Lords Sitting of 15 July 1982

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Rochester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Rea—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

Namibian Students in the United Kingdom
Lord Oram: 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 provision they are making and propose to make for the education and training in the United Kingdom of Namibian students.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, There are 63 Namibians studying in the United Kingdom in programmes administered by the British Council. Of them, 32 are financed from United Kingdom bilateral technical co-operation funds and 31 under UNESCO, FAO and United Nations Education and Training Programme for Southern Africa arrangements. We will continue to keep our programmes of educational and training assistance for Namibians under careful review.
Lord Oram: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that information, may I ask whether he does not consider that Britain has a special responsibility in helping to prepare Namibia for independence, particularly since English has been chosen as the official language and that there is every hope that an independent Namibia will join the Commonwealth? That being so, ought we not to be providing much more adequate facilities than were indicated in the Answer? Is the noble Lord aware that a number of universities have indicated that they would be prepared to provide suitable courses for educating Namibians, and will the Government respond helpfully to the initiative taken in this matter by the World University Service?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have seen the World University Service's Paper on the subject where they complained that Her Majesty's Government are at present contributing only a quarter of a million pounds a year to the education and training of Namibians. "Only" is a word which I would have left out of that paper. To me it is a considerable sum of money. I know that the House is particularly concerned about the cost of training and how training is arrived at for Commonwealth students and prospective Commonwealth students in this country. I would say that all Namibian students are here on scholarships which are directly funded from the British aid programme or that of international agencies. The noble Lord is correct in that English has been selected as the official language after independence. It is for this reason that we are putting great emphasis on a primary
458
English course for Namibian students when they come over here under the aid programme. But I would say that it is a little premature to do more in this direction until independence is at hand.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is a British Council representative in Namibia?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure about that. To the best of my belief, there is one in Windhoek.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that this is an incongruous situation? Is not English to become the official language? Do only 10 per cent. of the people of Namibia know English, and are they not taught Afrikaans in the schools? Could not the Government at least exempt Namibian students from the overseas-student rate so as to encourage more students to come here?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I thought that I had already explained that the charging of full costs fees does not affect the Namibians, because they are already under scholarship arrangements. Nor will it affect future Namibian students unless they come privately to this country.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two questions? Can he confirm or deny that the British Government give support to the Namibian Institute in Lusaka, and is there any connection between this and what he has been saying about training here? Is there any combination of the two? Secondly, he spoke of bilateral aid. With whom is this bilateral aid negotiated? The reason that I ask is that, presumably, the noble Lord can tell us whether the aid that the British Government provide is provided to the present Namibian Administration—in which case they would select the students who come here.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as far as the first supplementary question is concerned, the British Government contribute multilaterally to the United Nations for educational purposes, and it is the United Nations which, to a great extent, fund their own organisation, which is the so-called UNION, the United Nations Institute for Namibia, and which, as the noble Lord knows, is centred at Lusaka. As to how the students and the scholarships are organised, I can say that we are ready to consider, and do consider, applications for training awards from Namibians nominated by organisations inside and outside Namibia—which would include UNION. However, we do not acknowledge the status of the institutions set up within Namibia as part of the internal settlement resulting from the elections in December 1978. We grant awards on the basis of educational and developmental criteria and regardless of applicants' political affiliation.
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, does the noble Lord's previous answer mean that Her Majesty's Government are worried only about those students who come on public funds and that they do not worry at all about

459
any who come privately but penalise them by charging heavy additional fees?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, it does not mean that. All I said was that the students currently in this country come under scholarship arrangements; therefore the arguments on charging or not charging for university and technical education in this country do not apply.
Baroness David: My Lords, surely there may be others who are not on those scholarship awards and who might be grateful to come if they did not have to pay the full fees for overseas students. As the Government have given—through the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in his Written Answer to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on 10th June—a welcome to the report of the Overseas Students' Trust, where preferential fees are suggested for certain countries, would not Namibia be a very good candidate for this? How will the Government answer that?
Lord Skelmersdale: That might be the case, but, as I have indicated, all this is conditional upon Namibia reaching full independence.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is not Government policy about students from underdeveloped countries both ridiculous and short-sighted? Is not the noble Lord aware that the Government's policy is forcing students from this country to go to East Germany, to the Soviet Union, to Poland and to Czechoslovakia? If the Government want a peaceful, democratic world in the future, should we not be doing very much more to encourage far more students to come here from underdeveloped countries?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, although that is a somewhat different question—we are discussing the Namibians in this Question—I would say that the sole responsibility for a peaceful, democratic world is not on the shoulders of the United Kingdom Government. Secondly, the Government are absolutely right in expecting students of those countries who are able to be educated in this country under non-subsidised arrangements to do so.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, we have now had nine minutes on this Question. I think that it is right that we should move on to the next Question.

Fast Reactor Systems
3.11 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have reached any conclusion as a result of the review which they have been conducting into fast reactor systems and into the possible collaboration in this field with other countries.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, the Government's consideration of the scope for international collaboration on development of the fast reactor is making satisfactory progress. When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has had opportunity to consider all the implications, he will make a Statement on fast reactor policy. The Government's objective is to ensure that the country has access to the technology necessary to enable the fast reactor to be introduced on a commercial scale as and when the country needs it.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl the Minister for his reply? May I ask him whether it is mere procrastination, or whether further information is required before a Statement can be made? Secondly, in view of the long lead time involved in getting these matters started, can he give us any indication of which countries we are wooing in our efforts to co-operate in the international field?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, my right honourable friend is not one of those who is noted for his procrastination. I anticipate that he will be in a position to make a Statement some time after the Summer Recess. Regarding consultations and discussions with other countries, exploratory discussions have been held at Ministerial, official and industrial levels with the United States and with the Europeans—that is to say, the French and the Germans—and contact has also been made with the Japanese.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, this is one of the branches of nuclear science in which we in this country have long held a lead. For how long has the fast breeder reactor been putting electricity into the national grid? Also, for how long has this review been taking place?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I do not have accurate information to answer either of those two questions. I will write to the noble Lord.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend enlighten us a little? He said that arrangements will go forward so that a fast reactor can be introduced when needed. Is he not aware that the lead time must be at least 15 years? This means that even if it were started today we should not have something until the late 1990s. Therefore there is considerable urgency in this matter, in terms of general energy policy for the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I do not altogether agree with my noble friend. On the information that I have, fast reactor technology is unlikely to become commercially viable before the next century. At that time the need for generating capacity and the fuel supply situation may well be very different. The objective of the Government therefore is to ensure that we have access to that technology when we need it.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that the fast reactor is the only known means of burning up and getting rid of the long-lived radio isotope, such as plutonium from thermal reactors?

