people in the army were during the war when they did not wear a steel helmet. It just will not do, though the arguments are the same. You should have worn a steel helmet, but there may have been good reasons why in particular cases it was not practical for you to do so; you may have had a reasonable excuse. I maintain you can have a reasonable excuse in this case, also. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should very much like to support my noble friend's amendment. I do not know whether it is worded correctly, but the principle behind it is, I think, absolutely right. I hope that if my noble friend the Minister cannot accept it he will at least make it clear to us that in practical terms a reasonable excuse would be accepted.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, when my noble friend conies to answer this, while I sympathise with the intention, I cannot believe that a law drafted in this fashion would be enforceable, and this law is not going to be effective unless it is enforceable. After all, anybody sitting in a motor-car without a seat belt on can say, "It seemed quite reasonable to me; I was feeling a bit warm today and so I did not wear my belt", or, "My belt is a bit tight today, so I am not wearing it", and so on. There have to be definitions. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn is, I think, not right in his dialectic when he complains that there is no mention in the Bill. This kind of point, in so far as it can be dealt with, must be dealt with in regulations. It may be that regulations will not cover everything, but they have got to try to cover everything so far as they can.
Let me give my noble friend an example. If he looks at Amendment No. 54, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson—and I am bound to say that, although I have not agreed with all the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I think he has a point there, and I suspect that my noble friend the Minister will think so, too—that would be a reasonable excuse. An attempt must be made in regulations to show what would be a reasonable excuse; but just to put the words "reasonable excuse" into the Bill—in other words, what the driver thinks is a reasonable excuse—would make it unenforceable. So I hope that my noble friend, while he will be helpful

749
and sympathetic in explaining to your Lordships what he hopes to put into regulations, will invite my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I really do not think I can accept what he has just said, that it will be up to the person himself to judge whether the excuse is reasonable. That is certainly not what the amendment says. He would have to prove that the excuse was reasonable if it went to court.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, following on what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has said, I respectfully agree and I think that for once my noble friend Lord Nugent is wrong, because "reasonable excuse" in the amendment, or in any statute, must not mean what the person concerned thinks is a reasonable excuse but what in the last resort he can convince a court is a reasonable excuse. The example he gave—"It was a hot day and I was not feeling like it"—I think would be laughed out of court, even in the simplest court of magistrates in the most remote part of the country.
But may I suggest a possible solution for meeting what I think is a real point that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has introduced? The Bill as it stands creates the offence of travelling in a motor car without a seat belt in contravention of the regulations. If my noble friend the Minister could say here and now that, whatever else the regulations may contain, they will contain a provision that where there is a reasonable excuse for not wearing a seat belt—a reasonable excuse in the view of the courts—then the offence will not be committed, then I think it would meet the very reasonable apprehensions of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, which I personally happen to share. If my noble friend the Minister is not prepared to say that at this stage, then perhaps my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn may wish to take the matter further.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will not withdraw the amendment. May I give what I think is the most cogent reason for accepting it? We are looking at page 21, line 7. If your Lordships cast your eyes down to the bottom of the page and look at line 39, your Lordships will see precisely that phrase "without reasonable excuse" in the next clause. So if it is acceptable in Clause 28, which refers to children wearing seat belts, why on earth should it not be acceptable in Clause 27?
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has referred sympathetically to my Amendment No. 54, which I am speaking to now because it is embraced by this amendment. We all know cases where the inertia reel jams. There is nothing you can do about it; you tug and tug, and it refuses to come out. If you drive half a mile, it may loosen itself, but not until you have driven half a mile or so. Suppose one drives to the coast and gets very bad sunburn. "We should be so lucky!", some of your Lordships may think, in a summer such as this, but it could happen. Now, would it be reasonable to compel somebody with a second-degree burn on his shoulders to drive back with his seat belt on? What happens if somebody
750
breaks his arm and has it put in a sling by an ambulance driver, who, of course, is incapable of issuing a certificate of exemption? It is not reasonable to compel a man with his arm in a sling to drive with a seat belt on. So I think that, particularly in view of the fact that the very phrase used by the noble Lord appears at the bottom of page 21, in the next clause, it really ought to be accepted in Clause 27 as well.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, those of us who are not lawyers are from time to time confused by the erudition of those who are. It has seemed to me, listening to the support for this amendment, that it might well have been put forward against the amendment. Clearly, any law to which we are subject in this country has within the defence of those people who suffer under it the right to prove that they had a reasonable excuse. If they can in fact convince the court on that day—and expensive salaries are earned in convincing courts—as to a reasonable excuse, they can in fact have mitigation of the offence. That is as I understand it.
Certainly, if that is wrong, it seems to me that here in this case the people who have argued for the reasonable excuse defence should put that phrase into other contexts. I imagine that the use of such an argument would sit very well on the lips of people convicted osf drunken driving, for example—that they had a reasonable excuse for celebrating a family event. The argument might appeal to them, but it would hardly convince a court.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in looking at this clause I have tried to think the whole time of the difficulties of enforcement, and the short debate that we have just been listening to brings out how great difficulties could in fact emerge from what seems a very small point—just a very few words being added or not added to the Bill. I should like to put in a plea here that if the words "reasonable excuse" are not considered by the lawyers to be adequate to meet my noble friend's very proper point, as I think it to be, then I should like to appeal to the Government that, when it comes to the drafting of the regulations, they should take very great trouble over this point and, if necessary, even go to some length in describing what might or might not be the sort of points argued frequently before magistrates' courts, and not only in magistrates' courts a very long way from the capital, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, cynically mentioned.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question? It may well be that I have missed the point, and it may well be that the noble Lord the Minister will not want me to refer to Clause 28 at this stage, but I am concerned about the phrase, "without reasonable excuse". Who in fact would determine that somebody was doing it without reasonable excuse? Would it be necessary for the defendant or the person to be summonsed and then to plead in court that he had reasonable excuse, or is there some procedure in the Bill for determining it without taking the person to court?
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, on behalf, again, of those

751
who will have the unfortunate task of trying to deal with this in the courts. I think all magistrates detest the "reasonable excuse" argument, and, as has already been said, even in criminal cases people will argue that they had a reasonable excuse. I am sure the looters who have been in the shops recently would say they had a reasonable excuse: they were hungry, or they needed a television set. One man's reason is not another man's reason, and I think the sooner we get rid of this "reasonable man" and this "reasonable excuse" out of the legislation the better. It is most difficult. What one person considers a "reasonable" excuse is certainly not always what another person considers a "reasonable" excuse.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it is not without some trepidation that I endeavour to say what "reasonable excuse" really means. My understanding of it has always been that in fact it is not of itself a defence, but that it can be used in mitigation as to the extent of penalties or whatever. If 1 may say so, as a magistrate of many years' standing, that has always been my understanding of it, and if you want to have it in legislation you had better put it in as said.
I would say here that the Government quite accept there will be occasions when the wearing of seat belts should not be compelled under the law, and that is why the clause is an enabling provision, and certain exemptions have already been specified. Although I note the reservations and the doubts of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, the fact is that the regulations should provide for all those with reasonable excuse. Moreover, if we were to provide a defence of "reasonable excuse", it would certainly, as I think my noble friend Lord Inglewood, said, make enforcement very difficult for the police. It would lead to considerable unnecessary argument in court, as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said, and would entail motorists trying to flout the law.
However, if someone who was not in an accepted category was not wearing a seat belt they would have it open to them to explain their case to the police, and in fact I think this is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell; it is the police who would have the discretion over whether or not to prosecute, or whether just give a caution. It is their duty to decide, and, if they decided to prosecute, it would be for the magistrate to decide to impose a nominal penalty if they thought the facts of the case warranted it.
Having said all that, clearly I could not accept the amendment. I hope my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will not feel that he wants to press it. Certainly, I take the point that the term "reasonable excuse" is mentioned elsewhere in the Bill, and I certainly would want us just to think about this. I certainly cannot do otherwise, and I hope my noble friend will not later on say I had done otherwise. I would only say I think some of the points made are such that we would want to think them over and consider them, but I hope that my noble friend, with that, will feel able not to press the amendment as it is. It is a very dubious assurance I can give him, and I readily acknowledge it may not be satisfactory, but it is very probably the best I can do at the moment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the noble Lord intimates what he wants to do on this, can I ask the Minister this question. When he is looking at this would he look both at this clause and then refer to Clause 27 and look at that as well? Both of them are possibly identical, both of them provide for exceptions both in or out of both.
Lord Monson: I think that is absolutely fair.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend and I am sorry to embarrass him in this way, but what I was trying to get at was a means of drawing the attention of the police to the fact that they do not have to prosecute in every case where the seat belt was not fastened. This is what I was really trying to get at, whether or not there is a strict provision in the regulations. I am sure there will be many cases where the police will say to themselves, "It is really not worth prosecuting in this case". If a good reason is given for not having fastened the seat belt, I would like to make certain their attention is drawn to this, and that they do not have to prosecute if they are convinced there is a reasonable excuse.
This will save an immense amount of court time, and an immense amount of hard feelings. So I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. I appreciate that at the moment he has not given any assurance on this, but he has said that he will think about it again. So in those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 21, line 9, at end insert ("but it shall not be an offence to aid or abet or to permit the commission of such an offence").
The noble Lord said: I am going to move Amendment No. 52. This is an extremely important amendment. When I sounded out those noble Lords who had voted against compulsion on 11th June about which amendments they would most like to see introduced at that stage, this was one of the three or four which received the highest degree of support. Basically the intention is to ensure that a driver is not responsible for a passenger's refusal to wear a seat belt, and the passenger is not responsible for a driver's refusal.
I do not think it is the intention of the Government or of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, to make the passenger or the driver responsible for each other. Certainly, so far as I have been able to ascertain, in 14 countries and Australian states that I have been able to look at, in only one case is a driver responsible for a passenger, or the other way round. But none the less there is a danger, unless we agree to this amendment, that this might creep in, perhaps unexpectedly.
One could visualise situations where a driver with his mother-in-law, perhaps, or—a little more down-to-earth—a chauffeur driving his employer, and the chauffeur would risk losing his job if he told his employer to belt up. There are all sorts of other situations that one could envisage where this might happen, and I am sure it is not the intention of the Government that this should happen, that persons should be responsible

753
for each other's refusal; and it does not happen in other countries, with one exception. This is an important point, and I hope the House will accept it.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: It might help the noble Lord and the House if I said that, from my point of view, I would welcome this amendment, and I think it is reasonable that it should be accepted.
Lord Underhill: I should like to suggest to the House that there are some difficulties here. First of all, how does one prove what is laid down in this amendment? One might think of one or two examples where one could prove it, but how do you get proof that if a person had been wearing a seat belt this would have happened? It could be held to be an encouragement to certain people deliberately to refuse to obey the law, if it became law to wear a seat belt. And deliberately refusing to do this because they believe they could then prove that failure to wear a seat belt had led to saving someone's life—
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, may I interrupt? I am addressing my remarks to Amendment No. 53.
Lord Underhill: You are on the wrong track!
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Lord is doing very well. The Government is pretty neutral on this. We will be prepared, if that is what the House feels, to accept this amendment. I understand that some drafting changes may be necessary, in that the words "aids", "abets" and "permits", are the terms which may not actually be correctly used here; but if that is what the House decides it wants we will accept it in the attempt to be helpful to the noble Lord.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether this will mean that if a passenger, or a person that the driver takes as a passenger, refuses to fasten his seat belt and the driver is faced with the difficult situation of saying, "I will not go unless you do so" or of pitching the chap out, that is the sort of case that this amendment would exempt from any liability for the driver not fastening his seat belt?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would care to comment on that.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I did not entirely hear what the noble Lord said. The essence of the matter is that each individual is responsible for belting up himself. If he refuses, then he must take the consequences. Nobody else is blamed. The passenger cannot be blamed by the police for the driver refusing to wear his seat belt, and also the other way round. On Lord Bellwin's suggestion of some technical difficulties, may I suggest to the House that we accept the amendment and then it can be rectified at Third Reading by a technical drafting amendment?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
lord Monson lord Monson moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 21, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be a defence to any prosecution brought under this section to establish that failure to comply with the requirement to wear seat belts saved the life of at least one individual or materially lessened the severity of injuries sustained as a result of a road accident.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 53. We are frequently told that hardly anybody is ever harmed by wearing a seat belt. I have a file of cuttings of reports of coroners' inquests and of statements by the police which confirm that people have been killed by wearing a seat belt or that a life has been saved by not wearing a seat belt. The police are not generally fools in this regard. I have studied over a number of years the debates in both Houses on the whole seat belt question. I do not want to go into a lot of statistics, but, going through all the debates, it appears from honourable Members in another place and noble Lords in this House who have spoken on the subject that in about 5 per cent. of cases seat belts have done more harm than good. I accept that in the case of the other 95 per cent. the position is reversed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, told us in December how her life had been saved by not wearing a seat belt. Had this law been in force we might not have had the pleasure of seeing her tonight on the Opposition Front Bench. She had a car accident and her life was saved because she was thrown out of the car, the front of which was crushed. If this law had been in force and this amendment had not been accepted the police would have arrived and congratulated the noble Baroness on her lucky escape, since the front of the car had been concertina-ed, and they would have said, "I am afraid we will have to charge you with not wearing your seat belt". (She would have been inside the crushed part of the car if she had been wearing one.) It is an impossible state of affairs. The amendment is simply to dot the i's and cross the t's. It makes it clear that there are many other circumstances—and I do not want to bore the House with examples—but in those instances the onus of proof will be on the person concerned. The driver or the passenger would have to prove that the failure to wear a seat belt had saved his life, or saved him from serious injury. This is a reasonable amendment and I hope the House will accept it.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as the amendment is drafted it appears to have the effect that a person charged with not wearing a seat belt has a defence if he can show that any person whatever, whether or not he was involved in the circumstances leading up to the prosecution, was saved from death or suffered less serious injury as a result of not wearing a belt. This would mean that only one such incident need be established and no prosecution thereafter could succeed. I am sure that this would not be a sensible result. I suspect it is not what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, intended. But it would be the effect of it. Having said that, it remains the case that even one case would be difficult to prove because, if a person was actually not wearing a belt when an accident happened, it must always remain a matter of speculation what would have