461
The urgency is to start working the stockpile down now and not allow it to accumulate.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, with respect, that goes rather wide of the review which my right honourable friend is making as to policy at the moment.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend why it is that we seem to know already whether or not it is going to be viable? Surely, until there has been a commercial fast reactor proven for a number of years to be safe nobody will know whether it is viable or not. This is what is worrying.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, it is in those circumstances and considering all the various aspects of the matter—some of which are extremely technical, as my noble friend will realise—that my right honourable friend is still cogitating and will make his Statement in due course. But I anticipate that it will be sooner rather than later.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, bearing in mind the phrase that some of these problems are extremely technical, is the noble Earl aware that the first report of the Committee on Science, and Sir Ian Bancroft himself, suggested that we should increase as quickly as possible the nuclear installations inspectorate? May I ask whether any progress has been made since that scientific report was published and made available to both Houses of Parliament? Secondly, is the noble Earl aware that since the Three Mile Island accident in the United States, confidence in nuclear reactors has decreased? Nevertheless, if we have to educate the public it is of paramount importance for the right honourable lady the Prime Minister not to move her chariot like the Queen of the Iceni, through the quangos of scientific people so that therefore we have nothing available. In other words, we have been cutting down the scientific information that was of paramount importance. In the beginning the nation already had a lead in nuclear reaction.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I fear that I have no information on the first supplementary question. I am very conscious that safety concerns us all. Therefore, I can give the noble Lord the assurance that if there was an eventual decision to build a commercial scale fast reactor anywhere in the United Kingdom, that would have to be subject to safety clearances, and I have no doubt that there would be a very searching public inquiry.
As to some of the costs of all this, I may say that the British programme has cost some £900 million since 1955, and that is why, as one noble Lord said, we are among the world leaders in the development of the fast reactor. The Atomic Energy Authority are currently spending some £100 million a year on the programme. It is a very expensive business.
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, is the noble Earl able to tell us whether the Government are aware of the investigation carried out by the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis which only last year, after examining the position of fast breeders, said that so far as Region 3 is concerned, which is the whole
462
of western Europe, Japan, New Zealand and Australia, it was essential that by 1995 they had fast breeder reactors in operation, because those reactors would be essential for that region before the next century? If they are not aware of that, may I ask whether they will study the report? If they are aware, why do they not pay regard to this very careful analysis?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I have no doubt that my right honourable friend and his advisers are only too aware of the efforts of this committee; but I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend and his department to what the noble Lord said.
Lord Denham: Next Question.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think we are spending a very long time on this Question, too. We have been on it for just over seven minutes and I think we ought to move on to the next Question.

Dounreay Nuclear Establishment
3.19 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the key importance to the northern Highlands of Scotland of the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment and if so what projects, both in the long and in the short term, they intend this establishment to undertake to keep its teams of scientists intact and retain its place in the economy of the region.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment currently has a full programme of work in support of the United Kingdom fast reactor programme. The importance of the establishment to the economy of the Highland region is well recognised by the Government.
Viscount Thurso: In thanking the noble Earl the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that he has already indicated that there is no decision yet about a future for the fast breeder reactor, and therefore it must be assumed that the programme lying ahead of the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment is limited? Is he also aware of the work which is being done in fuel reprocessing and fabrication at Dounreay and can he indicate whether there is a future for the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment in this particular field?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, with respect, the noble Viscount must not make leaps into the dark, particularly when they are not wholly logical. I do agree with him that the long-term future of Dounreay is of necessity dependent on the outcome of the Government's present consideration of fast reactor policy. I know that my right honourable friend is very well aware of the key role, if I may so call it,

463
that Dounreay can play. He is equally aware of the importance of the establishment and its work to the Highland region, but, as I said in answer to the last Question, all this is part of the Government's review of their fast reactor policy.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that it is 16 years since a Labour Government gave the go-ahead for a prototype fast breeder reactor at Dounreay, so that we have had plenty of experience of that? Would it not have been better for the noble Earl the Minister to acquaint himself and the House with the fact that the safety factor involved in fast breeder processing is very much more reassuring than with other processes? Will he not under-estimate the value of this to the Highland area and continuing work there? We do not want another Invergordon further north.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I entirely agree with the last part of the noble Lord's remarks. I do not want another Invergordon anywhere in Scotland or, for that matter, anywhere in the United Kingdom. But of necessity conditions change, and they have changed in the last 16 years. That is why the review is going on in the way that it is, and that is why my right honourable friend is considering the future. As I have said, he is well aware of the importance of the present programme of Dounreay and any future role it may have in the local economy.
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, will the noble Earl suggest to his right honourable friend in the other place that it might be desirable to look at the present programme of ordinary thermal reactors? Will he pay attention to the report from the inspectorate today stating that they are not prepared to approve of immediate progress with the proposed pressurised water reactor, and will he not therefore suggest that it would be better to scrap this ill-considered programme and, rather, go over to the fast breeder reactor, which is known to be safe?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I will certainly draw that to the attention of my right honourable friend, although, as the noble Lord will appreciate, he is going slightly wide of future work at Dounreay.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend also bear in mind that, given the accelerating programme in the development of thermal reactors all over the world, there are those who believe that there might be a shortage of uranium by the end of the century, and that in turn argues the case for the fast reactor being pushed ahead?
The Earl of Mansfield: Yes, my Lords; that is no doubt one of the factors that my right honourable friend is considering.
Lord Energlyn: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, as I have just returned from Dounreay, whether he is conscious of the fact that the research and development there have reached a point where they need to be told that there is something in the future? Should they not
464
now logically go forward to the building of a commercial plant? Also, does the noble Earl realise that if this is not given to them we stand in serious danger of losing this remarkable team of men who have proved themselves to be not only so competent but also so enthusiastic about the fast breeder reactor?
May I also ask the noble Earl, in the light of the galaxy of supplementary questions on this subject, whether time could be found in your Lordships' House for a debate on this subject, as he has gathered from these questions the range of information we possess? In particular, would he not agree with me that what we need to do is to enlighten the public on the safety factors associated with the containment of plutonium and the safety of a fast breeder reactor?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, so far as the noble Earl's point about a possible debate is concerned, I am sure that the usual channels, who are here and as always aware of the moods of the House, will make the necessary arrangements in due course. It may be that when my right honourable friend makes his statement that will be the occasion on which to arrange a debate.
So far as Dounreay is concerned, the Government's review of fast reactor policy is concerned with the programme as a whole and not just with Dounreay. As your Lordships will know, a number of possibilities are being examined. First, for example, there is the option of going ahead with an independent United Kingdom commercial-scale fast reactor, which I think the noble Lord was advocating. Secondly, there is a measure of international collaboration; and, thirdly, there is the reliance of licensing the technology as and when we need it. All these are options. But, so far as Dounreay is concerned, I repeat that my right honourable friend is aware of the fund of devotion and expertise at the establishment and also of the very great economic benefits that have been brought to the people in that part of the Highland region.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, why is it that scientifically-minded noble Lords always try to turn Question Time into a debate?

Psychiatric Secure Units
3.27 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: 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 how much money is being allocated for permanent psychiatric secure units in the present financial year; how many places are now available; and how many more are likely to be available at the end of the financial year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, revenue of £10·5 million has been made available for current spending in 1982–83 for the development of regional secure units and interim secure facilities. Capital amounting to £10·8 million