755
happened to him if he had been wearing one. Speculation is all it could be.
If it is difficult to prove one case, it would be an impossible task for the courts if they were asked to determine for numerous individual accidents in which accused drivers or passengers had been involved whether anyone had benefited through not wearing a belt, which I assume is, in fact, the intention behind the amendment. I hope I am right in suspecting that Lord Monson perhaps had not appreciated the significance; although it is not for me to suspect that, but to us it seems to be a major reason why we would not be able to accept the amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, mentioned the car accident. It is true that this happened and for some time this made me wary of the idea of wearing seat belts. On the other hand, in the same debate it was pointed out by two of the distinguished doctors who spoke that the chances of being killed when thrown out of a car were higher than being killed if you were wearing a seat belt. In this case it would have been unfortunate but I would have been a statistic of the road fatalities. The chances of being thrown, as I was, on to the grass verge are not very high and I was lucky. But I do not think that one can base law on this. In the same debate, I pointed out that there are a certain number of unfortunate deaths each year from the use of anaesthetics when people undergo operations. But, on that basis, we do not decide that anaesthetics are lethal and stop using them. This becomes a very difficult question. I agree with the Minister. If something like this should happen—and I am "sticking my neck out" here—and as a magistrate it came to my court, then I am confident that in such circumstances the magistrates would dismiss the case.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I put my name to this amendment for the reason I gave earlier. This thing has happened to my own son. He was thrown out of a car, having turned it over on an icy road, and he is still alive. I believe that my son is going to find it difficult to comply with this compulsion to wear a seat belt. Although that accident happened before provisions like those in this Bill became law, I do not suppose under this drafting that it could be held to be a defence in his case; but if it were to happen again to him—and it might do so if he does not wear his seat belt—then I think he ought to have a defence.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I was about to leave the Chamber when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Monson, return to what is the basic argument against the original proposition about wearing seat belts. Although properly introducing the amendment, it is not, I think, something which should be at this stage part of the argument. In the same way, the argument put forward by Lord Spens, to which we listened with respect and sympathy, surely is begged by the fact that his son would be able to register a case of nervousness, of being unable to drive comfortably—of having his driving affected by nervousness because of his previous experience. He could get a medical certificate to that effect. It would be a pity if, in discussing an amendment setting out to secure simply an alteration of the
756
Bill, we argued the case for the negativing of the whole proposition.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is technically right. There are cases where men and women survive accidents probably—for one cannot prove it—because they were not wearing seat belts. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory did a study on this. They made an estimate, a very broad one, that it is probably something like one in 1,000 cases, but such things do happen. On the other hand, as we all know, wearing a seat belt roughly doubles one's chances of surviving. That is the whole justification for proceeding with the law.
The noble Baroness' argument or analogy on anaesthetics was a good point. Sometimes there are fatalities on the operating table. This is inevitable. However, because that is so one does not stop proceeding. If this amendment were accepted it would only be necessary to gather together the evidence of one survivor and bring that before the court and every single case of prosecution would be defeated.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, wants to destroy the whole effect of the Bill. If this provision were put into the Bill it would only be necessary for any opponent of seat belt wearing to find such a case and everybody could use the same case afterwards and every time they would have to be found not guilty. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment although he made his point which is a valid one. There are such cases; they do exceptionally happen, and I am only too delighted that they happened in the case of the son of the noble Lord, Lord Spens.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. May I take up the point regarding anaesthetics which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent? Nobody is compelled to submit to an anaesthetic; everybody has the right to refuse to have an operation if they wish. That is the great dividing line between anaesthetics and immunisation and the compulsory wearing of seat belts.
I confess that it is clear that my amendment is defectively drafted. I did not mean it to have the effect that apparently it has. It was not any attempt at a trick on my part: I genuinely believed that it was merely confined to the people in the car at the time, whether the driver, front or back scat passengers, or whatever. I took some eminent but hastily given legal advice on the drafting and that is probably where the slip occurred. I reserve the right to introduce a better drafted amendment at Third Reading, but I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
6.53 p.m.
Lord Beliwin Lord Beliwin moved Amendment No. 54A:
Page 21, line 21, at end insert—
("(5) Regulations under this section requiring the wearing of seat belts by persons riding in motor vehicles shall not apply to children under the age of fourteen years (to whom the next following section applies).").
The noble Lord said: At the Committee stage, I promised to look very carefully at the effect of this new seat belts clause on the clause accepted by the Government in another place and dealing with children in the front of vehicles. We have decided that the two clauses should be kept distinct as they do deal with two separate issues.
Clause 27 makes it an offence for anyone to ride or drive in a car without wearing a seat belt. Clause 28 makes it an offence for anyone to drive a car when there are children under the age of 14 unbelted in the front. In the first case the responsibility lies clearly on the individual to comply with the law by wearing a belt. In the second case it is the responsibility of the driver, the adult, to ensure that children under 14 do not travel unbelted in the front. Only at 14 when they assume legal responsibility for many of their actions will children be made responsible for ensuring that they wear a belt. This amendment makes it clear that the two clauses and offences are to be kept distinct. I urge you to support it.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on a point that he raised earlier, that this is a distinction between the two situations when we were talking before of reasonable excuse? In the one case it is a decision that you make for yourself; in the other case it is a decision you are making for somebody else. I shall come back to him as I promised. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, may I with trepidation suggest to my noble friend that, while it is entirely his business if he has two regulations instead of one, he kindly said, when we noted that he was going to accept Amendment Nos. 69A and 69B, that he would listen with care to all the amendments that we have been discussing over the past two or three hours? He said that he would take note of them with a view to their being incorporated in regulations if that suited him. Some of these points would be relevant to both sets of regulations in relation to the clause which we are considering and also the one relating to children. Though the regulations might be separate, when considering the points we are raising in the debate under the general headings of these amendments, could my noble friend give me an assurance that, where relevant, he will consider the points for both the regulations if they are applicable?
Lord Beliwin: My Lords, I want to read carefully what my noble friend has said. At first hearing, it sounds as if that would be a fair undertaking to give. But I want to consider it carefully. At the moment, as I stand here, the answer is "yes", but I may have to come back to my noble friend. I hope that I do not.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, there is a manuscript amendment in substitution for Amendment No. 55.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood had given notice of his intention to move a manuscript amendment in substitution for Amendment No. 55:
Page 21, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) Any power conferred by this section to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which

(a) shall not be made unless thereof a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament; and

(b) shall expire after a period two years from the date on which they are made unless renewed by a further resolution in each House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must explain—and I am sure that it is my fault and I should not like to put any blame on the Public Bill Office—that my amendment in the first Marshalled List was never printed in the second Marshalled List. Instead, they printed Amendment No. 55A a second time with a very small variation. I believe that most noble Lords have the original Amendment No. 55 in their hands on a loose sheet or in the first Marshalled List. I wonder what, in the circumstances, it is best to do.
They are two very simple points in Amendment No. 55. The first is covered by certain other amendments and I would not want to speak at any length upon it. Other noble Lords may think that a general debate would be a convenience. My second point is in fact repeated in Amendment No. 55A.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the affirmative resolution point is dealt with in, as they have now become, Amendments Nos. 69A, 59 and 71. On the question of making regulations under Clause 27 subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, the Government agree in principle that this should be done in resepct of regulations which introduce compulsory wearing or extend it to new classes of vehicle or seating positions. This result is effectively achieved by Amendment No. 69A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. I therefore commend that amendment to the House rather than paragraph (a) of amendment No. 55, or Amendments Nos. 59 or 71. The Government are neutral on the question of the expiry and renewal of regulations—
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, may I be allowed to move my amendment? I am grateful to the noble Lord on the Front Bench who has virtually said he has accepted the first part of it.
Several noble Lords: No, he has not.
Lord Inglewood: But, my Lords, my noble friend has accepted the principle of it, which is repeated in a later amendment where he prefers Lord Nugent's words. Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, I would not want to say anything else on that point, and I shall not move Amendment No. 55. I follow up by moving Amendment No. 55A, which is a new point and a short one.
The Deputy Speaker: Amendment No. 55, I understand, is not moved by the noble Lord.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 55A:
Page 21, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) Any power conferred by this section to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall

759
expire after a period two years from the date on which they are made unless renewed by a further resolution in each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 55A as printed on the first Marshalled List. I have paid great attention through this Bill, as I mentioned a few moments ago, to the question of enforcement. It frequently happens in Parliament that we define and create offences without always thinking of the problems that we are making for others in the matter of enforcement. That has been brought out a number of times during the short debates on the amendments that we have just been discussing.
The police undoubtedly always do their best when Parliament gives them fresh duties, and we heard during the Committee stage that their responsible leaders had said they had no great objection to the seat belt provisions as printed in the Bill. In fact, the police would always do their best and would not object unless they were being put in a quite impossible situation.
But my contacts—I have a good many and I have sounded a number of them since the Committee stage—from the rank of inspector downwards, have all said that the fair enforcement of these provisions that we are considering will be impossible. One only hopes that when it comes to the question of enforcement the police will move very slowly. Of course, we talk about "the police" but in fact there are between 40 and 50 different independent police forces in this country, and it is going a little far to assume that they will all interpret the regulations which we shall see later in the same way.
There is a practical side to this and there is also the very important side of the relations between the police and the public, which has been mentioned this evening. On the practical side, I would only say that it is no less an offence to drive without a seat belt in the dark, but in fact in the dark no police constable will be able to see whether you are committing an offence or not.
Regarding the relations between the police and the public, here I think we are taking a great risk because the internal combustion engine has already done much to damage the relations between the police and the public; and once this Bill is on the statute book neither Parliament nor the Home Office or the police authorities will have any further responsibility or be able to do anything unless there is some amendment to the regulations. Yet it is going to be the responsibility of every PC or WPC every day and every night to enforce the regulations. Whatever the guidelines laid down by the ACPO, I do not think we are likely to see uniformity across the country.
Likely "offenders" will not be those who deliberately commit an offence but those who may be stopped because they have a faulty headlamp and the police constable then notices that they are not wearing a seat belt. In the first instance, they will be the people who are pulled in or who get their names on a sheet. I do not think that is entirely fair, but it is human nature that it should work out in that way.
The amendment I have put down is to the effect that the regulations which the Minister intends to lay would lapse after two years unless they were extended by a further resolution of Parliament or else the Minister were to produce amended regulations asking Parliament to approve them in place of the original regula-.
760
tions I am sure there are precedents galore for this sort of procedure. These particular regulations will affect every one of Her Majesty's subjects—not just car drivers but passengers as well—and their enforcement is going to be part of the responsibility of every single police constable, young or old, on every single day of duty.
This is a situation where there are bound to be teething troubles or rubs of different kinds. If your Lordships accept what I propose, then after two years the Government will be able to remove these causes of friction. It is asking to much for us to suppose now that these regulations are going to be drawn in such a way that there will not be any grouses, grumbles or rubs. I base that last sentence on the debates we have been listening to during the past half-hour. I think it is very much the duty of Parliament to minimise the possibility of friction which could arise, particularly at this time, and to do nothing which would make the task of the police in their relations with the public more difficult.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, may I briefly support my noble friend Lord Inglewood, especially over what he was saying about the relationship betweeen the motorist and the police. During the earlier stages of this Bill we heard a great deal, especially from the Front Bench, to the effect that we did not want to antagonise that relationship any further because it would make it far harder to bring in all these new things regarding road safety and so on. I would go a long way with what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, certainly on the relationship between the public and the police.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I, too, would like to support my noble friend Lord Inglewood, for the reasons that he and my noble friend Lord Brougham have just given.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the Government are quite neutral on this question of the expiry and renewal of regulations made under Clause 27. As far as we are concerned, it is up to the House; if the House decides that this is acceptable, we are content.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think this is probably an appropriate time to break for the other business that is to be taken at the dinner hour, and I think that perhaps we might reassemble on this Bill at eight o'clock.
I beg to move, That further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved, That further consideration on Report be now adjourned.—(Lord Denharn.)
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, may I ask a question? What is the procedural significance of this break? If the business to come on during the dinner hour by any chance exceeds the time allotted, what is the position of the House? Do we automatically go back to the Transport Bill, or what? I ought to be aware of what happens, but I am sorry to say that I am not. I am not thinking of speaking for the whole hour, but I should like just a modest part of it.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I understand that the Armed Forces Bill is not expected to take very long. The short answer to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is that if business during the dinner hour exceeds the allotted hour then the business manager concerned, who happens to be myself, has miscalculated. I hope I have not done so in this case, because I think it would be generally to the advantage of the House if we could get through the intervening business within the hour. But in the hypothetical case, if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, still has a very great deal left unsaid—more than could probably be allotted in about five minutes—then we might have to think again and have discussions between the usual channels. That is the way in which things are usually conducted in this House. However, I hope that I have not miscalculated on this particular occasion, and I do assure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that there is no attempt to gag.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill
7.7 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Trenchard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 7 [Extent of accused's right to copy of record of court-martial proceedings]:
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 9, line 24, leave outfrom ("section") to ("shall") in line 26.
The noble Viscount said: If I may, in moving Amendment No. 1, also speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 22, I think it will be for the convenience of your Lordships. I should like just to say that every amendment I shall move—and I think that mine is the only name on the Marshalled List at the moment—is either of a technical or a procedural nature. I will try to keep my explanations as short as I possibly can. The first group to which I wish to speak, including Amendment No. 1 and the other amendments I have mentioned, which I shall move later, are all to do with the commencement time provisions of the Bill; that is to say, when it comes into force. Upon reflection, we have found that we can avoid delaying the application of a great many of these technical clauses to the period of one month after enactment. Therefore, all of these provisions are to do with time.
Clause 1, which continues the Service Discipline Acts, has to come into force immediately, and a revised list of other provisions which also have to come into force immediately is provided by virtue of Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 seek to delete references to certain clauses coming into effect one month after enactment, as these are now overtaken
762
by Amendment No. 9, which provides that they shall either come into effect immediately on enactment or subsequently by statutory instrument. Amendment No. 22 clarifies the position on commencement of Schedule 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Temporary removal to and detention in a place of safety abroad of children of service families in need of care or control]:
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 20, line 30, leave out ("and "service hospital"") and insert ("service hospital" and "service law"").
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 2 relates to Clause 14, which deals with the temporary removal to and detention in a place of safety of children in overseas service communities considered to be at risk. Clause 14(1) makes clear that children affected by the provision must form part of a family subject to service law; the amendment seeks to rectify an unintentional omission in subsection (11) of Clause 14, to make clear that service law is to be interpreted in the same way as in the previous clause; that is to say as:
"military law, air-force law or the Naval Discipline Act 1957".
I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Prize offence: minor amendment as to intent]:
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 21, line 1, leave out from ("section") to ("shall") in line 3.
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, to which I have already spoken.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Abolition of the office of Accountant General of the Navy]:
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 25, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Naval prize cash balance not to include percentage deduction]:
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 25, line 12, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Naval and marine pay and pensions: no further publication in London Gazette
. Orders in Council made under the Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act 1865 (which regulate the payment of such pay and pensions) shall cease to be published in the London Gazette.").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 6, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 21, which contains the consequential repeal. The purpose of these amendments is to remove the requirement under the Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act 1865 that orders in council for changes in naval pay and pension rates should be published in the London Gazette. The parallel requirement that these Orders in Council should be laid before Parliament is left unaltered. This requirement for publication of the rates in the London Gazette, which costs £13,000 per annum and is unique to the Royal Navy, is a pure formality as there is, of course, a separate departmental system, which will continue, for communicating new rates of pay and pension within the Royal Navy. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 25, line 28, at end insert ("subject, in the case of the repeals included in Part I, to the saving at the end of that Part.").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 7, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 20, which I shall then move subsequently. These two amendments relate to the first part of Schedule 5, which contains repeals consequent upon the assimilation of the women's services for the purposes of statute law provided for in Clause 20. What Clause 20—and Schedule 3, to which it gives effect—actually does is to make clear how various references to the "Services" in legislation are to be understood with regard to the inclusion or otherwise of members of the women's services. In consequence, it is no longer necessary to retain a large number of separate references to the women's services in existing statutes and these are repealed in Schedule 5. However, we think it right to make clear that the repeal will not affect any claim by a member of the women's services, which relates to service prior to the date of repeal and Amendment No. 20, to which Amendment No. 7 gives effect, will put the matter beyond doubt. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Commencement]:
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 25, line 29, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 30 and insert ("Subject to subsections (4) and (5) below, this Act")
Page 25, line 38, at end insert—
("(4) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force on the day it is passed, namely, sections 1, 7, 15, 16, 17,
764
19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, (Naval and marine pay and pensions: no further publication in London Gazette), 27(2), this section, section 29 and Schedule 3.
The noble Viscount said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 25, line 38, at end insert—
("(4) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force on the day it is passed, namely, sections 1, 7, 15, 16, 17, 19,20, 21, 22, 25, 26, (Naval and marine pay and pensions: no further publication in London Gazette), 27(2), this section, section 29 and Schedule 3.
(5) The repeals contained in Schedule 5 to this Act shall come into force in accordance with the provisions at the end of that Schedule.").
The noble Viscount said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Women's services]:
7.19 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 31, line 31, at end insert—
("8A. In section 2(1) of the Marriage (Registration of Buildings) Act (Northern Ireland) 1967, in paragraph (a) for the words following "is serving in" there shall be substituted the words "any of the regular armed forces of the Crown" and in paragraph (b) for the word "mentioned" there shall be substituted the word "included".").
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 10, and the consequential repeal in Amendment No. 18 to which I should also like to speak, is the first of a number of consequential amendments required in respect of Northern Ireland legislation. The amendment is the Northern Ireland equivalent of the amendment already contained in paragraph 8 of Part II of Schedule 3, which is an amendment consequential on the statutory assimilation of the Women's Services. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 33, line 23, at end insert—
("The Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978
3.—(1) In Article 4(4) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, after sub-paragraph (d) there shall be added the following sub-paragraph—
"(e) detention by virtue of a custodial order made under section 71AA of or Schedule 5A to the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955 or under section 43AA of or Schedule 4A to the Naval Discipline Act 1957.".
(2) The following entries shall be made in Table B in Article 6(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (rehabilitation period for particular sentences)—

(a) after the first entry relating to a custodial order under Schedule 5A to the 1955 Acts, or under Schedule 4A to the 1957 Act—

765

"A custodial order under section 71AA of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, or under section 43AA of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, where the maximum period of detention specified in the order is more than six months. Seven years."

(b) after the second entry relating to a custodial order—

"A custodial order under section 71 AA of the said Acts of 1955, or section 43AA of the said Act of 1957, where the maximum period of detention specified in the order is six months or less. Three years.".")

The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 11 to Schedule 4 is again a consequential amendment that is required for Northern Ireland legislation. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 already provides for the new custodial orders proposed in Clause 2 of the Bill for young service offenders to be subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 which applies to Great Britain. The amendment will achieve the same effect for Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 22:
Page 34, leave out lines 23 to 34.
Page 34, line 46, at end insert—

("14 &15 Geo. 6. c. 10.

The Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act 1950.

In section 1, paragraph (e) In section 5(2), paragraph (iii) and the words "or paragraph (iii)".

In section 8(1), the definition of "the competent naval, military or air force authority" and, in the definition of "service in the armed forces of the Crown", the words following "regular forces".

14 &15 Geo. 6. c. 65.

The Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951.

In section 64 subsection (2) In Schedule 1, in paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (v).").

Page 35, line 10, at end insert ("In section 366(4), the words "(whether men or women)".").
Page 35, line 50, at end insert—

("1976 c. 25.

The Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976.

In section 50(4), paragraph (a)(ii) and the immediately preceding "and".").

Page 36, line 10, at end insert—

("1980 c. 9.

The Reserve Forces Act 1980.

In Schedule 8, paragraph 5(1)(b) and the immediately preceding "and".").

Page 36, line 12, at end insert—

("1945 c. 6 (N.I.).

The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act (Northern Ireland) 1945.

In section 16, the words "of the following classes, that is to say: (a) men" and paragraph (b) together with the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a).

Schedule 1.

1960 c. 4 (N.I.)

The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act (Northern Ireland 1960.

Section 4.").

Page 36, line 16, at end insert—

("1967 c. 32 (N.I.)

The Marriage (Registration of Buildings) Act (Northern Ireland 1967.

In section 2, in subsection (1), paragraph (d) and subsections (2) and (3). Schedule 1.").

Page 36, line 39, at end insert—

("S.I. 1976/1213 (N.I.22)

The Pharmacy (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.

In Article5, paragraph 5(b) and the preceding "and".").

Page 36, line 43, at end insert—
("Nothing in the repeal of a reference in any enactment to any women's service (or its reserve) shall affect the accrual after the date of the repeal of a right arising under that enactment by virtue of service before that date in that service (or reserve) or the continued validity or the issue after that date of any certificate or other document required to establish a right so arising.").
Page 36, line 49, at end insert—

("28 &29 Vict. c. 73.

The Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act 1865.

In section 12, the words "shall be published in the London Gazette and".").

Page 37, line 56, at end insert—
("1. The following repeals shall come into force on the day this Act is passed:—

(a) the repeals contained in Part I of this Schedule;

(b) the repeals contained in Part II of this Schedule which relate to the Naval Agency and Distribution Act 1864, the Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act 1865, the Army Pensions Act 1914, section 93 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, and Schedule 9 to the Armed Forces Act 1976.

2. The repeal of section 1 of the Armed Forces Act 1976 shall come into force on 1st September 1981 (in accordance with section 1(5) of this Act).
3. Subject to paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the repeals contained in this Schedule shall come into force in accordance with section 28(1) to (3) of this Act.").
The noble Viscount said: With your Lordships' permission and that of the Chair, I wonder whether it would be convenient if I were to move the final Government Amendments, Nos. 12 to 22, en bloc. All of these amendments are repeals consequential upon the provisions of the Bill. I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 18, 20, 21 and 22. Of the remainder, Amendments Nos. 15, 17 and 19 are again amendments required to Northern Ireland legislation consequent upon the statutory assimilation of the women's services. Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 16 also reflect this assimilation and make further consequential repeals. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Zoo Licensing (No. 2) Bill
7.22 p.m.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Craigton.)
Bill read 3a.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. This is a happy end to a long story. So many people have played an essential part that I hardly know where to begin: John Blackburn, without whose skill and dedication there would be no Bill; Ted Graham, without whose prompt Motion, That the question be now put, there would be no Bill at all; Mr. Hector Monro and my noble friend Lord Avon; their officials, including Kitty Vernon and John Goldsmith; Colin Rawlins, John Taylor and Michael Ann who, as zoo executives, fought hard and successfully to have the Bill right for them; the noble Lord, Lord Fisher, who played an important and constructive part; Michael Bramble for his expert advice; and John Knowles who suggested the Secretary of State's panel, now called the List. It was this suggestion which proved to be the key to agreement between all concerned. And finally, personally, may I thank my parliamentary counsel, Sir Noel Hutton, who for four years of prompt and most loyal service to me, without any real reward, was on the job. There was never a time either when he was going to have a meeting, or when he owed me a letter, or when I owed him a letter. I thank them all.
The only slightly unusual feature in the proceedings we have had in your Lordships' House is that with the co-operation of the Minister, for which I am very grateful, all the assurances given, both in debates and in meetings have been repeated during the Committee stage. So the Act, read with the Lords Official Report of Friday 3rd July, will give all the information required both to the zoos and to the district councils.
What happens now? I can speak as one who has no financial, administrative or honorary interest of any kind in any zoo to which this Bill will apply. To the counties I say: You have now, through the district council contact, a bigger stake in the recreation and leisure fields and an even bigger stake in the education field. In education, your interest and co-operation, not necessarily involving money, can bring added interest and educational benefit to the children and their parents, as has been shown already in certain areas (though not enough) but especially in the co-operation given to the Edinburgh Zoo by their local authority.
To the district councils I say: In the implementation of this Bill and in your new responsibilities, take your time. First get a clear picture of what is involved in your area. Ensure that you get in every application that is, or could be, relevant and then, with the cooperation of the department, plan the initial visits as cheaply and sensibly as possible. What will serve you best is a prosperous and well run zoo.
To the Government I say: Take advice. You already know more about this sort of administration than does the zoo, and the zoo experts know more about this sort of administration than does the zoo,
768
and the zoo experts know more about running a zoo than you do. Working together, this Bill can be launched with the minimum of confusion and thereafter will take its place with all the other routine responsibilities that Government departments can handle so well.
To the zoos I say: What the Government would like and what the district councils would like is for the National Federation and the National to join as one body now, as they intend to do, and that they should accept as members, for a modest fee, every licensed zoo in the country. Then, and only then, on the administrative matters that will always arise but which will be less as the years go on, the zoos will speak, and can be spoken to, as one voice.
Inside the enlarged National Federation there should be a Scientific Council comprising only those National Federation members who are contributing to the science and progress of zoo keeping and conservation. And as this is a world- wide science, membership of the Scientific Council need not be limited to British licensed zoos. Thus, the National Federation has now the opportunity to become both the trade society and the controlling scientific body. These are real opportunities. Am I too optimistic to hope that all concerned will grasp them?
Finally, on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, whom I am glad to see is in his seat, expressed grave doubts about the correctness of the procedure for the conduct of Private Member's Bills. I must raise one procedural point that I must confess has been worrying me a great deal.
After this Bill had left the other place the Minister, Mr. Monro, received on 25th June (and I received a copy) a perfectly proper letter from one of its Members stating the points on which undertakings had been given and others on which he was dissatisfied that he wished to see corrected in your Lordships' House. That same day, the 25th, before I had seen the letter, I visited the Committee Room where the Wildlife and Countryside Bill was in progress. A Member of the other place, not the writer of the letter, in passing me said to me, "If you don't make those amendments, I'll kill your Bill when it comes back here". Having later seen the letter, I saw the same Member concerned later in the afternoon. He would give no undertaking not to kill the Bill. Why should he? He was within his rights.
This threat in which, as events have shown, no Member of your Lordships' House had any knowledge or took any part, put me and the Government in a quandary. No Committee stage amendments were yet tabled but amendments on some of the lines suggested by the letter would have had to be rejected. But I now knew that if they were rejected and others were passed, we risked losing the Bill altogether. Fortunately, the Government and I were able confidently to proceed with the Bill as it stood and as it stands now. But, as always on a complicated administration Bill such as this, I should have liked to make a few clarifying amendments rather than to rely quite so much on assurances from the Front Bench.
Our task had to be, therefore, to get the Bill through without any amendments at all being passed, and so not to have to resubmit it to the other place. It is true that if, next Friday, which is the last day this

769
Session for the consideration of Private Members' Bills, we had had to ask the other place to consider and approve any amendment to the Zoo Licensing (No. 2) Bill, one voice—any voice—could have been raised to say, "Object" and the Bill would have been lost and all the time of both Houses wasted. For one voice to be able to decide the fate of a Private Member's Bill after it has passed through all its stages in both Houses is wrong and, as I have shown, not in the best interests of good legislation. It certainly is not democracy.
I suggest—and it is only a suggestion—that those concerned should consider changing the procedure to the effect that consideration of Lords' Amendments to a Private Member's Bill in another place should be subject, on objection, to a vote without discussion. An objection could be made, a vote could be made and that, at least, would be a democratic process. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Craigton.)
7.31 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I must protest at the way in which we are asked to conduct our business. We are trying to match eating time with speaking time and on no other occasion are the two brought together in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord who moved, That this Bill do now pass, has raised a matter of very grave importance from the point of view of the relationships between the two Houses and also relating to the procedures which are followed on Private Members' Bills. I think it is shocking to hear from the noble Lord the slender thread upon which this Bill now rests in order to pass into law.
I am sad that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is not here to hear this renewed complaint about the way in which Private Members' Bills are dealt with in your Lordships' House. I made my protest on a previous occasion; I was on the radio in "The Week in Westminster" last Saturday and renewed it there. I shall continue to complain about the way in which we are asked to do business on Private Members' Bills until some change is made. Apart from what the noble Lord has said, of course we knew that if the Bill was amended and sent back to another place its chances of survival were very slender indeed. No adequate opportunity would have occurred in another place to consider the amendments seriously and properly. It would have been beaten by the clock and nothing else if some honourable Member in another place had got up to talk it out.
I hope that in another Session arrangements can be made whereby Private Members' Bills which have passed through all stages in another place and come to your Lordships' House, even though towards the end of the time available for Private Members' Bills, will not fall through lack of time. It is due to the respect which Parliament should command; it is due to the time and trouble which we spend upon these matters and it is due also to the reputation of this Parliament as a legislative assembly. I sometimes wonder what qualifications we have for referring to this as "the Mother of Parliaments": at times it is a
770
silly old woman and I think it is time that these absurdities were rectified.
I feel that I am speaking under pressure and I find this extremely bad for my temper. I think that we ought at least to have as reasonable an amount of time to discuss a Bill of this kind, without feeling the pressure of time, as is being given to the amendments to the Transport Bill which preceded this debate and will follow.
This is an important Bill. To me, it is much more important than I had realised until I began to think about it. I have been here for seven years and this is the first Bill dealing with animal welfare to pass your Lordships' House since I came, seven years ago. People talk about the "seven lean years". One can surely find that in my experience. I just missed the Badgers Act 1973 but I was in time to see much of the hopes under the Badgers Act dispelled by the provision in another Bill entirely for the gassing of thousands of badgers in the West Country on the grounds that they infected cattle with bovine tuberculosis. So that was not a very proud interlude in my own experience of animal welfare Bills since I came here.
Another important thing to note in connection with this Bill is that this is a Private Member's Bill. No Government Bill on animal welfare has been passed through this House for the past seven years. The only Government Bill that comes near to being a welfare Bill is the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, which deals with conservation rather than welfare. I do not want to split hairs about that, but that Bill has yet to reach the statute book. This, my Lords, from a Government which had animals in its manifesto for the first time.
I will just catalogue: on experiments on animals—nothing yet. The work has been done by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House on the Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, but no Government legislation is yet forthcoming. We have no idea whether the Government are doing any work on that Bill at all. The sale of pets in open markets Bill passed all stages in your Lordships' House but was blocked by the Government Whips in another place. The shipment of live food animals for slaughter —nothing tangible has passed through this or the other House on that matter. Dogs in society: a working party spent a lot of time on this, but no Government legislation has been forthcoming so far. So the record of the Government is really not a very happy one, but this Bill represents a step forward and I am very glad indeed to support it.
However, I ought to mention that there are other people besides a Member in another place who talk about blocking this Bill, and they are certain elements in the animal welfare movement, whom the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, did not mention but who are quite critical of the shortcomings of the Bill. After all this Bill is the outcome of the work of those who are in the business of zoological gardens and one does not expect to get a completely radical measure from them.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised the question of the assistance given by the RSPCA. As the RSPCA will confirm, they made a very large number of changes; they went much further than I wanted to go, but I went that far to meet them on a very large number of points.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for paying that tribute; which I am sure is fully deserved and I think that one has to bear in mind that in getting reforms of this kind one has to get the co-operation of those who are taking an independent and possibly moral standpoint as well as those who are engaged in the actual business of the dealing with animals.
There are some respects in which, had there been the time to do so, we could have had some fruitful discussion but none of the amendments which I think your Lordships should have considered can come forward. We could not raise them at Committee stage without endangering the Bill, so we have really been in shackles since this Bill reached your Lordships' House and I sincerely hope that this experience will not be repeated.
This is a good Bill so far as it goes. It does not go so far as many would wish; it probably does not go so far as it should go, even as a first step. Nevertheless it breaks the ice, so to speak, on the surveillance of the conditions under which animals are kept in captivity. Conditions can be laid down for that although the local authority are given permissive powers and not required by statute to require certain conditions to be fulfilled when granting licences. There is a permissive nature in Clause 5 which I think one would have wished to see more strongly written into the statute.
Then, in Clause 14 there is the problem of the small zoo. There is certainly anxiety about that. They can be left out of the provisions of the Act altogether by direction of the Secretary of State and one sincerely hopes that small zoos will not continue to be probably the least satisfactory of them all.
In Clause 19 one would have expected to see some conditions under which a licence-holder could actually be disqualified, but there is no provision for that. Clause 22 amends the Dangerous Wild Animals Act in a way which leaves a loophole for the care and custody of animals which may be in transit from one place to another.
However, I give an unqualified welcome really to the first step in this difficult field and I am sure the noble Lord and all those he has mentioned who have co-operated are to be congratulated and warmly thanked for all the work they have done. With that, my Lords, I leave it. But in future I shall not be quite so easy to deal with in a comparable situation to this.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I do not think there is anything I want to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and my noble friend Lord Houghton have said. I echo the thanks the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, expressed to the numerous people who have been involved with this, and not least, I am sure the whole House will agree, our thanks go to him for the work that he has done over the years in getting this legislation to a point where it was acceptable to the various interests. I certainly echo what my noble friend said, not only about the procedures for Private Members' legislation, but also about seeing this Bill as being one which breaks the ice as a first step in bringing some legislation to bear on the problem of the ill-treatment of animals in some badly run zoos, which are a disgrace to those who run them, those who visit them and
772
the society which has allowed them to exist unregulated for so long. I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Houghton that it is long overdue for us to have this legislation which controls this very serious problem. I have no doubt that we will need to build on this in the future. Secondly, there is still a great deal of work to be done in preparing the advice to local authorities, and particularly the Secretary of State's code of practice, which is going to exert, hopefully, a major and beneficial influence on the welfare of animals kept in zoological collections. Having said that, I also welcome the fact that this Bill will shortly become law and look forward to seeing it being implemented in the spirit of the numerous assurances which the noble Earl and other Government spokesmen have been able to give as it went through Parliament.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I have two short but, I think, important points. First, certainly we welcome this Bill and are delighted that it is to pass into law. I should like to add our congratulations to the noble Lord Lord Craigton, and all others who have worked hard on this Bill. Secondly, since the point has been raised in all quarters of the House tonight about the procedure and fate of Private Members' Bills, I think I can say on behalf of all Members of my party that we too feel that the situation is not at all satisfactory when you get Private Members' Bills as late in the Session as this. This is not by any means the only example we have had over the last few years. I am not sure what exactly the solution is. I am very interested in the one the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, put forward. Undoubtedly, I think that is a matter which must be taken aboard by the authorities of the House. I hope that the attention of the Leader of the House and of everyone concerned will be drawn to this matter and we will have some discussions and some movement about it over the next year or so. It really is a disgraceful situation that we find ourselves in, and for the good of Parliament it is right that we should try and mend it and find some solution.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I should like to offer my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Craigton, and the warmest congratulations on achieving the Third Reading of the Bill, on which he, and, in another place, the honourable Member for Dudley West, Mr. Blackburn, have worked so hard. I should like to echo the congratulations to all those who have been concerned. Indeed, it was interesting to hear my noble friend Lord Craigton this evening giving us some more words of wisdom on this Bill's future, which I know will be closely read.
The Government have supported this Bill throughout its passage here and in another place, because we believe that it is a useful and practical measure which will lead to improvements in zoo management. This will be of benefit to the public, to the animals and to the zoos themselves. We have been encouraged by the support given to the Bill by noble Lords and honourable Members from Government and Opposition Benches alike, by the zoo organisations—and particularly the wise words of wisdom we had from my noble friend Lord Fisher, whom I am glad to see in his place—by the animal welfare organisations, and the RSPCA has been mentioned, and by the Association

773
of District Councils whose members will largely be responsible for operating the licensing system. There have been long and helpful discussions with all these bodies, as a result of which the Bill was considerably amended and improved before it came to this House. As noble Lords will know from the assurances I gave during the Second Reading and Committee stages, there will be further discussions with all these bodies about the guidance to be issued to local authorities on the administration of the licensing system, as well as about the composition of the list and the Secretary of State's standards and licence conditions.
I do not want to be drawn into comments on parliamentary procedure, but, believe me, standing at this Box it is just as inconvenient for us as it is for everybody else. I think I am too junior to talk about the silly old woman the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned. I am very pleased to see the Lord Chairman here, who I am sure will have taken on board all the points, and I will equally draw them to the attention of my Leader. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, made some comments about eating habits. He might recall that the junior Whip on the Transport Bill could not leave then and he has to do the Transport Bill now; so he loses on both counts.
My Lords, I am delighted that this Bill, which in one shape or another has been running for so many years, and which my noble friend Lord Craigton has guided over many hurdles, is now within sight of the finishing line. I hope that the House will give it its final reading and that today we shall see it past the post.
On Question, Bill passed.