465
for this financial year has been set aside for approved permanent schemes. The 30-place unit at St. Luke's Hospital, Middlesbrough is as yet the only permanent unit operational, though by the end of the financial year 120 places are expected to be available.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, while I thank the noble Minister for that reply, I am bound to say I found it less encouraging than I had hoped. The painfully slow progress of this programme, going back over eight years or so, is not one of the major glories of our island story. May I ask the Minister whether the sums he has referred to as being allotted this year will all be spent on these units and not diverted to other purposes, as has happened in the past?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I recognise that progress on these schemes has been slower than we would have wished. However, in addition to the total of 120 places which will be available by the end of the current financial year, 240 places are currently under construction and 90 further places are to be started, hopefully, before the end of this calendar year.
On the question of funds, I cannot give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks: namely, that all the funds to be allocated will be used for these purposes in the current financial year, but the majority of funds will be; and where they are not used precisely for the RSU programme they will be used in general for psychiatric purposes of one kind or another.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he can indicate to the House how much money has, in fact, been given by Governments over the last eight years for this purpose, and how much of it has not been used by the regions, which have used the money, in some cases, for entirely other purposes?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the designation of funds for this purpose is a curiosity, if I may call it that, in the health service funding generally, because, as a matter of usual course, we do not specify precisely the purpose for which funds which we supply should be used. In fact, £54.7 million has been provided for revenue purposes and £20.3 million for capital purposes in the financial year since 1976/77. I cannot say offhand what percentage of those figures has been used precisely for RSU purposes. But I can say that, during the period that we are discussing, in addition to the creation of the small number of permanent places to which I referred earlier, more than 500 interim places have been provided and, of course, it would be quite proper for the funds to be used for that purpose.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government control in any way the geographical area to which funds are given? Would I be right in thinking that there might be a catchment area problem? It is no good having 220 places in one part of the country, which would be lovely for that area, if another area cannot get secure places because they are outside its catchment area.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the system is that funds are provided to each regional health authority for this purpose, and they propose plans for the precise number of places that they think appropriate for their particular region.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, may I ask—
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether only two-thirds of the unit at St Luke's Hospital is being used, because, when I visited it a few months ago, one-third of the beds were closed because of lack of staff? Would he see that there are enough trained staff in the forensic-psychiatric-medical field, particularly senior registrars?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my understanding is that the RSU at St Luke's Hospital, Middlesbrough, is fully operational. But I will look into that and, if I am wrong, will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Avebury: My Lords—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that there are some aspects of the Answer which he has given today which fill a number of us with a great deal of concern, particularly the suggestion that if the money is not used for regional secure units it will be used for other psychiatric purposes? Is he aware that his department has an unenviable record of diverting money in this way, not only during the lifetime of the present Administration but during the lifetime of previous Administrations? Finally, is he aware that, until we make major progress in the development of regional secure units of this kind, we shall not be able to get severely mentally disturbed people out of our prison system and, therefore, we shall continue with the scandalous situation of the mentally ill being kept in prison?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that the facilities to be provided by the RSUs will form an essential feature of the range of options available with regard to the detention of mentally disturbed people. I would certainly agree with the thought behind the question of the noble Lord, that prison is the wrong place for the great majority of them. There are difficulties in creating these facilities—for example, in planning permissions—which sometimes cause a great deal of delay, and I think it is right that the funds that are earmarked for this purpose are, with the necessary authority, sometimes used for interim facilities, in particular, pending the completion of the permanent facilities which the noble Lord has asked me about.
Lord Avebury: My Lords—
Lord Beswick: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has been trying to get in and has twice given up his place to other Peers. May I suggest that he asks his question and then we move on to the next business, as we have had 33 minutes on Questions.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. Did the figures which the noble Lord gave for capital and revenue expenditure include spending by the regional authorities on the interim secure units? Is the noble Lord aware that, even though obviously, in the long term we must have the permanent facilities, the interim secure units are doing a very good job and, at any rate at the one in Beckenham, patients and staff mix in a reasonably civilised atmosphere which would be a lesson to the prison service on how to contain potentially violent and refractory men?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that the interim facilities which have been provided play a very important part in this matter. But the security provided in RSUs, whether they be interim or permanent, is not of the same order as is provided in, for example, the special hospitals, and it forms an important halfway house, if that is the right term to use, between special hospitals, on the one hand, and ordinary psychiatric hospitals, on the other.

Business: The Summer Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House, if I announce that, in view of the business before the House today, and, in particular, the Committee stage of the Transport Bill which was not concluded last night, it has been agreed that the Report stage of the Stock Transfer Bill, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, will not now be taken today but will be taken next Thursday, 22nd July, instead. I have arranged for the Grill Room to be open until 9.45 this evening.
Your Lordships may also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Summer Recess on Tuesday, 3rd August, and return on Tuesday, 12th October.

Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill
3.37 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Proposals for reductions in local authorities' rates]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, leave out lines 13 to 23.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should apologise, on behalf of the Government, to anyone who tries to make sense of this clause, because, quite honestly, it is a dog's dinner and I defy anyone to read it and then tell us in fairly plain language what it means. We start with the 1966 Act, Section 5, although I should warn your Lordships that it is amended by the Act of 1981. Then we go on to further amendment in this new Bill. The sooner the Government get round to giving us a consolidated measure, the sooner we shall be able to understand it.
What the Government are doing in this clause has
468
nothing to do with the main purpose of the Bill, which is to deal with the Stodart Report. Noble Lords will remember that, exactly a year ago, we were faced with the Government coming before us and asking for what many of us thought were very draconian powers to deal with local authorities and to put them in their place; and here they are, a year later, asking for even greater powers. Bearing in mind that they themselves produced a Green Paper last year, in which they gave voice to certain aspects of local government, it seems strange indeed that we should have this clause. Page 3 of the Green Paper reads:
"local government has traditionally enjoyed a degree of discretion about the amount of local revenue it raises and the amount of expenditure it incurs. It is desirable that authorities should be able to tailor local revenues and expenditure to the provision of a level of services".
Here the Government are saying, "You are going to do nothing of the kind in future". The Green Paper continues:
"It could be argued that the Government should supplement the existing arrangements by seeking powers to take direct action where necessary to restrain public expenditure so as to protect the interests of local ratepayers".
Evidently the argument is not finished because there has been no further action on the Green Paper.
The paragraph ends:
"The case for the Government taking such powers has to be judged against the very considerable constitutional and practical difficulties that would be involved".
But before the argument is finished we have a Bill which the Government hope will be an Act of Parliament before the month is over and which takes power not just to reduce the rate support grant overall or in respect of a single authority—that was the power which they took last year—but to fix what the rate will be in relation to all expenditures and bearing in mind certain categories of expenditure, and they are ordering local authorities to do that. The Government will be fixing the rate after an order has been passed. An order cannot be amended: you take it or you leave it. If a local authority do not comply within 28 days, then they will be deemed to have fixed the new rate. If anything is more likely to interfere with local authority freedom and the traditional rights of local authorities, I should like to know what it is. This is basic to local authority powers and duties at the present time.
We decided not to seek to amend this clause during the Committee stage. We opposed it but we did not seek to amend it. I should apologise for not being here during the Committee stage; it might not then have lasted quite so long. However, it gave me a little time to read the Bill and I was appalled when I came to subsections (6) and (7). Just listen to what subsection (6) says:
"The Secretary of State may by order under this subsection repeal or amend any enactment (including this Act) in so far as that enactment relates to the determination, levy, or payment of a regional, general or district rate and such determination, levy or payment is affected by a determination (or deemed determination) under paragraph (b) of subsection (4) above".
That is to say, it is subject to an order approved by Parliament determining that the rate shall be what the Secretary of State fixes, and if local authorities do not comply thereafter it will be deemed to be so fixed. It is a tremendous power. If a Government want to repeal legislation, usually they have to pass an Act of