British Railways Bill
7.46 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 3a with the amendments.
Lord Aberdare Lord Aberdare moved the following amendments:
Clause 62 [For protection of Medina Borough Council.]:
Page 38, line 22, leave out ("cross")
Page 38, line 36, leave out ("section 46") and insert ("section 47")
Page 39, line 15, leave out ("section 46") and insert ("section 47")
Page 39, line 40, leave out ("such works") and insert ("of the works mentioned in paragraph (5) of this section")
Page 40, line 12, leave out from ("out") to (", shall") in line 14, and insert ("any of the works therein mentioned").
Clause 70 [Interpretation and extent of Part VI.]:
Page 57, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 on page 58, and insert—
("the appropriate Minister" means—

(a) in relation to statutory undertakers carrying on any railway, light railway, tramway, road transport, dock,
774
harbour or pier undertaking, the Secretary of State for Transport;

(b) in relation to the National Coal Board, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, an undertaking for the supply of district heating or statutory undertakers carrying on an undertaking for the supply of electriicty, gas or hydraulic power, the Secretary of State for Energy;

(c) in relation to the British Airports Authority or the Civil Aviation Authority or statutory undertakers carrying on any lighthouse undertaking, the Secretary of State for Trade;

(d) in relation to the Post Office, the Secretary of State for Industry;

(e) in relation to statutory undertakers carrying on an undertaking for the supply of water, other than water authorities, in the application of this Act to England, the Secretary of State for the Environment, and, in the application of this Act to Wales, the Secretary of State for Wales;

(f) in relation to water authorities, the appropriate Minister or Ministers determined in accordance with section 1(4) of the Water Act 1973;

(g) in relation to an internal drainage board, in the application of this Act to England, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and, in the application of this Act to Wales, the Secretary of State for Wales, but, where the district of an internal drainage board is partly in England and partly in Wales, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales jointly; and

(h) in relation to any other relevant undertakers, the Secretary of State for the Environment;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendments standing in my name. I think it might be convenient if I were to move all six amendments en bloc. They are all to correct errors or improve the drafting of the Bill. Even No. 6, which is a rather longer amendment, is simply a more accurate definition of what is meant by "the appropriate Minister". With your Lordships' permission, I beg to move that these amendments be agreed to en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.50 until 8 p.m.]

Transport Bill
Report stage resumed on Clause 27.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 21, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) This section will come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint after he has satisfied himself that seat belts of improved design to suit variable types of user are available for general use.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 56: In thanking my noble friend the Minister for having said that he will accept the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, about having an affirmative resolution, a statutory instrument, to cover the whole of the clause under consideration, I should explain that the nature of my amendment is really to try to suggest to the Minister what may well be included in the statutory instrument when it comes to be put together.
However, there is one feature of Amendment No. 56 which perhaps differs slightly from those which we heard about previously and that is that I am asking

775
that, having got the whole thing together, the Government shall not seek to put forward the statutory instrument for consideration by Parliament until they are satisfied that there is a sufficient range of seat belts to suit all types of user. That is a subtle difference, in that one can see that perhaps the Government might get the whole thing together and be all ready to launch it, but they might not be satisfied on this one point. Users are of varying sizes and shapes and, indeed, cars are of varying sizes and shapes. Cars will range from those which are a century old because presumably the ancient motor cars which would go in for the London to Brighton race will not be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, one has to think about all sorts of cars and all sorts of people.
I had an amendment down in Committee which was identical to the one which we are now considering, in relation to the children's clause, which is the next clause in the Bill. I should like to suggest to my noble friend the Minister that what I am about to say and to suggest should be part of his consideration and should apply equally to the children's clause, because children come in all shapes and sizes and, indeed, between the ages of 1 and 14 their sizes change dramatically. That in itself means that whatever he seeks to put into the statutory instrument which relates to this clause would also be relevant to the clause dealing with children. That is why I pressed him on his own Amendment No. 54A, because there might be some factors which were applicable to both statutory instruments.
Therefore, I am saying to my noble friend: please make sure, before this new and (dare I say it?) draconian provision, which I think will be very difficult for the police to apply fairly, is applied generally and by statute, that it is not too difficult for the ordinary chap to provide himself with a seat belt which fits him and his motor car, and which fits his mother-in-law, his seven year-old child and his wife who is pregnant. It must suit the whole lot—and, again, cheaply, because the type of person that one is talking about is the ordinary run of human in this country, none of whom is well off though most of them are better off than most of my noble friends in this House. All the same, we are all pretty poor these days. It is therefore very important that suitable belts should be produced in sufficient quantity and sufficiently simply, but should be sufficiently safe and sufficiently reliable. There is a problem. All those factors must be satisfied and it must be something that can be readily applied and probably flexible enough so that when the mother-in-law is in one seat, the seven year-old child in another and the pregnant wife in a third, there is a seat belt which can be adjusted to cope with all of them.
That is the fundamental of what I am seeking to ask my noble friend to say to me this evening. I want him to say, "Yes, I understand. Yes, I think that it is reasonable that the Government should not enact the final statutory instrument until we are satisfied that the provisions that you have suggested are met."
Before I leave this subject, there is one other factor to which I should like to speak and that is the particular case of the drivers of heavy goods vehicles, because they are in a different category from the family motor car that I have been talking about up until now.
776
Heavy goods vehicles, as your Lordships will well know, have great big high cabs and are not supposed to go more than a statutory speed. The driver is set well back from the window and it is extremely unlikely that even if there were an accident someone would be catapulted through the front windscreen. On the other hand, if you have some of the seat belts which I have encountered and which are demanded for people driving heavy goods vehicles, it might be possible—and I have done this in an ordinary car—for the heavy goods vehicle driver to catch his foot in the seat belt when he gets out. He could then have a six foot or seven foot fall and he could break his neck. That would be a desperate accident, which I would not suggest is at all one that needs to be considered as likely to happen too regularly.
However, I am trying to point out that there is a difference here. It could be that my noble friend when he thinks about this matter may say, "Well perhaps we shall excuse the heavy goods vehicle drivers because they are so very different". But then, he would have a problem of definition, because there are different sorts of heavy goods vehicle. Therefore, to provide a seat belt which is satisfactory to all people and which will suit all shapes and ages and to do so at a price which everybody can afford will be very difficult.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to say to me that at least he agrees with the sense of what I have to say and will make sure that something suitable is incorporated in the regulations and, furthermore, that the regulations will be delayed in their implementation until such time as he is fully satisfied that all the types of criteria which I have indicated have been met. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I should like to emphasise one point which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has made, which is that the same car may be driven by a variety of different people and that a variety of different people may be passengers in that car in seats in which it is mandatory to wear seat belts. Therefore, it is necessary to be able to have a variety of different fixings or adjustable seat belts.
The other matter to which I should like to draw attention is that the seat belts should be able to be made safe and comfortable for passengers reclining in the front seat, in order to get some rest and sleep when they are what I think is called "spelling" the driver.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I should like to say something in general support of my noble friend Lord Mottistone's amendment. This matter has perhaps rather more to do with what my noble friend the Minister had to say in response to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, when we discussed seat belts at some length. I must say to my noble friend that I was a little disappointed in his response at that time because, if I recall correctly he said, in effect, "This legislation that will probably be on the statute book should give a great boost, a great emphasis to the seat belt manufacturers and designers". I do not believe that it will do anything of the sort. I think that they are far more likely to do as they have done with the motor car industry in the last 10 years, and sit back and say, "Well, there it is, we can just trot out anything that will meet the requirements".

777
My noble friend's right honourable friend has said quite categorically that if compulsion to wear seat belts is approved by Parliament he, the Minister, will abide by that decision. It appears to be likely that compulsion will become law. I believe that it is now for the Minister to do more than just express the hope that the car manufacturers, the seat belt manufacturers, and so on will meet the demand. I believe that he must apply pressure to meet objections of the kind that we have heard in your Lordships' House over this last month and, indeed, in Parliament over the last five, six, seven or eight years, that they are unsatisfactory, that people do not like them, that they do not understand them, and so on.
When my noble friend responds to this amendment perhaps he will go just a little further and say that they will use more than best endeavours to ensure that objections of this kind are met in the reasonable future at a cost which will enable people to make a conversion. Seat belts are now fitted in motor-cars by the motor manufacturers, at the motor manufacturers' choice; it is no longer at the customer's choice, because cars come with seat belts and if you do not like that kind of belt and want to buy a different sort you lose your money. There is no option. Perhaps that is right. But if people did want to convert to something that is better, in which they feel more comfortable and safer, they should be able to do so.
Obviously, we are two or three years away from imposing upon car manufacturers an obligation to fit a different kind of belt. I believe that it could now be up to the department to exert far greater influence over the design, manufacture and supply of seat belts. It is to that that perhaps my noble friend could direct his answer.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the fact that basically on these amendments to Clause 27 I have had rather a self-denying ordinance does not mean that I am uninterested in what is being discussed. But I have accepted the statement made during the Committee stage by the Minister that all these matters will be the subject of the closest consultation, not only with manufacturers but also with safety organisations, the various motoring organisations and the commercial vehicle organisations. I believe that that will be done. If there is any fear that the manufacturers will drag their feet on this, I hope that the motoring organisations will not, because it is in their interests that something should be done.
I have much sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, but I have grave doubts as to whether it should be included in the Bill in this way. The last thing that this House must attempt to do is to try to start designing seat belts itself. It is our job to say what is required and I believe that a number of us on Second Reading and a number of noble Lords today have emphasised what is required. If we have the widest possible consultations and if the Minister could look very closely at a later amendment about a consultative document, I believe that that will greatly help in this matter.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment because, once again, we return to the
778
undoubted fact of an apparent insensitivity on the part of the pro-compulsion lobby. Only a few days ago we heard that people below average height who had to wear lap and diagonal belts, only risked, and more often than not got, burns across the neck. I am absolutely horrified at the phrase "only got burns across the neck". This is something that is extremely unpleasant and painful and possibly even dangerous. For that reason alone, if for no other I think that we ought to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, I should also like to support this amendment, although it does not go as far as I should have liked. As some of your Lordships know, I should like seat belts to be standardised, but I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will tell me that the manufacturers are either not able or prepared to do that. Therefore, I wonder whether the Government could not consider that this amendment is a very moderate one. if it was accepted, perhaps it would give more members of the public the confidence to wear seat belts. After all, if they wore them because they were not uncomfortable, were easy to put on and even more easy to take off, it would mean that more people would wear them and surely there would be fewer problems for the police. I do not believe that the police could possibly deal with this situation at the moment. They have far too many and far more important matters on their hands than to worry about whether or not we are wearing seat belts.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I think that if I was to set out to try to do all that my noble friend Lord Mottistone requires, we should forget the whole thing. I shall read carefully what he said, especially about a prerequisite for this legislation. I am trying to remember all that he said; it was very impressive, as what he says always is. But in terms of its being practical, if we are seriously to proceed to carry out the wishes of the House, then I do not think that it could get off the ground.
The fact is that seat belt design must, of necessity, be a compromise between the varying requirements of people who are tall, short or whatever, and inevitably Mr. Average wins. But this does not mean that the rest of us cannot wear seat belts. Adjustment of the seat position or belt attachments can make the fit more comfortable to suit individual requirements. As I explained earlier, seat belts must conform to strict safety requirements and, for that matter, many other requirements as laid down by the EEC directive for all new cars. How far at this stage we in this House can, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, embark upon even trying to lay down the broadest type of specification, I do not know, least of all in a discussion such as this.
The point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas is certainly right in its objective and the extent to which the Government, through the department, can in fact influence what is done by the manufacturers and the belt designers, I am not sure. I do not have enough knowledge of it to know. But I would certainly be rather astonished if the department was not concerned with this aspect of safety. If the likely

779
legislation goes through your Lordships' House and another place, obviously it will involve the department in wanting to know much more about the possibilities. In any case, I think that some of the points made earlier in the debate by my noble friend Lord Lucas as regards some of the newer things we are seeing are very relevant. Hopefully, we shall move in that direction.
However, to set down in a Bill a requirement, before which we could not go further as regards carrying out the early express wishes of the House, I am sure is something upon which we should not embark. By way of clarification to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I should point out that compulsory wearing of seat belts will not apply to heavy goods vehicle drivers. The Construction and Use Regulations apply only to small vehicles. I hope that my noble friend will find that useful.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down and à propos what was said by a noble Lord on the other side, I should like to take the example of a young model earning a lot of money who gets a neck burn. Who will compensate her for the money lost in 10 or 15 years? Will it be the Government, the seat belt manufacturers, the insurance company—who?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if you start from the assumption that seat belts are desirable things to wear, then I might well ask the same question: who will compensate her for the facial injuries that she might suffer as a result of an accident due to not wearing a seat belt?—when the record shows—and is not this what it is all about?—that the likely effect upon her is far more devastating. I should have thought that that was a very relevant point to consider.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, there are two questions to which I should be grateful for answers, which he did not give me. One is what about the ancient vehicles going on the London to Brighton race? The other is does my noble friend intend—it was not clear from what he said—to take account of the points that I suggested to him should be criteria for consideration in some respects in the regulations when they are drawn up, and in other respects as a point to be taken into account before regulations are brought into force? I was not clear whether he was prepared to do that.
Lord Beliwin: My Lords, I am not too knowledgeable about the London to Brighton race. I readily confess that my knowledge of it is abysmal. Therefore, I do not feel qualified to give my noble friend a proper answer on that. I shall gladly look into everything pertaining to that event and write to him. As to his other point, whether we will look at the other points he raised, of course I assure him of that. We take everything that he said very seriously in this whole matter. After all, we are talking about a scene where we are going to be coming forward with regulations in the form that I said earlier, and which will give everyone a chance then to have another go at the detail. I gladly assure him that at that time we shall read what he has said, and should there be anything
780
that we think is practical and helpful—I know his intentions are helpful—then of course we shall take them into account.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, it might be helpful if I give a partial answer to my noble friend Lord Mottistone. The Construction and Use Regulations require that all vehicles after a certain date—I think it was 1964 or 1966—have a statutory obligation to be fitted with a seat belt. Therefore, the 1904 Benz is all right.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister. I indeed thank my noble friend Lord Nugent for his remarks. I am not entirely happy about the situation and may well come back to it at Third Reading. For this stage of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye Lord Balfour of Inchrye moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 21, line 31, leave out ("£50") and insert ("£20").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on two grounds, and I very much hope that the amendment may find favour in all parts of the House: the Opposition; the Government; the Cross-Benches, and others. The first ground is a comparison of the proposed summary fine of £50 with practice overseas for the same misdemeanour. I hope that the Minister is not going to try to compare the £50 with other penalties in this country for different offences. It is only right that we should compare other countries' fines for the same misdemeanour.
Let us take a few: New Zealand, £4; Australia, Victoria, £18 maximum penalty, £15 for an unbelted child in the front seat; South Australia, £25; Queensland £3 plus one domestic point demerit; Western Australia £10, with a loss of two demerits. Australia is what I have had rammed down my throat on several different occasions when I have fought this fight against compulsory seat belts on no less than four occasions in your Lordships' House, three of which were successful and the final one I took defeat from my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford.
It may seem strange that I should be moving an amendment to a Bill that I have opposed—and I still oppose the principle of compulsion—but that does not matter. I hope that as a good parliamentarian I accept the verdict of this House, and therefore set to to try to improve the Bill. What its fate may be in another place is not for me to forecast. Take Europe: Sweden £20: Norway £5; the Netherlands £10; France varies between £4 and £10; Belgium £7; in West Germany there is no penalty but it is taken into account in court cases. If belting has been so improved by this scale of fines, and found to be adequate in those other countries, why in our country should such a heavy fine be considered necessary?
My second objection to the proposal is the social effects of the £50 fine. The summary £50 fine will in fact become in practice a standard fixed penalty because who, when they are summonsed, is going to have the time and the money, and take the risk, of going to court? Of course they will say it is quicker to pay the