469
Parliament. And if they want to amend legislation they have to pass an Act of Parliament. I know that the Minister will say that we had this argument last year on Section 15 of the 1981 Act. Its phrasing is virtually the same.
It is interesting to note that Section 15 is not repealed by this statute. Section 15 refers to Section 1 of the 1966 Act and is therefore incorporated within the 1981 Act. So there will be a duplication of powers, one a little more extensive than the other, related to the very same thing. I do not know how the draftsmen dealt with this but they have had plenty of time to look at it. I had various other worries about Scotland's activities in Malaga and Seville to concern myself about, but I thought that some of the more perspecacious noble Lords concerned with local government would have spotted how incomplete this particular clause is. Apart from that, I raised this point last year, and I think that this is very unfair. The Government are taking powers which have never been dreamed of before and then they are covering themselves, just in case they have made a mistake somewhere or have not gone far enough, by taking a power to repeal or amend any enactment, including the very Act to which I referred a moment ago.
Could the Minister tell us what he has in mind? To deal with any enactment that relates to the determination, levy or payment of a regional, general or district rate is a very wide power. Further on in the Bill one discovers that duties are placed upon local authorities. Duties demand expenditures. Expenditures affect the general rate. It may well be that a local authority which takes its duties seriously and spends money will be caught by subsection (4)(b). It is amazing how wide it can be. I do not believe that we should give a power of this kind to a Secretary of State without being fully conscious of what we are doing.
What are the legal snags which the Government think might arise whereby they feel they have to be given this very unusual power to amend statutes? It may be argued that we do not need to worry because the Government would have to introduce an order which would have no effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. The snag, though, is that you cannot amend an order. You have to take it or leave it. So you have very restricted access to any attempt to make the Government change their mind.
When it comes to the Government taking such a power, we find that much of it is already there and will be duplicated by what was done in the 1981 Act, so I want to know exactly why the Government feel that this power is necessary. Would it not be far better for the Government to think about it again? They should drop this. If they had wanted this power to be extended to deemed determination of rates they could have inserted a phrase into the amendment which they made last year. This would have saved them the speech I have just delivered—in about four or five minutes. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, it would be remiss of me not to commence this Report stage by welcoming the noble Lord back from the Iberian Peninsula. If I hear any cries behind me of "Haste ye back",
470
I say "Fie!", although we got through the Committee stage of the Bill in just over four hours. Nevertheless, we are glad to see the noble Lord back, and if our thoughts stray towards Colombia in four years' time, when my right honourable friend will be in the middle of her second period in office, that is a joy to come and we must wish Scotland well.
The fears which the noble Lord has expressed are slightly excessive, for the reasons to which I shall come. What subsections (6) and (7) do is enable the Secretary of State to make what I would call necessary and consequential amendments to an order under subsection (4). If I say that these are likely to be minor in nature as compared with the order under Section 4, I hope that the House will bear with me until I can illustrate it.
The power is an essential part of Clause 1. It is possible that the redetermination of a lower rate proposed by the Secretary of State first of all and then approved by the House of Commons could entail technical problems for the authority or authorities concerned—and I emphasise that. For instance, there might be variations in timetables if more than one authority in the region were involved in a redetermination of rate. The regional council and one or more district councils in the same region might redetermine rates on different dates and this might cause substantial administrative difficulties. There are precedents for seeking an enabling power to make minor and consequential amendments; most notably, that power was sought in the 1981 Act and use was made of it for 1981 and 1982. That use illustrates the kind of purpose to which the powers in subsections (6) and (7) might be put by the Secretary of State.
I can give three illustrations. First, the powers might he used to modify regulations which prescribe the last date by which a district council shall notify its rate to the regional council, which collects all rates, to provide that a redetermined rate is notified two days after redetermination. Secondly, they might be used to provide, where appropriate, that rate repayments relate to redetermined rates and not to the rate originally determined, and, thirdly, that the cost of collecting a redetermined rate is excluded from the computation of the product of the penny rate of the authority concerned, and thereby from the calculation entitlement to resources clement of rate support grant.
In order to avoid such problems, it is provided that the Secretary of State shall be able to remove as far as possible, subject to the approval of Parliament, any such difficulties that statute might contain. The powers sought in subsections (6) and (7) would allow him to do this. The purpose of these provisions is therefore to ensure that unforeseen circumstances do not prevent the smooth and sensible operation of the statute. All that will be required will be minor and consequential amendments such as were exemplified last year by the Renfrew District Council. These, I may say, were accepted by the Opposition at that time as being minor and consequential amendments.
If subsections (6) and (7) were removed, very serious difficulties could be afforded to an authority. Bearing in mind that we do have the affirmative resolution procedure in subsection (7), which adds a very proper safeguard, I hope that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, will see that this power is not the draconian power I believe he

471
thinks it is and that it will be used simply and solely to tidy up an order which has been made in consequence of subsection (4).
Lord Ross of Marnock: We are grateful for that explanation by the noble Earl the Minister, although he did not reply to the point I made about Section 15 of the 1981 Act and the fact that I consider this to be an unnecessary duplication. Indeed, it might well be that under the power he has, the Secretary of State could amend Section 15 of the 1981 Act. Has the noble Earl given any thought to that particular point? My difficulty is that the Bill does not say that it will deal only with orders. It says,
"any enactment (including this Act)".
Any legislation—it does not say anything about orders or tidying up. So the power is there. That is what I object to. This is to save the Government embarrassment in case they fix a wrong date somewhere, or in case they have made some kind of mistake—that is all. The Minister should be man enough to get up and admit it.
I am not going to divide the House on this, but I want to point out the lengths to which the Government are prepared to go to bash local authorities without any troubles with the law falling upon their heads because they have made a mistake in what they have done. It is nice to be able to make a mistake and then say, "It is all right, we will amend the law", and then say, "We are doing it for the good of the local authorities and not for the good of the Government". Having heard, and taking it for what it is worth, the explanation given by the noble Earl the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Prohibition of using sums from loans fund to offset effect of determination of new rate]:
3.56 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 42, leave out from ("determined") to ("a") in line 43.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to find out from the Government just exactly how local authorities are supposed to work this. What a local authority can do at the present time, if there is a gap in respect of its income from rates and the cost of providing services, is to take some sum from its loans fund to meet that difficulty. But the Government are so determined to close every loophole open to the local authorities, so that the local authorities will do what the Government want them to do, that they say that,
"(1) A local authority who determine, or are deemed to have determined"—
that I do not mind—
"or anticipate that they will be required to determine, a rate under Section 5(4)(b) …".
are not allowed to close the gap by means of sums advanced from their loans fund.
How on earth will a local authority anticipate that it will be "required to determine"? The person who will be required to determine will be the Secretary of
472
State. Are the local authorities supposed to read the Secretary of State's mind and know that he is going to take this action—this kindly action, according to the noble Earl the Minister?
Suppose they do; another thing the local authority has to anticipate is not only that the Secretary of State is going to take action but also the actual action that he is going to take. The subsection says,
"a rate under Section 5(4)(b)".
That is a rate determined by the Secretary of State. So the local authority has first to determine that the Secretary of State is going to take action against it and then it has to anticipate what the Secretary of State is going to fix as the new rate. It is a bit unfair to leave the local authority in a situation of complete uncertainty when something which it may be doing carefully as a matter of financial prudence—closing the gap to ensure that its outgoings are met—is going to be attacked by the Secretary of State. How do the local authorities anticipate in this way? How can they do so?
How can it be proved by the Secretary of State that they have so anticipated? He is the only person who knows that he is going to take action, and his department, after considerable consideration, will determine the nature of the action he is going to take. Remember, it is open to the Secretary of State to determine what the new rate will be. The new rate might meet only part of the gap to a greater or lesser degree. I believe it is a bit unfair on local authorities to place them under this power. Remember, subsection (2) states that,
"the local authority shall, on such opinion being intimated to them, reimburse their loans fund forthwith".
The local authority could put itself into considerable financial difficulty by doing so. Why? Because there is going to be a gap. But that gap may not be due to anticipated action by the Secretary of State to reduce the rate support grant.
I really want to know from the Minister of State how this is going to work. I think it is quite impossible for the Secretary of State to prove that the action taken by the local authority is in anticipation of something that the Secretary of State may or may not do, and having decided to do it, what the rate will be that he will fix. I think it is asking far too much of the local authority. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the words about which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, complains in fact stop up a loophole of which recalcitrant local authorities might otherwise avail themselves to frustrate the Secretary of State's desire to prevent them from maintaining expenditure at excessive and unreasonable levels. What would happen if these words were excised from the Bill would be that local authorities could borrow right up to the moment when a rate reduction becomes effective; they could take money out of their loans fund; they could build up funds which would allow them to maintain excessive and unreasonable expenditure at that rate, and therefore they would be in a position to frustrate the Secretary of State. The Government machine does not move at exactly lightning speed when it comes to these matters, and therefore

473
it would be perfectly possible for a local authority to do it. We have only to look over the history of the last 12 to 18 months, even at what is going on now in Scotland, to appreciate that a local authority who wanted to evade the strictures and resulting actions of the Secretary of State would find it all too easy to do so by means of this simple device. That is why the clause is drafted in the way that it is. Obviously, this is an amendment which the Government are going to resist.
If the prohibition on making use of the loans fund did not apply to the period where the authority anticipated a reduction, it would make nonsense of the action the Secretary of State might take. As I have said, the Government juggernaut moves in a fairly ponderous way, so that as soon as the Secretary of State announced his intention to embark on the formal procedures authorities would be able to take action to frustrate him. It might be that the measures eventually given their blessing by the House of Commons would have no effect whatsoever on their spending level. So the words which are the subject of the amendment are no more nor less than that, and therefore the noble Lord will understand, if he does not share, my reluctance to accept the amendment.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I can understand why my noble friend wishes to take these words out. I can also understand why the noble Earl wants to keep them in. But I have grave doubts whether their inclusion will serve the purpose he has in mind. The clause talks about a local authority "determining a rate" or "being deemed to have determined a rate". Both of these are facts which are obvious. But how can you prove that an authority is anticipating something which might take place in the future? If the authority does not make it known that it is taking action in anticipation of something, I do not think the Secretary of State will be able to stop it, unless he is claiming that in addition to everything else he has taken power to read its thoughts. The Minister says "no", but how do the Government work out that an authority is anticipating something? Quite frankly, I do not care very much whether the amendment is accepted or not. I think if an authority wishes to do the sort of thing which the Government fear it might do, the inclusion of these words will not stop it doing it.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I have to seek the leave of the House to speak again—and I hope I may be forgiven for saying the House has been rather generous on Report stages recently—but I do not intend to make a practice of it. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is quite right; there is nothing that the Secretary of State or anybody else can do to stop a local authority from behaving in this way. But it would be illegal, the officials of the local authority would know that it was illegal; they would have their statutory responsibility and so might the various councillors who voted for such a measure. Therefore, Nemesis would creep up in the end, and that, of course, is something which all properly and lawfully constituted local authorities have regard to when they consider their actions.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and while I agree with the Minister that it is undesirable
474
that we should seek to depart from the rules, I would say this. The local authority could only be proved to be acting illegally if somebody else proved that it had anticipated something, and I am suggesting that such proof will be almost impossible to obtain.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think I am entitled to speak again, but I will ask leave, just in case.
The Earl of Mansfield: The noble Lord who moved the amendment has the right to speak again.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I thought so. It is great that I still have some rights left. Local authorities have not many rights left. My noble friend should read this. No one is required to prove that the local authority have anticipated the evil intent of the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) says: "If the Secretary of State is of the opinion that subsection (1) … has been contravened". It is just the opinion of the Secretary of State. What could be worse than that? What could be more tyrannical or dictatorial than that? It may well be a completely prudent local authority anticipating only that there is going to be a gap between what is produced by rates and what they have to spend, offsetting that by use of their loans fund, quite prudently. But they are now going to be in the position that if they do that, even for the best of purposes, it is going to be construed by the Secretary of State as anticipating that he was going to take action against them.
The kind of thing that this noble Chamber prides itself on is examining legislation. I hope they are satisfied with the kind of legislation Scotland is getting from here. If there were a Scottish Assembly this power would never be given to a Secretary of State: that if he is of the opinion that somebody has done something, that is all that matters. The question of proof does not arise. The party opposite is making it as easy as possible for this present Government to bash the local authorities. Remember that only a handful of local authorities in Scotland have been able to keep within the cash limits laid down by the Government. It shows that the cash limits themselves are nonsense. The matter turns on that basis, consideration of unreasonableness and excessive expenditures and the fact that the rates are high. Everybody's rates are high; my rates are far too high, no matter how low they are. At least I realise that the standard of the rate is determined by the Government. The Government decide what is reckonable expenditure in aggregate for the whole of the Scottish local authorities.
So they cut the aggregate. There is nothing obvious to the public, but they cut the aggregate and that itself reduces the amount that the Government pay in grant. But then the proportion that they pay in grant is determined by the Government. They reduce that, and that leaves a greater expenditure to be met from the rates by the local authorities. It has nothing to do with the local authorities; it has everything to do with the Government. It is the Government who have forced rates up in local authorities throughout Scotland, and then they come along and say, "Ah, but your expenditure is excessive, so we shall cut your grant".