781
fine than contest it in front of magistrates. So they will pay up, according to circumstances, with a feeling of injustice and resentment against the police.
To some motorists £50 may well be the breaking point as regards their ability to go on running a motorcar; the family car run on a close margin. A fine of £20 is bound to be a sharp and unpleasant reminder of the law, but it may be more than that. It may cause a man to say to his wife, "I am sorry, dear, I must lay up the car because I just cannot afford the petrol, the tyres, the tax, the insurance, all of which have gone up, and this is finally the straw that breaks the camel's back". I do not see owners being more careless about being belted for £20 than they would be for £50. I think they will be just as careful. After all, £50 is not easy for anyone to find, and in many cases £20 is also far from easy.
I have already spoken of rising costs. None of us wants to push the marginal budget motorist over the edge, for those motorists do exist today. I say to noble Lords on the Opposition Benches who claim—although I do not agree, but that does not matter—to represent the poorer section of the community more than this side, that those who have small motor cars will be the ones who will suffer if £50 is the penalty. Public relations with the police will be harmed. I would appeal to all noble Lords here tonight, irrespective of party, do not let us in this House appear vindictive to the less well off car owners. On the grounds of comparison of this country with foreign countries and social fairness, I ask for £20 instead of £50, and hope that the House will, if it goes to a Division, support me in the Lobby. I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, a fine of £50 was put into my Private Bill last December because it was the same as the fine for the related offence in Section 33 of the 1972 Act of a breach of the wearing of a protective helmet by a motor-cyclist. As the whole structure of my original clause was on the same basis as that provision, it was natural to insert the same fine of £50. I have had no advice that that level of fine has been found onerous in practice. Of course, I have no doubt that the magistrates' courts have never levied fines at that level; undoubtedly where there have been breaches of the motor-cycle helmet law the fines have been at a very much lower level.
I must recognise the powerful appeal made by my noble friend Lord Balfour that £50 is too much. I agree it is a fairly hefty fine, and my noble friend made out a cogent case in comparison with other countries to show that it would be higher here. I am reasonably neutral on the matter and I shall need to hear what my noble friend Lord Bellwin says before making up my mind. Possibly the first offence could be set at a lower level—say, at £20, as Lord Balfour suggests—with subsequent offences at £50. I thought I should give the House the provenance of the £50 figure; it is the same as is to be found in existing legislation for a somewhat similar offence. Certainly, however, we do not want to make it unduly onerous, and I suppose that if somebody caught for not wearing a helmet was fined £50 for a first offence, he would have good reason to complain. Having said that, I await to hear the view of the Government on the matter.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I hope I am not talking out of turn in reminding my noble friend Lord Nugent that Schedule 4 to the Road Traffic Act 1972 refers to
" twenty pounds, or, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, three months or fifty pounds, or both".
So perhaps my noble friend has not copied the provision in the Act to which he was referring, except in the highest figure that was listed, rather than the first offence figure of £20, which seems to accord with the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Balfour.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I feel I should comment on the matter if only in view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, about representation on this side of the House. The attention of noble Lords must be drawn to the fact that in the next clause there is a fine of £50 in relation to children's seat belts, and I cannot see any amendment having been tabled to deal with that, although it represents almost the same offence. It makes one wonder whether that is tied up with the fight against the general principle of the wearing of seat belts. Like the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, I am prepared to be guided by the Minister on this. A penalty must be sufficient to deter, and when it is suggested that a fine of £50 might be the last straw for someone on a low income who is running a car, there is one obvious answer: observe the law. It is as simple as that and one would think that all those who believe in law and order on the Benches opposite would rapidly support that principle.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I support the amendment, not because I believe a lower fine would make the clause any less objectionable in principle but because the fine proposed in the Bill is so way out of line with that prevailing in other European countries. If we exclude the extremes of Western Germany, where there is no fine, and Denmark, where there is a quite unusually high fine (a maximum of £100), we have a European average of £7·50, almost one-seventh of the fine proposed in the Bill. If we include West Germany and Denmark, the average rises to £22, but if we include the Scandinavian countries not in the EEC, Sweden and Norway, the average still works out at less than £22.All those countries on balance have a somewhat higher standard of living than ours and the maximum fine there is equivalent to £17 or £18 in our terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the next clause, which deals with children. There is perhaps a case for the state being a little harsher in protecting children, although personally I believe the amount is too high there. In any event, so far as adults are concerned, I do not see any reason why we should exceed the European average. if we must have the clause at all, there is absolutely no case for the figure in the Bill and I shall therefore support the amendment.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I suggest we should have a flat rate fine of £10 or £20, which seems much more suitable to the offence, or a maximum fine of £50 because there still are people in this world to whom £50 is, relatively speaking, peanuts.
Viscount Cross: I too support the amendment because £50 is far too high; £20 would be quite sufficient, my Lords.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am surprised at some of the remarks that have been made. If £50 as a maximum fine—and it must be stressed that we are talking about a maximum—is considered to be too high, I must say that I know from experience of the Road Traffic Act that the number of occasions when, in my many years as a magistrate (I never liked doing the Road Traffic Act part of it) maximum fines were imposed were very few indeed. Frankly, I cannot remember a single instance when that happened.
Nevertheless, it is surely right that a maximum should be included in order to cater for repeated offences and for certain situations. That is the reality of it, rather than to assume that £50 will represent the standard fine. In any event, look at the whole list given in the Bill; there is a maximum fine of £100 for failing to comply with a traffic direction, for failing to stop after an accident or for not giving particulars or making a report. When, I ask, would a fine of £100 be imposed in such cases? I should have thought that normally such fines would be imposed only in cases of repeated offences or certain blatant offences that occur in certain situations.
We must look at this figure of £50 in that context. With respect to my noble friend Lord Balfour, to talk of £50 as being the breaking point, leading to the possible laying up of a car, is going rather far. Fifty pounds is the maximum fine for not wearing a crash helmet. That applies to motor-cyclists, who I would not have thought were at the higher earning end of the community. I wonder how many of them have to lay up their motor-cycles because they are fined for not wearing a crash helmet.
I take the point about comparisons with other countries. I cannot help recalling that when answering a Parliamentary Question not long ago I told noble Lords that the effect of compulsion in those countries had been relatively small. Indeed, in the case of West Germany, I remember saying that there was no fine at all. So perhaps one should not wonder too much about the fact that the fines there have not had a strong impact in compelling people to wear seat belts. I confess that one is in some difficulty in arguing this case with great vehemence because as we have said all along, the Government take a neutral line on this matter. However, we have reached the point where the House has decided that it should go into the Bill, and it having been decided that there should be compulsion, then even those who are strongly opposed, including my noble friend Lord Balfour, must accept the present state of affairs. As he himself fairly said, he is only anxious to ensure that what we have should be the most workable basis. I believe that in £50 as a maximum we have that. The likely average fine will obviously come out at a much lower figure than that. In any case, at the end of the day the obligation is upon the car user to obey the law, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. Surely that is the nub of the matter?
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, will he not agree that your Lordships' House is a revising Chamber and that it does
784
have a right to amend at Report stage any decisions taken at Committee stage?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I have been saying that all day. I have been saying how right it is that we should consider where there should be exemptions. Certainly we have spent some hours today talking about just that. Of course, my noble friend is right to make his point in his own very able way. All I am saying is, putting this amendment in the context of all that we are seeking to do with seat belt legislation, that I consider that the £50 maximum will not have the adverse effect that my noble friend fears it will.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, could not the question of the maximum fine be left until the regulations are drafted?
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply, but in my view he has been entirely unconvincing. The noble Lord did not say one word to justify the scale of penalties as compared to those in foreign countries. He spoke about the maximum and then said that one could rely on the mercy of the courts not to extract the maximum. There is no security for the motorist there. If the noble Lord wants to squeeze the poorer motorist off the road, he is doing his very best tonight by sticking to the £50 fine. I personally cannot accept that and shall ask your Lordships' House to express its view on whether the fine should indeed be £20 or £50.
8.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 58) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Loudoun, C.

Barrington, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McNair, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Mottistone, L. [Teller.]

Brownlow, L.

Moyne, L.

Caithness, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Cathcart, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cross, V.

Rochdale, V.

de Clifford, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Drumalbyn, L.

Simon, V.

Erroll, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Freyberg, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Henley, L.

Thurso, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L.

Wade, L.

Killearn, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Avon, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Balogh, L.

Chelwood, L.

Bathhurst, E.

Craigton, L.

Bellwin, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Belstead, L.

David, B.

Bishopston, L.

De La Warr, E.

Blease, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

785

Elton, L.

Northchurch, B.

Faithfull, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ferrier, L.

Orkney, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peart, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Phillips, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Kaldor, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Kinnaird, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V.

Swinfen, L.

Lyell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Underhill, L.

Marley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.51 p.m.
Viscount Cross Viscount Cross had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 58A:
Page 21, line 31, leave out ("£50") and insert ("One penny")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 58A, which appears in my name on the Marshalled List. Like my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Drumalbyn): My Lords, it appears to me that this question has already been decided by the House. I do not think that the House would wish to go back on its opinion. Does the noble Viscount still wish to move his amendment? The amendment is not moved.
[Amendment No. 58A not moved.]
Lord Balfour of Inchrye Lord Balfour of Inchrye had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 59:
Page 21, line 35, at end insert—
("(4) No regulations shall be made under this section in relation to—

(a) different provision for different classes of vehicles; or

(b) those exceptions mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above; or

(c) proposals for the extension of the compulsory wearing of seat belts,

unless a draft of such regulations has been laid before, and been approved by, a majority of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to make only a few remarks before I ask permission to withdraw the amendment. I believe that the affirmative resolution procedure has a constitutional importance beyond the particular Bill that we are discussing. We all want to preserve the power and right of Parliament over the Executive. Unless Parliament has a right to consider and debate matters which affect the welfare of millions of people in this country, it cannot do its job. Parliament is often hamstrung in doing its job by the negative resolution procedure, upon which I need not elaborate to noble Lords in this House.
This Bill was a bad Bill in the beginning because there was not one mention of the affirmative procedure; it was all going to be done under the negative resolution procedure. In fact it was going to be government by ministerial decrees, not by this House and another place. All of us are grateful that the Government have accepted the affirmative resolution procedure.
I repeat that the Bill was a bad Bill in terms of attempting to give to the Minister those powers which he would have been given had the Bill not been altered. However, there was a very late repentance; or was it the red light in the Lobby that caused the change? I do not know, and it does not very much matter, because now the Minister will be able to have the consultations that he said in the Second Reading speech he was going to have. In the Second Reading speech he said that he was going to have consultations, but no one would know the result. He himself would make the decisions, based on the executive advice that he received. Now every Member in this House will have an opportunity to express a view on matters which affect so many millions of people.
I always want to help the Minister if I can, and in order to do so I should like to mention one or two things that we look forward to hearing about in the regulations. For instance, we shall want to hear about exemptions. We shall want to hear more about the classes of vehicles, such as delivery vans. We shall want to hear more about what constitutes a short journey—whether it is just around London, or whether it includes London to Brighton. We shall want to hear something more on the legal position of a driver in relation to his passengers. What is the driver to do if his passenger becomes unbelted? Is the driver to stop his car on a motorway? What is he to do? We shall look forward to hearing about matters like that in the regulations.
At the moment we have no less than four amendments dealing with the affirmative resolution procedure. Fortunately the Government, through the agency of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, have come up with a comprehensive amendment, following some alterations and no doubt some deep thought—I put it no stronger than that—on the matter.
The amendment to which I am speaking refers to classes of vehicles and to the regulations, and it seeks to limit the power of the Minister to extend compulsion. I am glad to say that all those points are now covered. Other noble Lords will have to say what they wish to do in regard to their amendments, but I am content to support my noble friend Lord Nugent, and I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment is not moved.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 21, line 35, at end insert—
("(4) The Secretary of State shall be empowered to arrange for compensation to be paid to any person driving or riding in a motor vehicle whose death or injury is caused by the wearing of a seat belt and where there are no rights to recover such compensation from any other person or organisation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 60, which empowers—I stress the word "empowers"—the Secretary of State,
"to arrange for compensation to be paid to any person driving or riding in a motor vehicle whose death or injury is caused by the wearing of a seat belt and where there are no rights to recover such compensation from any other person or organisation".
Let me explain the purpose behind the amendment. Never before in peacetime has Parliament considered forcing a citizen to put his life at risk—and by the term "peacetime" I do not include the late 'forties and the 'fifties when National Service was in operation.

787
It has been admitted that people are killed—all that is in dispute is the actual number—as a result of wearing seat belts or that lives are saved as a result of not wearing them. From the Opposition Benches we have heard much about anaesthetics, vaccination and immunisation. All these things are strongly urged upon people, but the whole point is that none of them is compulsory. The ultimate decision is left to the individual; he is not forced to avail himself of these things, no matter how urgent the promptings from members of the medical profession or others. So, in a sense, the measure that we are considering tonight is revolutionary and therefore requires revolutionary safeguards for the citizen. If the state is to force an individual to put his or her life at risk, the state should be prepared to compensate the individual if he or she suffers as a result of the compulsion.
I tabled a similar amendment at the Committee stage, but, due to pressure of time, it was not debated. That amendment effectively required the Secretary of State to arrange for compensation and it was suggested that there might be certain obstacles of a technical nature. I do not believe that that is so. Every single day the courts apportion blame, adjudicate and decide who is responsible for a given accident, and award compensation. The safeguard that I have built into the amendment is to empower the Secretary of State to arrange for compensation. If, in the event, it turns out to be technically impossible, then he is under no obligation to do so; but I am sure that if it were possible, if this amendment is agreed to by the House, he would wish to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I really do not think we add a great deal to the debate by indulging in extravagant language, and to say that the proposals are forcing citizens to put their lives at risk—really, my Lords! Anyhow, my note here says, so I will say, that the Government are wholly neutral on the issue of compulsory seat belt wearing itself, but we are not similarly neutral on this amendment, which we could not accept.
The arguments against the introduction of compulsory wearing of seat belts certainly include claims that there are occasional instances where a person may be worse off for wearing a seat belt. This has been said today, it was said on Second Reading and it has been said many times. But it is generally accepted that if there are such instances they are very heavily outweighed by the great bulk of instances in which wearing a belt reduces or prevents injury. It is even more generally accepted that it is the soundest of advice to drivers and front seat passengers to wear their belts at all times.
If Parliament decides to raise what is at present accepted to be sound advice to the status of a legal obligation, it will have done so after full consideration of all the relevant arguments, including the ones towhich I have just referred. In that event I can see no justification for imposing on the Exchequer an obligation to provide compensation if in a given case it were to be established that a person had in fact suffered through compliance with the law.
I say that as a point of principle. In practice, there would in any event be very great difficulties. The mere fact that a person was injured could not in itself on
788
any argument qualify him for compensation, since very many seat-belt wearers suffer injury and some, indeed, are killed, such is the severity of the accident in which they are involved, without there being any ground for suggesting that they would have been better off unbelted. Even to show that the injury was caused by the belt would not suffice, because it is still highly probable that without the belt worse injuries would have been suffered. So it would be necessary to demonstrate that the injuries he actually suffered were worse, to a measurable extent, than the notional injuries he would have suffered had he not been wearing a belt. It seems to me that in practice such a calculation would rarely, if ever, be capable of being proved. One could say much more on the philosophies of this, but I do not think it advances us very much so to do. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the number of cases where seat belts did good heavily outweighed the number of instances where they did harm. I have never denied this. None of us who are opposed to compulsion has ever denied this. The point that I made, which I do not think has really been taken in, is that this is the first instance in peace-time when the Government have compelled people to do something which may positively injure them. The fact that it may not happen very often makes no difference; it is a unique situation, and requires unique remedies, or, at any rate, unique safeguards by way of compensation.
The onus of proof would be on the person injured, or his next-of-kin if he or she were killed; it might well be difficult to prove, but it would be up to them. It is rather interesting to note that Sir George Young, a junior Minister in another place, said in a broadcast on 14th May:
"In the final analysis it is up to an individual to decide how much he drinks. Our task is to encourage"—
I emphasise the word "encourage"—
"a responsible approach".
What a pity that he was inconsistent (because he is a pro-compulsion person so far as seat belts are concerned) with regard to seat belts, given that smoking is statistically 83 times more dangerous than driving without a seat belt.
I think the public expect Parliament to protect their rights, and I therefore do not think that this amendment it should simply be withdrawn. It may be that not many of your Lordships will support me, in which case there will be no need to go into the Division Lobbies; but I, at any rate, do not feel inclined to withdraw this amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 60ZA:
Page 21, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) An offence under this section of this Act shall not attract penalty points nor involve obligatory or discretionary disqualification".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 60ZA, and, with the leave of the House, I will speak at the same time to No. 60ZB, which is an alternative. Again, Amendment 60ZA