475
They have the power to cut the grant of a single authority; they have the power to cut the grant of all the authorities.
Local government has been completely undermined, and here it is being still further undermined by this power for the Secretary of State to take action on just the basis of his opinion. To my mind it is not good enough, but I know that most Scots are probably more interested in what is happening within a few miles of where I live and where I would have liked to be today—around Troon—and so I will not divide the House on this matter of importance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, which has been so unreasonably and unsatisfactorily answered by the Government.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 2, leave out ("in any case").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very important amendment because the Government are going to accept it. It asks them to leave out three words, "in any case" as those words do not mean a thing; they are just otiose. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I think that if the noble Lord considers the subsection with a little more care he will see that in fact the words are not only desirable but will enable the Secretary of State to have flexibility which would otherwise be denied to him, and a flexibility which could react in favour of individual local authorities. The provision is drafted in terms which make it clear that, should the Secretary of State consider it appropriate to permit an authority to use money from the loans fund to offset the effect of a rate reduction, he would exercise that permission having regard to the circumstances of the individual authority concerned. This is consistent with the provisions in Clause 1 to which Clause 2 relates.
Proposals for reductions in rates or grants must be preceded by a very careful assessment by the Secretary of State of the circumstances of the individual authority concerned. It is also necessary for this provision to be consistent with Section 18(1) of the 1981 Act which makes similar provision for grant reductions. The effect of the amendment would be to widen the application of the proviso to Clause 2(1) so as to enable offsetting to be made generally to all local authorities. This would be inconsistent with the provision to which it relates with Clause 1 and with Section 5 of the 1966 Act, which all relate to particular cases. It is not the policy of this Government to ask Parliament for a power in wider terms than are required. So there is point in drafting the subsection in this way and perhaps, on reflection, the noble Lord would agree.
Lord Ross of Marnock: No, my Lords, I would not agree. The fact is that the words do not mean anything at all and do not extend, as the noble Earl suggests, this particular power. However, this is the Report stage and it is no time to argue the matter out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Redetermination of estimated aggregate amount of rate support grants]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 20, after ("State") insert ("after consultation with the representatives of the Scottish Local Authorities").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come now to Clause 3 which gives yet another power to the Secretary of State. At present, the rate support grant is drawn up usually in about November or December—that is when the argument begins and it goes on over a long period and then the Government make their determinations. We must remember that the Government are the last word: they decide what is reckonable expenditure, and reckonable expenditure is only that expenditure on which grant is paid; they determine the rate of the grant, and during recent years it has been going down; and recently, or up until this year, the Government have also been laying down guidelines in respect of what should be paid as regards increases in prices and salaries.
As regards anything beyond that, it has been their practice, usually at about the same time—the end of the financial year when they have seen how things have been going—to produce a supplementary order, an increase order, recompensing the local authorities for expenditures above the limits that have been laid down. Mind you, within that the Government can do a bit of manipulating and they have done so in the past. If the reckonable increase that should be rated for grant has been so much, they can reduce it, and they have reduced it in the past.
However, now we are entering a new system. What has happened in the past is that the Government have only had to introduce increase orders. But I think that the Minister of State has made it perfectly clear that the purpose of this clause is that they will introduce orders decreasing the rate support grant, as well as increasing it. A new system is produced whereby, instead of dealing with sums of money which are to be estimated, they are going to make the rate support grant sums of money towards which the local authorities have to work and they are not going to be increased unless there is a change in interest rates that creates such necessary fluctuation.
But they have taken the power here at any time during the financial year, for whatever reason they like, to introduce an order reducing the rate support grant in aggregate—that is, for all the authorities. I am suggesting that it should be done:
"after consultation with the representatives of the Scottish Local Authorities".
I know that the Minister will say, "We will do that anyway". I am not prepared to accept that they will do it anyway. They do not need to do it according to this piece of legislation, and so I am suggesting that they should insert this provision. It is not very much, because the Government will consult and then do what they like. That is what happens at present when they negotiate the rate support grant, be it with the Scottish local authorities or any other local authorities. But at least it would be some satisfaction to know that by statute they have to consult representatives of the local authorities before they make this possible change. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment is unnecessary, but I hasten to add, not otiose. I entirely agree that there is a need for consultation with the convention before rate support grant is redetermined initially. The words:
"under section 2(2) of the Act"
in the new Section 4 (1) of the 1976 Act proposed in Clause 3, together with the minor and consequential amendments to Sections 2 and 3 of the Act proposed in paragraphs 5 and 6(a) of Schedule 3, will apply the provisions which require the Secretary of State to consult the convention before grant is determined initially to any redetermination of grant in terms of the 1966 Act amended as proposed in the Bill. What I have said sounds complicated but it will be all right, I hope, when the noble Lord looks at the Official Report. I hope that with that assurance he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I do not like it when the Minister tells me that it will be all right when I look at the Official Report; that means that he is racing up to the Official Report to see that it is going to be all right. But I do not doubt him. The information which we have been getting from COSLA—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—is that these so-called consultations have tended not to be consultations at all; the local authorities are "told" by the Secretary of State. That is not my interpretation of consultation. However, there is no reason for me to disbelieve the Minister of State, in respect of the further amendments and the references back to the 1966 Act, as amended by the 1981 Act, and any other Act anyone cares to mention, that the consultations are already explicitly written in there and so, implicitly, they are already here in this particular subsection. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Effect of specific power or duty to incur expenditure at one tier of local government on exercise of general such power at different tier]:
4.21 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line 12, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").
The noble Lord said: We turn from one matter of importance to another. This could take me about three hours in the Scottish Grand Committee and, with a Minister like the noble Earl, it could probably take five hours! Noble Lords should not forget that I used to be a schoolmaster. On page 6, line 12, what do we read? We read:
"Where one of any two local authorities are a regional council".
I do not know what the reaction of most noble Lords "is" or "are" to that.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, as an Englishman, you are bang on, dear boy.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, we have this strange business that the local authority is counted as a plural body, and the Government, having seen the amendment tabled, hurriedly raced in to change
478
it in certain other clauses in the Bill. Where they had sensibly put "is", they have changed it to "are". I want to change it to "is". Whether they think that "are" will bolster them, I do not know—I hope not. If they have done so, perhaps I could tell them that they have not done all their homework correctly. For instance, at line 33 on page 22 of the Bill, it says:
"as regards any transfer in respect of which the first local authority is a regional council".
That really ought to be "are", if we are to follow the Government's logic.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, it is provided for in Amendment No. 9.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, it has not been accepted. My goodness! This is one of the changes that there are to make. Is it not incredible? They are not accepting it. They are insisting on "are" here and they are putting "are" in the other one. Surely not; is it not crazy?
I think that the purport of my amendment has already been pointed out—that is, that it is common sense in this particular case, when you are talking about one of something, to say "is" and not to say "are". I beg to move, and await, expectantly, acceptance.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is an old song which starts:
"I'll sing you one-O",
the last line of which is:
"One is one and only one, and ever more shall be so"?
That is a celebrated precedent, and it is not "one 'are' one".
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, reminded us of his teaching background. I must say, I have always wondered where Giles was moved to get Old Chalky from, but I must speculate about that.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I was a very young Chalky then.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I certainly would not want to mix it, if I may use such an expression, with the noble Lord on grammatical terms. But having viewed, with some alarm, the noble Lord's amendment and consulted, among others, the draftsman, I am assured that the convention in statute is that the term "local authority" should be predicated in the plural. In fact, later amendments will ensure that consistency of approach is adopted throughout the Bill. Thus, the use of the verb "are" in line 12 reflects this general doctrine and is, I think, consistent with the expression—although it occasionally looks rather odd, as in, for example:
"the other local authority are",
in line 18 of the same clause. But, although in certain instances it tends to jar, I gather that this is the convention, and a local authority, like the Government, must be predicated in the plural.
One only has to look at the Minutes, containing various Motions and debates which are set down for the future, to see that, in fact, Her Majesty's Govern-