789
was one of the amendments which drew a large response from those noble Lords I consulted on the matter, in the sense that they very strongly favoured it. Amendment No. 60ZB goes rather wider, and I can see that there might be a few objections to 60ZB which would not apply to 60ZA.
It is not the intention at the moment, I understand, either of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, or of the Government, that disqualification should be an incidental penalty for failing to wear a seat belt. Certainly the present Minister of Transport would never contemplate such a move. But we cannot, of course, know what future Ministers of Transport in perhaps a more extremist Government might not wish to do at some point; and, although it is always possible for a future Road Traffic Bill to be brought in which would effectively make the non-wearing of seat belts subject to penalty points and therefore ultimate disqualification, if this amendment were carried it would be necessary to delete this subsection and it would therefore come to the attention of Parliament in a way which merely slipping something surreptitiously into schedules would not ensure. It is therefore a safeguard, and I think a very necessary one.
I should like to point out that of the 14 European countries and Australian states from which I have details, in only three cases—that is, three Australian states—does the non-wearing of seat belts attract, or can attract, penalty points. But it does not do so in the rest of Australia, and it does not do so in any European country, whether within the EEC or outside it. As I say, I do not believe it is the intention of either the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and his friends or the Government as a whole that this should ever become a disqualification offence, but just to dot the i's and cross the t's I would be very glad if this amendment could be accepted.
As to Amendment 60ZB, this covers a slightly wider field and it would mean that each prosecution would stand entirely on its own without reference to any previous prosecutions. I personally prefer this, but I can see that it might be resisted: there might be some pro-compulsion people who would like previous offences of non-wearing of seat belts to be taken into account. Unless I were to get plenty of support on this I would not press it, but I do feel very strongly about Amendment No. 60ZA. I do not really see how anybody else could object to it, and I hope it will be accepted by the House.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, speaking first of all to Amendment No. 60ZA, I feel that this amendment has value only as a declaration of intent and, as such, would not be binding on successor Parliaments. If Parliament subsequently should decide that it wished to make the offence of failing to wear a belt simply one for disqualification and points, it could do so by primary legislation—which would also delete this amendment. This amendment would not have any impact on subordinate legislation, as we shall not have the power under Clause 19 to add offences to the schedule of those attracting points. Furthermore, the Secretary of State has no power to make an offence subject to penalty points or disqualification by regulation. Therefore, there really is nothing on which
790
this amendment would bite. It really does not come off the ground, if I can put it that way.
As for Amendment No. 60ZB, again I cannot see the purpose of the amendment. I doubt whether it would achieve a great deal. That is why we cannot support it. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, made was a fair one. This was when he was talking about one offence and then of subsequent offences, and so on. Certainly that is what happens in practice. I should have thought that was the proper way to proceed.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, says but not with his conclusion. He rightly says that it will require primary legislation to remove such a subsection and this, of course, could be enacted. He also said that this proposed subsection would be a declaration of intent; but what is a declaration of intent? It shows what is Parliament's intention at the time that the Bill is enacted and it would be taken into consideration by future Parliaments when they come to look at these things and decide what is to be done, whether this offence or that might become a disqualification or a penalty-points offence in future. If it is written into the Bill, as I believe it should be, it will be just that little harder for a future Parliament to remove it. The attention of noble Lords and of honourable Members of another place will be drawn to it specifically, otherwise it would be less certain. If it were not written into the Bill, it could be rushed through without very many people noticing. I think this is an important point. As I said, about 90 per cent. of noble Lords who wrote to me were strongly in favour of this one. I think that I would be doing them an injustice if I withdrew it. I therefore do not intend to do so.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 60BZ not moved.]
Clause 28 [Restrictions on carrying children in the front of motor vehicles]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 60A:
Page 21, line 36, after ("inserted") insert (", after the section inserted by section 27,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may speak also to Amendment No. 60B, these are minor technical amendments ensuring that we do not put two clauses, numbered 33A, into the Road Traffic Act 1972. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 60B:
Page 21, line 38, leave out ("33A") and insert ("33B").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, if Amendment No. 61 is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 61A.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 61A:
Page 21, line 44, leave out from ("regulations") to end of line 1 on page 22.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, In moving this amendment, I will, if I may, speak also to Amendments 62A and 62C. Your Lordships will recall that, during the Committee stage of this Bill, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, moved an amendment designed to enable children under the age of one year to travel in the front of vehicles. I gave an undertaking to bring this amendment back on Report with the drafting checked. These amendments are the result. They will enable the Secretary of State to specify the kind of device in which children may travel if the driver wants them to be in the front of the car.
Our intention is that we shall specify that the under one year-olds must use prescribed devices, and these will be ones appropriate to their physical condition—that is, their size and their inability to sit up. For children over one we shall prescribe the various kinds of restraints including the adult seat belt that may be used and it will he for the parents to decide which is appropriate to their particular needs. We shall, of course, also be issuing guidance to parents on the types of restraint which appear to offer the best protection to children of various ages and sizes. However, there would clearly be very great problems on enforcement if we were to insist on children over one wearing only the restraints most appropriate for their age, size and weight. I might add that there are a growing number of child restraints on the market which are suitable for children of various ages and sizes. No one restraint is ideally suited or adjustable for all children, but between them they cater for all ages and sizes. The manufacturers are of course, primarily concerned with promoting the safety of the child but they are also very much aware that an uncomfortable child will not want to be restrained. They therefore pay great attention to comfort, and restraints are increasingly being upholstered, or lined with sheepskin et cetera.
I am glad to see that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is able to be with us. There was one point where she was not likely to be so, and I wrote to her and told her that we should honour our undertaking. In moving this amendment, I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 52B and 62F. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the immense amount of time and trouble he has taken over this group of amendments, which I feel sure will do a lot to ease the problems of young mothers. This includes writing me a letter which the Post Office failed to deliver and talking to me on the telephone at some length.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 62A, 62B and 62C:
Page 22, line 6, leave out ("the driving of") and insert ("children of any prescribed description,")
Page 22, line 15, after ("children") insert ("of any prescribed description")
Page 22, line 20, leave out from ("includes") to end of line 21 and insert ("any description of restraining device for a child and any reference to wearing a seat belt shall be construed accordingly").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 62A, 62B and 62C, and perhaps I may move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 62D:
Page 22, line 23, leave out ("33") and insert ("33A").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 62A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 62E and 62F:
Page 22, line 25, column 1, leave out ("33A") and insert ("33B")
Page 22, line 27, column 2, leave out ("or under the age of one year").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 63:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Facilitating overtaking
. On a single carriageway road any vehicle which by reason of its speed or by reason of any state of driving causes to collect behind it five or more other vehicles shall at the first suitable opportunity draw in and if necessary stop in order to allow the following vehicles to overtake.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendments standing in my name. I remember when I went first into the other place a late Member saying to me, "You will sweat blood and tears all day working on your speech and then when you make it, you will look round and see your best friends leaving the House". I do not even have a noble Lord behind me at the moment—and I have waited here all day. I should like to say that I put this in the road safety part of the Bill because it is a safety amendment and an important one.
About 36 years ago, I was in California studying forestry, going into an area in a coach with a party on a not particularly winding road. I sat by the driver. After a few miles he drew into the side of the road to let cars pass him. When he did it a second time, a few miles further on, I said to him, "That was a nice gesture" He said, "Gesture be damned! It is a by-law in California". That was at that time. Since then the vehicle population in this country has grown and grown. During this period I have seen all over the country slow vehicles holding up traffic and causing frustration. I am sure there is hardly a motorist in your Lordships' House who has not been held up in this way and who has not ultimately (if he has had an appointment that he cannot afford to miss) taken risks to get past and taken risks later by going faster to reach his destination. There have been accidents and I live in an area where there are the kind of roads that I have described—single track roads—and we get this situation quite often.
As the years have gone on and I saw this happening, I wrote to three Ministers of Transport. The first was to Mrs. Barbara Castle. I got a dusty answer from her, probably because she did not drive a car. Then I wrote to John Peyton. I think that the officials simply looked up the answer that I received from Mrs. Castle and changed the top and tail because it was

793
practically the same. The third time, in 1976, I received a little better change out of the Minister, then John Gilbert. What I should like to do is make what John Gilbert wrote to me mandatory. It was:
"In the proposed new Highway Code, which was published last year as a green paper, we are going to insert the following: on narrow or winding roads or where there is a lot of oncoming traffic drivers of large or slow moving vehicles should be prepared to pull in and slow down or stop as soon as a suitable opportunity occurs to do so to give faster vehicles a chance to overtake".
That was put into the Highway Code. I wonder how many of your Lordships have seen it or taken a note of it. That was in 1976 and I have seen no improvement whatsoever in the driving of slow vehicles. I have many farm tractors on the road myself and all my men are instructed to carry out what I am proposing today. I am thinking of heavy vehicles such as diggers and so on. I see no improvement at all since this matter was put in the Highway Code in 1976 or 1977. That is why I should like to make this point mandatory.
The objections I received from the various letters from the Ministers of Transport were mainly two: nowhere to draw in and one could not enforce it. I have never heard anything so stupid in all my life! I have recently taken a look at the situation on the roads I am talking about. I live just off the road between Harlow and Waltham Abbey. Between the end of my road and Waltham Abbey I have counted a number of places where a big heavy vehicle could draw in on either side of the road. There are four on one side and five on the other. Where any slow moving vehicle, like a farm tractor or a digger, could draw in there are 11 on one side and 13 on the other. I drove to Stoneleigh the other day to the Royal Show. As my wife does not like motorways, I took the byways. I amused myself counting these places and there was a place every mile and sometimes less. It was ridiculous that the advisers to the three Ministers could not have tried to look at the situation.
With regard to the point that it could not be enforced, think of all the stealing that goes on or think of the number of murderers who go free! How do you enforce speed limits? There are policemen with cars and so on. If one wants to enforce it one can do so. I have been sufficiently enraged that I have wanted to stop a driver and enforce it. it is quite ridiculous that one cannot enforce something like this.
I have talked to hundreds if not thousands of people about this and I have never heard anybody who would not agree with it. It can be done. There is nothing political about it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, must accept it and make it mandatory. I have therefore much pleasure in moving my amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, may I briefly support the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie? I live in a part of the country where it is difficult to pass on the roads. They are narrow, but there are passing places. I see the point and entirely agree with it. I commend it to my noble friend as something which could be reasonably accepted, particularly as we understand that it is already in the Highway Code. But it needs to be in the statute because then people will pay attention.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us how on earth anyone could enforce this. Which motorist is going to stop the vehicle and say, "Move over"? I should like to know.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I think I said how it could be done. If there is a police car on the road—and there has to be a police car on the road before you can get speed limits enforced—and so on, just the same as any other law is enforced. If there are people there willing to report, you do not necessarily need to pass the people; you take the number of the vehicle. There are a hundred ways that you can report something and enforce it.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I think everyone would sympathise with the problem which the noble Lord has raised. I should have thought that just about everyone who drives a car has at one time or another felt so frustrated at being in this situation, many many times, if it comes to that. So there is no lack of sympathy with the philosophy that the noble Lord has expressed, I would certainly hasten to assure him of that. But while I can understand the intention, the problem is in being able to accept his solution.
We control road traffic partly by laying down laws which must be obeyed and partly by providing advice which should be followed as a matter of good practice. We do so on the basis that movement by road is too complicated to try to control it by law in minute detail. To try to do so would be self-defeating and succeed only in bringing the law into disrepute. That is why a great many matters are covered not by law but by the Highway Code. I suggest that this is one of them. Rule 41 of the code states,
"On narrow or winding roads, or where there is a lot of oncoming traffic, drivers of large or slow moving vehicles should be prepared to pull in, and slow down or stop, as soon as there is a suitable opportunity to do so, to give faster vehicles a chance to overtake".
This seems to me to say very much the same thing as the noble Lord's new clause. But, if the noble Lord still maintains that inclusion of such a provision in the Highway Code does not go far enough, I would say three things. First, I think it is taking us into an undesirable area because we could no doubt find people who would like each of the other 184 rules in the Highway Code to be made into a specific law.
Secondly, because no penalty is provided, I doubt if the new clause would have any stronger effect than the code itself. The rules in the code do not of course have the force of law but Section 37 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 states as follows:
"A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under this Act, the Road Traffic Act 1960 or the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or to negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings".
Lastly, I believe that the clause as drafted would give rise to so many difficulties of interpretation for drivers and the police as to create as many problems as it might be expected to solve. What for instance does "any state of driving" really mean? So while indeed