479
ment are already predicated in the plural too. So it is consistent. Nevertheless, I am grateful, as always, to the noble Lord for sharpening us up on this. I hope that he will agree the line, so far as "are" is concerned, and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I should not like this important point to pass without some support being given to my noble friend on the matter, even although he has, of course, the invaluable support of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in spite of the fact that he declined to do what he was asked to do—to sing it. But I do not disagree, although I do not like the convention where "authority" is regarded as being plural and takes "are" instead of "is".
However, in this case the reference is not to the "authority"; the reference is to the word "one", and "one" is not plural. It never has been and not even this Government can make "one" plural. So it is "where one … is". My noble friend, therefore, is perfectly correct. It does not in any way invalidate the Minister's later amendments to substitute the word "are" for the word "is", because later on the reference is entirely to the word "authority"—"where an authority are". But in this case, I repeat, it is "where one … is". Even this Government must admit that to talk about "where one … are" is absolute rubbish.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, I also should like to support my noble friend Lord Ross and the other Members on the Opposition Front Bench. I should like to draw the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield—with that great Scottish title of his—to the fact that there are many illogicalities in our system. When one refers to "the Government are", one is referring to the Members of the Government; one is referring to a collective body. When one refers to "the Government", one refers to the fact that the Government "is" determined. Here we are referring to "a local authority"—not a collection of people, not a collection of members, but a local authority acting collectively.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. If it is one of two, it has to be "is", if it is to fit our common language. There may be other circumstances in which it is appropriate to refer to "the Government are", if you are talking about a collection of people, and I do not think that there are very many of those. Perhaps the convention has become too wide over the years. Sometimes it is not a bad thing to look at it. But when you state it so specifically and so clearly as "where one of" two, then logically, grammatically and legally there can be no other word than "is".
We can look at all the subsequent amendments when we reach them to see whether "are" or "is" fits the particular context. I am no ex-schoolmaster. I am just a rather twisted product of other schoolmasters. When one is talking of one of two things, with great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, his draftsmen and his civil servants sitting up there on the back box and grinning down upon us now, one of two has to be "is". It cannot be anything else.
May I suggest that we behave sensibly here and put in "is". Forget what the noble Earl says is a
480
convention. Maybe the convention has been stupidly widened; I do not know. I repeat, there are occasions when you are talking about the Government and when you are clearly talking about a collection of people when it is sensible to say "are", but you cannot possibly say "one of two are"; it has to be "is". May I ask the noble Earl's advisers up there to rush him down a little piece of paper quickly saying, "My dear Minister, you will lose nothing by accepting this amendment. We are also graduates. We also have studied English. We also know that one of two has to be "is".
If need be I shall talk a little longer while they get that piece of paper down to the Minister, because it is absolutely absurd to say that "one of two are". I would have got nought out of a hundred at West Square Central School had I answered a paper in those terms. So may I ask the Minister please to forget the convention. Forget the bit of paper you have in front of you. Just do the obviously sensible thing. One of two can only be "is"; it cannot possibly be anything else. When we get to what the Government is, when we get to what the local authorities are in other circumstances, we will look at the context. But the context of this has to be "any one of two is" the local authority.
I beg the Minister please not to drag this matter out. I can go on speaking forever on the subject, if need be. My noble friend Lord Ross said that he could do so for three hours, and, given this Minister, he could do it for five. Having listened to this Minister I think he is probably right in his boast. If he drags in the middle I will help him out. But please—to the advisers of the Minister, at whom I am looking at the moment—just send him down a piece of paper saying, "Don't be so damned silly". Any one of two can only be "is". It cannot be any other way.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, lest the Minister is not prepared to accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, may I just say that as one by no means unfamiliar with the idiosyncracies of parliamentary draftsmen, and in particular Scottish parliamentary draftsmen, I find it a little startling that the Minister should suggest that any one of those is in this context a greater authority than the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. Surely with that in mind the Minister is bound to give way.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, perhaps it is a good thing that we are having this protracted discussion because, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said, it at least gives this noble House a clear picture of how the Scottish Grand Committee has always conducted itself. I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will think of an old friend of ours, one Mr. Willis, who must be thinking of how he would have spoken for at least two hours in the Scottish Grand Committee on this particular subject.
When I read this amendment and then read the text, I felt that the grammar of the actual text in the Bill jarred on me. I do not know whether my noble friend has had a piece of paper, with which I used to be very familiar, at the bottom of which is written the word "resist", but if he has not I do not really

481
think that the Bill is going to suffer very much if we put in "is" instead of "are". May I add my voice to those other founts of eloquence on this subject, particularly the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, and hope that the Minister will accept this amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before we come to a conclusion on this matter I rise and will speak with the maximum of brevity, because unfortunately I arrived too late to hear my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock—a source of deep regret to me. Unfortunately, since this is the Report stage he will not be able to rise and repeat his speech for my benefit. I shall look at it in Hansard tomorrow with the greatest possible care. He must be right—though I do not know what he said. He always is right. From what I have heard of this debate it is quite clear that he is right on this occasion.
I should like to add a further nuance. I am speaking not as a Scot at this moment, whatever you might imagine, and I have no experience of the Scottish Grand Committee, something for which I have always been and to my dying day shall continue to be grateful. It is an excellent and elegant body but I am glad I was never in it. I am speaking now as a journalist. Although parliamentary Bills are not written by journalists they are written in the English language. The English language is a continually evolving body. In the evolution of that body journalists play their part. I would draw the Minister's attention to the fact that nowadays it is customary for even the Government to be regarded as singular—not to be regarded as my old, trusted and valued friend Lord George-Brown mentioned a minute ago.
Lord George-Brown: Please delete "old", will you?
Lord Howie of Troon: I mean "old" in the sense of long-standing; and long may he continue to stand, in all respects. What I have in mind is that usage now has got past the stage where the Government, or a local authority, or any body, a committee, for instance, would be regarded as a group of individuals and therefore would be entitled to "are". Nowadays the usage in journalistic circles and literary circles is to regard the Government, or the committee, or the local government, or anything of that sort, as a body, and therefore singular. Whether we are talking about one, or talking about the Government, we would use the singular sense. In this case my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock must be right in whatever it was he said earlier.
The Government should surely yield because it is the right thing to do, and for another reason. The Government, on a number of occasions and on a number of bodies of legislation which it has brought before us, has been, for good or ill, urged to yield something. Only the other day the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, urged the Government to yield on a small point in the Employment Bill, because he thought that yielding was sometimes a good thing for Governments to do. Here is an occasion where the Government might not only do a good thing by yielding but might actually be right at the same time. Surely that must be sufficiently tempting for the noble Earl.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I have not had the
482
privilege of attending your Lordships' House for many months, but I am so moved by the importance of this occasion that I feel I must rise, and I hope the Minister "are" listening to what I am saying. I want to caution him against accepting this too readily, because with a name beginning with the letters "Mans" the next move will be to substitute the word "Men" in his name, and perhaps that would be unfortunate.
As I look at the wording here, if he is deciding to stick with the word "are", then ought he not to change the word "other" to "others" in the same line so as to make the district council plural as well? My final point is that in the Interpretation Act "the singular shall include the plural" and "the plural shall include the singular", so it may be that the Minister could happily give us our "is" and rest on the Interpretation Act if he runs into any difficulties in the courts in future.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, on all sides—from the Government Benches, the Cross Benches, the Opposition, and I need not detail others—support has come for the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in this matter. I was brought up to believe that one or two "is something" rather than "are", so I hope the noble Earl will accept the amendment.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, it is only your Lordships' House that can spend 20 minutes on a matter which is so totally unimportant as this.
Lord George-Brown: And only with you as the Minister.
The Earl of Mansfield: I enjoyed the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, my Lords, patronising as they were, and of course my title is a matter for me; it is not double-barrelled, nor does it have a hyphen. I will not waste any more time, except to say I hope that, if the worst ever happens and we have a Government of a different persuasion, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, as Lord Advocate, so that he is responsible for the drafting of Scottish Bills, he will have a little more loyalty to his draftsmen than he has shown on this occasion. Having said that, I do not think I can say other than that rules are made to be broken and I think they should be broken in this particular case, and accordingly I am happy to accept the amendment.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Ross of Marnock: That is world-shattering, my Lords—such a noise, like Scotland's second goal against Russia. It still rings in my ears. If only the referee had allowed the other two minutes of extra time we would have scored a third. I shall not press the Minister on the other matters, though I must apologise to the House because, having tabled this simple amendment, I was then faced with the Government, to save their own face, putting down another four amendments to get consistency. It is the old business of everybody being out of step but our Jock, so we change everybody else so that Jock can be in step. I was about to say that this was a case that called for the Lord Advocate. We used to resort to that—calling for the Lord Advocate