795
sympathising very much—who would not, having been on the receiving end of what the noble Lord mentions?—I fear I cannot undertake to take it further and I hope that he will not think too badly of yet another Minister who says something not too unlike what he has been hearing for so many years now.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I have every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, but I also feel, with my noble friend Lady Macleod, that enforcement would be extremely difficult. My experience of country roads is that the worst trouble is caused by tractors. The other day I was held up for a long way by a tractor which had gone into town and was bringing back a load of fertiliser on a trailer. That is against the law. But I do not think it could be enforced there. How is it to be enforced?
I do have one suggestion to make, which is that if the noble Lord feels as strongly as he seems to, he might consider asking the NFU or the agricultural magazines, and so on, to highlight a request on the following lines: "Please, tractors, be sensible; draw in and let people go past!".
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is very persuasive and very nice, but he has not really satisfied me. It is the same old story. I am no lawyer and I took this almost word for word from the Highway Code, in order to get my drafting as good as possible. The words "any state of driving" have nothing to do with an offence. It is simply a case of having five cars behind him. I am thinking particularly of people on a narrowish road, who believe that nobody has any right to go faster than about 25 mph and who say, "You can jolly well follow me, and like it or lump it". So I do not think that that is good argument.
I am amazed that people say that something cannot be enforced. There are so many laws in this country which are not enforced, and this would be so much easier to enforce than a lot of others. The numbers who exceed the speed limit must be legion, compared with those whose cases are taken up. So the argument that this cannot be done is not a good one. I shall not push the amendment, but if, in three years' time, I do not see an improvement, I shall be back. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 9 [Consequential and minor amendments of Road Traffic Act 1972 and section 56 of Criminal Justice Act 1967]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 69:
Page 75, line 20, after ("and") insert ("penalty")
Page 75, line 27, at end insert ("penalty")
Page 75, line 29, after ("or") insert ("penalty")
Page 75, line 31, after ("any") insert ("penalty")
Page 75, line 34, after ("or") insert ("penalty")
Page 75, line 36, after ("or") insert ("penalty").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are all for the same reason that I gave in respect of Amendment No. 14. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendments Nos. 69A and 69B:
Page 76, line 51, after ("12(2)") insert (", 33A").
Page 77, line 1, leave out ("or 12(2)") and insert (", 12(2) or 33A").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these two amendments to the schedule will have the effect of making all regulations affecting Clause 27, which is the compulsory seat belt clause, subject to affirmative resolution. I should just say one word in defence of my noble friend, in answer to the powerful attack which was launched on him by my noble friend Lord Balfour, who told my noble friend that this is a bad Bill because it makes no provision for affirmative resolutions on this matter. I should remind my noble friend Lord Balfour that the Government are innocent, because they did not put the clause into the Bill. We have put the clause into the Bill.
I could be held guilty of not putting down an additional amendment providing for affirmative resolution. I did not do so, because it seemed a rather clumsy affair and I thought, "Let's get the principle settled first". But in my private Bill which I moved in the House last December, I had provision, as my noble friend Lord Balfour will remember, for affirmative resolution. So that is the way in which the matter evolved. Therefore, the Government must be held innocent and I hope that they will, at least, be found relatively innocent.
The way in which this works is that the amendments will amend Section 199 of the 1972 Act, which governs Clause 33 and, therefore, Clause 33A now, which is the compulsory seat belt clause. Section 199 provides in subsection (3) for the negative procedure and in subsection (4) for the affirmative procedure. The effect of these two amendments to the schedule will be to remove this part from subsection (3) and to put it into subsection (4), so that all regulations which are to be made in this respect will have to be affirmative. That is rather a layman's explanation. They are not the kind of elegant words which the parliamentary draftsman would prefer for what he regards as an elegant bit of work, but I think that that gives the sense of it. I know that it fulfils the wish of the whole House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it is only fair to say that one is indebted to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. However, as the amendment appeared only this afternoon, one might ask him why he took the advice of the Government—he may prefer to ask our noble friend the Minister—to go through this rigmarole to achieve what we are all—namely, the five of us who put down amendments in so far as the affirmative resolution is concerned—looking for rather than accept the more simple Amendment No. 71—
A noble Lord: Or 55.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, Amendment No. 55 is rather narrower than Amendment No. 71 which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I put down. I am sure he

797
would not tell us anything which was not the case, so I am prepared to accept what my noble friend Lord Bellwin said at the beginning of today's debates, what he said in private conversation yesterday, and also what his noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said in private conversation some three days before: that this will meet the requirement. However, it appeared in print only at about 2.30 this afternoon. Therefore, as I am not a parliamentary draftsman, nor even a lawyer but am advised by other people, although I accept totally and with grateful thanks what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said in moving the amendment, I have to say that I must reserve the right to come back at Third Reading if it does not do every single thing which my Amendment No. 71 sets out to do.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the reason why this amendment was acceptable to the Government and why the other amendments were not acceptable was because they were defective, in that they did not remove 33A from the negative procedure. Therefore, it would have been subject to both the affirmative and the negative procedures. That is why this amendment is acceptable.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, with the leave of the House may I briefly explain to my noble friend that I have not been quite so guilty as he makes out? My first shot at this was to put down the same clause as was contained in my private Bill, which applied affirmative resolutions to only part of the provisions in Clause 27. When my attention was called to this point, I proceeded to amend that new clause. Whenever one amends a new clause which was originally drafted by parliamentary draftsmen, inevitably one gets it wrong. So parliamentary draftsmen found fault with it.
That amendment appeared yesterday morning, Tuesday, on the Marshalled List and therefore it had to be removed. With great speed we got out this new amendment, and it was on the Marshalled List first thing this morning. It was put down overnight. I agree that it was very short notice, but that is the explanation. I am sure my noble friend would agree that, if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has any misgivings when he has had a further chance to study it, he can certainly come back at Third Reading.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, having got over the technicalities, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for adding this clause and for giving us the affirmative resolution to support his particular amendment, with which I do not agree. However, it has given us a good chance to have a bash at it again later on. I thank my noble friend very much.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 77, line 14, at end insert ("and in the fifth and sixth columns of the entry there are inserted respectively" Discretionary" and "Obligatory").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Commencement of Part IV]:
[Amendment No. 71 not moved]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 23, line 12, at end insert—
("(3) A Consultative document or "Green Paper" explaining the intentions of the Secretary of State for Transport concerning the statutory requirements to wear seat belts shall be submitted to each House of Parliament at least three months before an order is made to bring into force the provisions of section 27 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment standing also in the names of my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I want to say that we understood earlier this afternoon that my noble friend the Minister was kindly disposed towards what lies behind the amendment. Briefly—I do want to be brief—we discussed some facts and some figures during the Committee stage and my noble friend was rather bereft of information at that time with relation to results in other countries. We have moved on; we have had discussions about the Adams thesis, about what seat belts do and do not do; we have had a number of discussions from this side of the House with members of the medical profession and I may refer to the remarks made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, with regard to my comments about the British Medical Association and doctors. In fact, I think the noble Lord misunderstood me.
We come then to a mass of regulations which are going to be laid before Parliament. We are coming to a totally new kind of law that some people—and I am one of them—call an infringement of liberty. I believe that because of the general position with regard to relationships between police and people which can and do spill over to relations between police and motorists, it is vitally important that the public are made fully aware of what the Government's intentions are and how they arrive at those intentions. I do not believe it is good enough to pass a law and leave it at that. I believe it is necessary that they provide a consultative document. We have to remind ourselves, my Lords, that the last document on seat belt wearing was produced during the reign, as it were, of Mr. Peyton, the Minister of Transport, back in the 'seventies. There has been no other governmental document of a consultative nature setting out proposals. There have been a number of Private Members' Bills and I believe it is necessary to ensure that the people are carried with the law, when it becomes law.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, spoke about enforcement. The compulsory wearing of seat belts will only be enforced by self-enforcement. Therefore, everybody has to know all about it and everybody has to accept the general principles, which I believe can only be outlined in a consultative document. Therefore, I believe it is incumbent upon the Government to produce such a document at such a time, prior to regulations being laid before Parliament, so that all parties and the public at large have a chance to make comments. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, if I might support my noble friend's amendment, to which my name is also added, as I understand it perhaps the sense of this amendment will be accepted by the Minister but not the text. When he comes to take note of the text, I do not agree with one feature of it which says three months' warning. I think we must give the public more than that. Three months would be fine if you were dealing with the likes of us or trade associations or people like that, but the public is going to need more time to absorb this. It is quite a draconian imposition on them, whatever you may think. I think they are going to have to get settled down to it and know what is in mind in good time. So I should like to suggest to my noble friend the Minister that six months would be a better figure when he comes to think it all out.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I have my name on the next amendment, and as my noble friend Lord Mottistone has mentioned six months, I would add my general support to this amendment.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it seems to me that through all these debates Ministers only have half an idea of the difficulties of enforcement. Of course, it is going to be difficult for them to discover what these problems are in this country, because we have, naturally, this distinction between the legislature and the executive. If they are in any doubt about the problems which are going to arise, I suggest that our Ministers should swallow their pride—because it will be very difficult to get any police force in England to agree with them about this and furthermore they will of course be easy to identify—and should go to the capital of one of our neighbouring countries and go out with the police where this legislation is now in effect. They should be taken out and shown the difficulties on the ground. At the present moment in this country, it is not possible to do that because the law is not yet in operation. I have a little practical experience behind me in saying this, and I am certain that there is a great deal of difference between imagining what happens and what happens in practice.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I had been given the impression that this amendment was acceptable, unlike the impression gained by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I think he is wrong, if I may say so, in his criticism of the three months period set out in the amendment. The three months period is only the period during which Parliament can study the
800
regulations. There is nothing to stop the Minister subsequently allowing a period of grace after the regulations are voted upon before bringing the law into operation. I think it is vital to have this amendment, whether it is acceptable as it is, which I hope, or whether the noble Lord will produce something very like it. We have had a full discussion tonight, but, as always, the proceedings of this House do not get very widely reported. A lot of the discussion has taken place after the papers have gone to bed and so on. It may be that the other place does not always take all that much note of what we say. A lot of cogent points have been made from all sides, I think not enough to make it unnecessary for some Green Paper or consultative document to be produced at a later stage. I hope very much this amendment will be acceptable.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as one of the very few speakers completely in favour of the seat belt clause, may I say that I support the principle of this. All the way through I have taken the view that the more consultations there are with all the bodies concerned, and so long as there is the affirmative procedure for the regulations, I believe a lot of the criticism can be allayed. Therefore, if the Government can see their way clear, if not to accept this amendment at least to accept the spirit of it, I think it would help towards that.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do not want to go over this again. I would only be repeating exactly what I said earlier. The amendment needs checking and altering for drafting purposes. Although we think it adds little to what we would do anyway, nevertheless we have no objection in principle, and we will bring it back in a form which I am sure will be acceptable to all those in favour of it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I do not think I shall adopt the same principle that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, adopted in having your Lordships accept his amendment requiring the Government to amend it later. I think I would sooner rely on my noble friend's assurance that he will propose something next week at Third Reading which will meet the principle contained in the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Schedule 10 [Road humps]:
9.50 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 78, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) Elsewhere than in the area of Greater London a highway authority shall exercise its authority in accordance with subsection (1) above only after consultation with the relevant district council.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage I proposed that a county council, which is the highway authority outside Greater London, should not proceed with a road hump without the agreement of the relevant council. It was pointed out to me by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, that a highway authority had statutory responsibilities and that a district council could not possibly have the power of veto on this matter any more than it had power of veto on any other road safety or highway matter. The noble Earl in a letter kindly confirmed that in greater detail.
It was on the basis of that criticism that I withdrew the amendment, but it still remains that the construction of a road hump is very much a local matter. Ministers in the other place accepted that it was a local matter. They hoped that the initiative would come from district councils. All that I am providing for in the amendment is that before a highway authority outside Greater London proceeds with the construction of a road hump, it shall consult the relevant district council.
I know that it may be argued that that sort of consultation is inevitable. But if we look even through the present Bill we find that there are a number of clauses where there is provision laid in the Bill for consultation with a particular organisation. I believe that in this case, seeing that everyone agrees that a road hump is a local matter, there ought to be laid in the Bill this mandatory requirement for a county council to have consultation with the relevant district council before it proceeds, even recognising that the county council has the right of the last decision. I bee to move.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in this amendment. The noble Lord emphasised that it is the local authority's business to see that they are right. I would like to emphasise the point which I made on Second Reading and refer your Lordships to page 79, Clause 90C(1)(b) where it says that there are also:
"other persons or bodies as may be described by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
It is important, I think, that when local authorities are considering the position, in the form and so on of road humps, there should be proper attention paid to the representation of bodies concerned with it. The same applies to page 80 and Clause 90D(3) where it says:
"such representative organisations as he thinks fit".
Again, as regards Scotland I would refer your Lordships to page 82 which is Schedule 10, paragraph 6(1)(b), where it says:
802
"such other persons or bodies as may be prescribed by regulations".
I would also refer your Lordships to the top of page 83. I urge that care is taken that when the design, positioning and maintenance and so on, of road humps are taken in hand, authorities such as the Pedestrians' Association should be consulted by the local people before the design is settled.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, it is nice to be talking about road humps again across the Floor of the House after spending a few hours on seat belts. It is also nice once again to be against the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, although I am sorry that my persuasive powers both in speech and in letter have not yet persuaded him to drop this particular point.
My noble friend Lord Ferrier made the point very well as to why we do not need this amendment. He referred to those places in the Bill where it says, in point of fact, that the Secretary of State will discuss these matters with these bodies. It does not spell out the district councils as such because, as I have tried to say before, once we start trying to spell out one body which has to be consulted we have to list them all. We think that it is much better to leave it in the way in which it is drafted at present.
We have debated the question of consultation a number of times and I really have considered most carefully the arguments of those who favour spelling out in the main legislation the person or bodies who should be consulted about proposals to instal road humps. But the provisions for consultation contained in Clause 90C or Schedule 10 empower the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations the persons or bodies who should be considered. These provisions are modelled on the precedent established in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 for traffic regulation orders. The provisions of that Act, like the provisions of Schedule 10, impose a main legislation consultation requirement only in respect of the police, and provide for other persons or bodies who should be consulted to be specified—and here is the point—in regulations made by the Secretary of State. They have been shown in practice to be adequate and acceptable, and, since the considerations likely to arise in connection with road humps are very similar to those arising in connection with, for instance, one-way traffic or parking restrictions, it seems entirely appropriate to follow the 1967 Act precedent. I have said before that the Government see no reason to vary long-established precedents in respect of road humps, and this is still the opinion of the Government.
The contents of the regulations will themselves be the subject of consultation with representative organisations—once again, Clause 90C(6) requires this to be done. The Association of District Councils will be among those consulted and it will have every opportunity to express its views as to who should be given, in the regulations, a prescriptive right to be consulted about road hump proposals. So, equally, it comes upwards from the Association of District Councils just as much as downwards. I might add that the Association of District Councils itself has never asked for district councils to be given a main legislation right

803
to be consulted on hump proposals. This may well be because it knows it will be consulted on the draft regulations, in the usual way.
My Lords, I hope that this explanation makes it clear that there is simply no need and no justification for singling out district councils on the one hand and road humps on the other for special and unique treatment by inserting a right to be consulted on hump proposals. They know that they will be consulted, through their association, about the contents of the regulations, including the consultation provisions. I hope that this will perhaps persuade the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the point is covered in this legislation, and that he will not press his amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, 1 am grateful to the noble Earl for the various assurances that he has given. It is always interesting that, when I look at the actual wording of the Bill, I find in Schedule 10:
"the chief officer of police for the area in which the highway concerned is situated"
shall be consulted. One would have thought that one could have slipped in there:
"the chief officer of police and the relevant district authority".
That would have cleared the matter quite satisfactorily. Nevertheless, I accept the assurances given and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 83, line 32, at end insert—
("(5) In this paragraph and in paragraphs 8 and 9(1) below, and without prejudice to paragraph 9(2) below, the expression "highway" includes any road over which the public have a right of way.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment defines "highway" to include any road over which the public have a right of way. As drafted, at present these paragraphs would permit road humps to be constructed in Scotland only on roads which are maintainable by a highway authority. In England and Wales they can be constructed under new Section 90E, inserted into the Highways Act 1980 by the Bill, on highways not maintainable at the public expense. This amendment rectifies the anomaly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 83, line 34, leave out ("constructed under paragraph 4 or 5").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is part of the same group. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 83, line 35, after ("and") insert (", in the case of a road hump constructed under paragraph 4 or 5 above,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is part of the same group. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 83, line 39, leave out ("the highway authority") and insert ("any person").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is part of the same group. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 83, line 46, leave out ("mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)") and insert ("applicable in the case of a road hump constructed under paragraph 4 or 5 above").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this, too, is part of the same group. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 26, line 8, at end insert ("and the sums so determined shall be such as appear to the council to be sufficient in the aggregate to cover in whole or in part—

(a) the reasonable cost of the carrying out by or on behalf of the district council of inspections of hackney carriages for the purpose of determining whether any such licence should be granted or renewed;

(b) the reasonable cost of providing hackney carriage stands; and

(c) any reasonable administrative or other costs in connection with the foregoing and with the control and supervision of hackney carriages.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall, with the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to some extent cover his Amendment No. 81 when speaking to Amendment No. 80. During the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke very movingly on behalf of the provincial taxi trade. He explained its anxieties and its difficulties when confronted with a licence fee which it considers unduly large. The Government agreed to look again at the provision which will empower district councils to charge economic taxi licence fees. In particular, we undertook to consider making it explicit on the face of the Bill that the level of such fees may only be such as is necessary for the district council to recover its reasonable costs. That is the purpose of the Government amendment now before us.
May I explain a bit further? The days when hackney carriages were licensed in order to raise revenue for the Government have long since disappeared. Licensing now exists to protect the taxi-using public from unsafe vehicles and unsavoury drivers. While it is clearly right that the taxi-user should pay for this, there can be no question of the licensing authority being allowed to make a profit. My Lords, I believe that any authority making a profit could be successfully challenged in the courts on the grounds that it was acting ultra vires. Nevertheless, because of the fears that have been expressed, I propose to put the matter beyond doubt. The amendment therefore makes it clear that a district council may not charge a taxi licence fee greater than is necessary to recover the reasonable costs of inspection, administration and supervision and of providing taxi ranks.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would like to go further. In particular, he wanted some form of appeal to an independent arbitrator. This has been looked at very carefully since we discussed

805
it in Committee. The arguments put forward by the noble Lord have been considered but I regret that I cannot accept them. I shall not delay your Lordships by repeating what was said in Committee. I point out merely that this question must be considered in the context of the Government's overall policy of freeing local authorities from unnecessary restrictions. The whole purpose of this clause is to remove such restrictions. There would be little value in doing that merely to reimpose others.
My Lords, I am conscious of the fears of the provincial taxi trade that they will be unable effectively to challenge an unreasonable licence fee. Nevertheless, the Government believe these fears to be unjustified. As was said in Committee, the Government are sure that if the trade is aggrieved it will have no hesitation and no difficulty in making its views known to the council. As has already been said, it may appeal to the courts. It may also approach the district auditor, whose duty it is to verify that, when a local authority compiles its accounts, different sections of the public who may be affected by them have been fairly treated. Any local government elector whose interests were affected by the level of a licence fee could challenge the local authority's accounts at audit. The auditor would be obliged to hear him, to establish how the costs compared with the fees charged and, if he found the latter excessive, to report to the local authority. If the authority then declined to reduce its fees, the applicant would have all the necessary material for a strong case in the courts. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, this amendment will be welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and also to the whole House. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I fully agree that it is desirable to debate my Amendment No. 81 along with Government Amendment No. 80. As has been pointed out, the Minister undertook to take a look at the clause and to ensure that excessive fees should not be charged by a local authority, and I am grateful that we have this amendment before us. But I notice that the wording of the amendment, except for four words at the end, is exactly the same wording as appears in Section 70 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. It is that wording which is causing difficulty with the taxi trade, and about which they have been complaining.
We have the word "reasonable". We had a discussion this afternoon as to what "reasonable" is. The taxi trade can find great difficulty in getting information from a local authority as to whether their charges are reasonable by asking them for a breakdown of the costs, and district authorities have refused to give that information. I remind the House of what I said at Committee; I have a copy of a letter with me now from a district authority, which I shall not name, refusing point blank to give the information. So if a local authority does not give the information it is going to be extremely difficult for any representatives of the taxi trade to find out whether or not the charges being made are reasonable in the light of these three provisions in the amendment. Naturally, I shall not oppose the amendment, because it is a step in the right direction, but it does not really take us any further unless there are provisions for appeal.
806
I reminded noble Lords in Committee—and this is the point of my Amendment No. 81—that there should be some appeal over an objection to the district council, because the district council is the body which is to lay down the fee, and therefore the taxi trade must appeal to the very body which is laying down the new fee. Even if the Government feel they cannot go beyond that—and we are suggesting in this amendment not the traffic commissioners, as on the last occasion; I accept the criticism about that—is it not a fact that there should be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, who should arrange for independent arbitration?
But even if the Government cannot move in that direction, may I ask the noble Earl to say what will happen to the quite large number of district authorities who are working under the 1847 legislation? We are not saying there should not be an increase in licence fees, because the present fee in those cases is trivial, but for those operating under the 1847 Act there is no right of objection or right of appeal anywhere, not even to the district council, so the 1847 authorities will be left high and dry compared with those operating under the 1976 legislation. While my amendment asks that in both of those cases there should be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, if the Minister feels he cannot accept that, I would ask the Government at least to bring the 1847 authorities up to the same position as the 1976 ones, inadequate though that may be.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, about the 1847 authorities. I should like to look into that and I shall of course read with interest in Hansard his comments on the subject. We believe that district auditors are the body who can force district councils to provide the information. If the noble Lord will give me the information he has, I will follow it up to see whether or not in fact it works. That is probably the easiest way of seeing whether or not the pudding is proved.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 82:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
("Grants to assist the provision of facilities for freight haulage by inland waterway
.—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that it would be in the interests of any locality or of all or some of its inhabitants for facilities to be provided in that locality or elsewhere for or in connection with the carriage of freight by inland waterway or the loading or unloading of freight carried or intended to be carried by inland waterway, he may make grants in accordance with this section towards the provision of such facilities.
(2) Grants under this section shall be made towards capital expenditure which is to be incurred in providing such facilities, and the facilities may, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, include cargo carrying craft, inland waterway terminals, depots, access roads and equipment for use in connection with the carriage, loading or unloading of freight.
(3) Grants under this section shall be made in pursuance of an application made to the Secretary of State by the person who intends to provide the facilities and shall be supported by evidence that the Navigation Authority have given that person their approval for the provision by him of the facilities to which the application relates.
(4) The Secretary of State may, in making a grant under this section, impose such terms and conditions as he thinks fit.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will not go into the details of this, but only comment that what we are asking for here is that there should be the same permission to the Secretary of State to give grants for freight facilities on inland waterways as is now provided for the railways under Clause 8. Everybody seems to feel that this is desirable and the Minister has kindly intimated to me, on behalf of the Government, that he is prepared to accept the amendment. With the permission of the House, therefore, I will not go into the detail of the matter but merely thank the Government for meeting us on this important point. In making those comments I have been speaking also to Amendment No. 89.
Lord Ferrier: I support the amendment wholeheartedly, my Lords, because it is important, in view of our channel tunnel problems, that the inland waterways of this country should be expanded to the utmost so that in the years to come, long before any Channel tunnel is built, there will be pick-a-back arrangements so that British barges can go to Bulgaria via the Rhine and Danube.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if it is, as I know it is, the wish of your Lordships that this clause be added to the Bill, the Government will gladly accept it and will further ensure that an appropriate Money Resolution is moved in another place. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, my noble friend Lord Ferrier and others who have brought forward this very constructive provision, which we are glad to accept.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 83:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Fires caused by railway engines
.—(1) In section 1 of the Railway Fires Act 1905 (liability of railway companies to make good damage to crops caused by their engines) at the end of subsection (3) there are inserted the words 'or such greater sum as may for the time being be prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State'; and after that subsection there is inserted the following subsection—
'(3A) An order under subsection (3) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
(2) In section 2 of the Railway Fires Act (1905) Amendment Act 1923 the words 'not exceeding the said sum of two hundred pounds' are hereby repealed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I will, with permission, take at the same time the consequentials, Amendments Nos. 85, 86 and 87. The House will recall that in Committee on 11th June, the Government accepted in principle a new clause tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth amending the Railway Fires Acts. I mentioned then the need for some redrafting. This has been provided for by the new clause now before your Lordships. The clause would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe by statutory instrument the limit of compensation which railway companies are liable to pay without proof of negligence—what one might call "the limit of absolute liability"—for damage to agricultural land or crops by fires caused by sparks from railway engines.
I should like to re-emphasise something which I said in Committee—that the Railway Fires Acts do not confer privileges on railway companies. On the contrary, they limit the extent to which a company might successfully plead immunity from liability from fires on the grounds of their statutory authority to operate a railway. In effect the Railway Fires Acts invalidates such a plea in cases where claims for damages do not exceed a specified sum—at present £200. Proof of negligence would be expected in support of claims beyond that amount.
I am sure we all fully sympathise with landowners who lose their crops through fires caused by railway engines. I know that the problem is not nationwide but this is of no comfort to those who are affected, and the problem is gradually growing as the number of preserved railways increases year by year. I believe that we all recognise that a limit of £200, which dates from 1923, is now completely inappropriate. In fact—as I recall that I said in Committee—that limits present-day equivalent would be of the order of £2,800. But if we inserted such a figure into the Acts it might become out of date within the next few years, and we could find ourselves in a situation similar to that in which we find ourselves today. Therefore, the Government welcome the proposal by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth that in future the amount should be prescribed by order by the Secretary of State. However, in our clause we have provided that the statutory instrument should be subject to negative resolution in either House instead of being subject to affirmative resolution in either House (which would be unusual) as has been suggested by my noble friend. In addition we have applied the provision to Northern Ireland. The other amendments, as I have said, are simply consequentials.
The new clause enables the existing figure of £200 for "absolute liability" to be retained until the Secretary of State prescribes a new figure. It would, of course, be premature to raise the figure immediately, because consultation with interested bodies on what the new figure ought to be will be needed—but we do not expect that that consultation will take very long. The Department of Transport was in touch with interested parties last year on this matter and we envisage that, since this subject will be by no means new to those bodies, they may be able either to confirm the views that they expressed not so long ago or to update them quite quickly should they feel this to be necessary. The Government consider that the new clause and amendments offer a sensible solution to a long-standing and awkward problem. We are extremely grateful to my noble friend and I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it would be churlish if I did not express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale for setting down this amendment. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord for his letter of 23rd June, following the short debate on this matter at Committee stage. During that debate my noble friend accepted the principle that he has just reiterated, and as he so rightly said, he agreed that the figure of £200 at today's value was worth something like £2,800. However, at Committee stage there was no suggestion that the defects in my amendment included that of

809
putting in a figure. Indeed, in the letter which my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has written to me, he states:
"You will see that they leave the existing figure of £200 but include provision to increase that sum by order, subject to negative resolution. It would, of course, be premature to raise the figure in the new clause as consultation would be necessary before the order is made, but that should not take long".
I am not going to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I shall remind your Lordships that I have notes here that go back some time. One of them goes back to the 18th October 1955; another to 20th March 1956. I have letters from all the years since then and more particularly from this year where this amount of money has been discussed. No agreement has been reached and no agreement is going to be reached. It is no good the department saying that this should not take long. It has taken over 25 years to get to this stage.
I must say to my noble friend that I shall put down an amendment at Third Reading in order immediately to revise the figure, because there is no reason why it should not be revised. The matter has been discussed by all the interested parties for months and months, for years. Altering the sum will not alter the sense of the amendment put down by my noble friend. It is only fair to your Lordships and to my noble friend to say that that is what I shall do, for the reason that I have given. I believe that the department has dragged its heels quite long enough. We could deal with the matter now. We can insert a figure, subject to revision by the Secretary of State by means of negative resolution as it becomes out-of-date. There is no need to stay with a base figure of £200. We can bring it up-to-date, and then if it gets out-of-date again as the years advance, there is adequate provision within the amendment for revision.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, do I understand from the statement of the noble Lord the Minister that the sum of £2,800 will soon be out-of-date, and that either the Government expect to lose the forthcoming election fairly soon, or they are unable to control inflation? What other explanation do the Government otherwise have for the statement?
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I, too, welcome this amendment from the Government, but at the same time I support what my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has said. Is my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale aware that the cereal harvest is already ripening and that the greatest period of danger from fire is almost upon us for another year? I feel that it should not be difficult to bring in an order increasing the amount fairly quickly, and that would certainly give comfort to a number of railside farmers. Before we leave this matter, perhaps my noble friend can tell the House whether or not fires started by electric trains are also covered under the Railway Fires Act 1905, or whether the Act covers solely those fires started by steam trains.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if I may first respond to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I would say that I am reminded of a saying on the West Coast of Scotland, where I spent most of my summer holidays as a child. The saying is: We think better later. That applies to my letter. I hope that when my noble friend has read what I have said and what I am about
810
to say, the same will apply to him before he rushes to put down an amendment on Third Reading. I am also reminded that at the Committee stage I said that I never like amendments at the best of times. However, that is enough said on that matter.
I believe that the Secretary of State would want to consult interested bodies before he prescribes a new figure by statutory instrument. To act without consultation would be unusual. It is true that the Department of Transport has already discussed this matter widely with those concerned—and I agree with my noble friend here. It has taken 20 years—again I agree with my noble friend. But that was not in connection with a statutory instrument, which the new clause provides for. Furthermore, it was nearly a year ago, and views and circumstances might have changed. Indeed, at this moment I do not know whether any new amateur railways have been set up this year. But the fact that discussions have taken place fairly recently should facilitate formal consultation. I should say that this is likely to be a problem only in the summer months, and by the time the Bill becomes an Act—if it does—most of the summer will have passed; and so the urgency is not quite as great as my noble friend led your Lordships to believe. The Government further feel that it would be reasonable to expect that a new limit of absolute liability for damage to crops by fires caused by sparks from railway engines will be operative by next summer. My noble friend behind me asked whether we were talking only about steam engines. My advice is that fires caused by railway engines apply to any engines.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked whether the Government expected to lose the next election. Really! Of course the Government do not expect to lose the next election; but what gave point to his question was the rate of inflation. This Government have never said that we would achieve nil inflation within the lifetime of one Parliament, and we still stand by that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 84:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Schedules 7 and 8 of Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981
.In the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981—

(a) in Schedule 7 (consequential amendments), paragraph 24 is omitted;

(b) in Schedule 8 (repeals)—

(i) in the entry relating to the Transport Act 1968 the words "In section 145, subsection (2)" are omitted, and

(ii) in the entry relating to the Transport Act 1980 after the words "In Schedule 5, Part I" there are inserted the words "(except paragraph 13)" and for the words "the Minibus Act 1977 and the Transport Act 1978" there are substituted the words "and the Minibus Act 1977 and paragraphs 2 to 4 of the entry relating to the Transport Act 1978.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, might I also speak to Amendment No. 88 and say that I regret it is necessary to trouble your Lordships with this new clause. Unfortunately, it has emerged that the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, which passed through this House in February of this year, contained three very small but important errors. Briefly, Schedule 8 to the Act repeals three provisions which are

811
not re-enacted but which are in fact still needed. The clause I am moving tonight strikes out those repeals and makes a minor consequential amendment to Schedule 7. As such, it is purely formal and makes no substantive change in the law.
I will not bore your Lordships with the details of the three provisions concerned, but I can assure your Lordships that the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 could not properly be commenced with these three errors uncorrected. The Act consolidates the bus licensing provisions of the Transport Act 1980 with those in the Road Traffic Act 1960 and a number of other relevant statutes. 1 am sure your Lordships would not want to frustrate the worthy cause that is involved here, and will be indulgent in putting right what really are regrettable errors. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the next two amendments have been wrongly marshalled, and the next amendment I have to call is No. 85.
Clause 38 [Extent]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 27, line 6, at end insert—
("(bb) section (Fires caused by railway engines);").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 84A:
Page 27, line 15, at end insert—
("(3) An Order in Council made under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 which contains a statement that its purposes correspond to those of sections 27 and 28 of this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament instead of the order or a draft of the order being subject to the procedure set out in paragraph 1(4) or (5) of that Schedule.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this amendment will be to apply Clause 27 of the Bill to Northern Ireland. I had made such a provision in my original private Bill, but we seem to have been adding bits and pieces gradually to catch up in respect of this public Bill for it to have the same effect. The effect of the amendment will be to make it possible to make an Order in Council for Northern Ireland so that they can have the benefit of compulsory seat belts.
Very briefly, I can tell your Lordships that the case for doing so in Northern Ireland is even stronger than it is here. The rate of road accident fatalities in Northern Ireland per motor-car is something like double the rate here. We know that the deaths due to terrorist action since the civil disturbances began amount to something over 2,000–2,121—but during that period, so grim is the toll on the roads, that the fatalities amount to 3,479, which is getting on for double. So there is a very serious incidence of road accidents and, therefore, road fatalities and serious injuries.
I gather that the Royal Ulster Constabulary have indicated that they are in favour of introducing compulsory seat belt wearing; the road safety lobby are very much in favour; and the medical profession, led
812
by that admirable surgeon William Rutherford, are very much so indeed. I will not explain the mechanics of it, which can be confusing, but the effect is quite clear. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, my noble friend has tabled this amendment in order to ensure that when this Bill is returned to the other place honourable Members there should be able to include Northern Ireland in their discussions on Clause 27. This seems surely both sensible and courteous, and on that basis I should like to welcome the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Repeals]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 91, line 26, at end insert—

("1923 c. 27.

The Railway Fires Act (1905) Amendment Act 1923.

In section 2, the words 'not exceeding the said sum of two hundred pounds'.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential upon Amendment No. 83. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 87:
In the Title:
Line 14, after second ("licences") insert ("to make provision with respect to railway fires").
The noble Lord said: Again, my Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 83. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 88:
Line 14, after second ("licences") insert ("to amend Schedules 7 and 8 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 89:
Line 14, after second ("licences") insert ("to make provision for grants to assist the provision of facilities for freight haulage by inland waterway").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential upon Amendment No. 82. I have thanked the Minister for accepting Amendment No. 82 and I am grateful for his arranging in another place for the Money Resolution.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

County of Avon Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee on Unopposed Provisions with amendments.
Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
Acquisition of Land Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.