483
—in the Scottish Grand Committee, only to be sorry we did because we never found that legal help was any real help to us. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the amendment and I hope he will forget his other four amendments because they just do not make sense either.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Islands or district council's functions in relation to tourism]:
4.43 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 10, line 23, after ("After") insert ("the said").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical dafting amendment which has no effect on the provisions of the Bill. It makes clear that the reference to Section 90 in subsection (2) of Clause 11 is to Section 90 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. This is achieved by referring back to the reference to Section 90 in subsection (1) of Clause 11.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Power of regional council to contribute financially towards the provision of recreational, sporting, cultural and social facilities and activities]:
Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 14, line 7, leave out from ("council") to ("by") in line 11 and insert (",as regards recreational, sporting, cultural or social facilities or activities—

(a) shall contribute such sums as they shall decide by way of grant towards expenses incurred, or to be incurred, by a district council; and

(b) may contribute").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have some trepidation in intervening in Scottish matters, especially as a precedent has just been created whereby it seems almost certain that, as a result of what I am about to say, the amendment will be carried. Therefore it is not a case, as often happens, of moving an amendment simply for discussion and then withdrawing it; in Scottish affairs it is clear that when one moves an amendment the Government are immediately so impressed with one's argument that they may accept it. I must choose my words with care in the hope that that precedent will be followed on this occasion.
Although I am unqualified to pose in any way as an expert on Scottish matters, let alone in such recherché matters as Scottish local government affairs, I have a great admiration and long-standing friendship with the Scottish theatre. A number of friends of mine, knowing of my interest in the theatre, have been in touch with meéas they have with my noble friends on the Front Bench, who have been kind enough to agree that I might move the amendment—concerning their worry that the local government changes proposed in the Bill will have a deleterious effect on the amount of public support they get. The Federation of Scottish Theatre are among those who have written to us saying that the position at present is that they get, they say—and I have every reason to believe it is true—their main local authority financial support from the regions. Many of the buildings are owned by the district councils, who
484
then lease them to theatre trusts. An example is provided in the case of the Royal Lyceum Theatre Company in Edinburgh, but it is a situation of general application.
Their concern is that, as a result of these changes, they may no longer get from district authorities the same generous—or fairly generous support, at any rate—they have received from regional authorities. It may be that in response to that feeling the Government have themselves included Clause 17 because that gives power, as no doubt the Minister will tell us, to regional councils to contribute financially towards the provision of recreational, sporting, cultural and social facilties and activities. The regional council under the Bill therefore, fortunately, has the power to continue to act in the beneficent fashion in which it has acted in the past, in spite of the changed circumstances which will be brought about by the Bill.
What my friends in Scotland would like—and it would be the effect of the amendment—is that, so far as a local authority proposal, a district council proposal, is concerned, the regional council, the other body, would be obliged to make a contribution, rather than merely be enabled to do so. It would be obligatory. So if the district council concerned were to make a proposal for assistance to a regional authority, that authority would be required to give a positive response. These ideas will be familiar to noble Lords. They take place in other areas; there is an obligation on local authorities to make a contribution to library areas and so on, so there is nothing very startling in what is proposed.
One objection which might be advanced is that it is not a very onerous obligation; a regional council who wanted not to contribute much would be able to get out of the obligation by making a purely token subscription, and therefore one is not placing a great burden on the regional council. However, it would draw a distinction between a request coming from a district council—in other words, a request coming from an authority—and a request coming from anywhere else. Thus, instead of reading, as the clause does at present:
"A regional council may, as regards recreational, sporting, cultural or social facilities or activities, contribute"—
it would say:
"A regional council … shall contribute such sums as they shall decide … towards expenses incurred, or to be incurred, by a district council"—
and it would go on to say that it "may" contribute in all other respects. There would be a slight distinction, therefore, between a request coming to the regional authority from the district council. The clause would state that, in respect of such a request, the authority "shall" respond; in respect of all other requests it "may" respond.
As I said a few moments ago, the difference is not perhaps as large as might be seen, because the regional authority could say, "We will give you a pound". I think it very unlikely that it would do that. But the amendment would provide a sense of obligation, and I believe that my friends in the Scottish theatre would feel a little more secure if the Government were able to agree to this fairly minor change, so as very slightly to increase the sense of obligation which local authorities would feel was upon them to maintain, continue and, when circumstances permit, perhaps even to enlarge,

485
their financial support to the theatre in Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney in this matter. In doing so, I am aware of the fact that the amendment would make only a marginal difference; it would be a difference of emphasis, and nothing else. At the moment support for the theatre and other activities mentioned in the clause is provided by the regional authorities on a wholly voluntary basis. They are not under any duty to support theatres. They have the opportunity to do so, and the district councils have the same opportunity.
I have a letter from the Citizens' Theatre in Glasgow, which has relied fairly heavily on the support of Strathclyde Regional Council. There is a fear that the change from the region to the district might lessen the regional council's enthusiasm for continuing such support. Quite frankly, I do not think that it will. I very much doubt whether the Strathclyde Regional Council's view of the importance of the Citizen's Theatre will in any way be altered by the change that is proposed in the Bill. Nevertheless there are fears in this respect, and it may be that those who fear the change are more justified in having fears than I am in discounting them. The amendment will not change what is proposed in the Bill, other than by way of emphasising that the authority,
"shall contribute such sums as they shall decide …".
So I hope that the Minister will consider that the amendment can be accepted.
I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney can read the future, or whether before it took place he had in his mind the debate that we had a few minutes ago on the previous amendment. It may well be that in a bid for the Minister's support my noble friend accepts wholeheartedly that an authority is plural, since the amendment refers to what "they" may do, not what "it" may do. So I hope that this leaning towards the Government's side in the grammatical battle that we have had—and which we shall have again later—will mean that the Minister will be inclined to accept the amendment.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I hope that I am not going to embarrass my noble friend; for all I know, he might propose to accept the amendment. I am not as certain that the amendment is as meaningless or as ineffective as noble Lords opposite have suggested. Clearly, until the passing of the Bill, the function relating to leisure and recreation is a concurrent one for which both regions and districts have responsibility. I certainly do not propose to go to the stake in favour of the recommendations made in the report of my committee, but undoubtedly the burden of the report is that the responsibility, or—if I may adopt the term used by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney—the obligation, for leisure and recreation matters should pass to the district.
We have also stated quite specifically that the region has a permissive power to contribute. I may be quite wrong—and no doubt, if he were here, the former Solicitor-General would correct me, if necessary—but it seems to me that if there is placed upon the region a mandatory obligation, concurrency would
486
therefore still exist, if to a lesser degree, and, speaking personally, that is one thing that I would wish to avoid.
4.56 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I am of course aware that fears have been expressed, in particular by theatres and theatre trusts, as to the financial future under the new arrangements. It was for that reason that Clause 17, which empowers regional councils to contribute to the provision or maintenance of leisure and recreation facilities or activities, has been drawn as widely as it has been drawn. In another place there was criticism of the original provision, and in consequence of that there is now no limitation on the powers to contribute, provided of course that the council wishes to do so.
As I have said, I am aware that there is concern lest facilities and activities which previously have depended on regional aid should in future be deprived of the aid and as a result get into financial difficulties. I can appreciate the motivation behind the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, to make it obligatory for regional councils to contribute, though I must point out to him that his amendment relates only to aid to district councils and not to other bodies.
As I think the noble Lord would realise, his amendment, if accepted, would not necessarily elicit any tangible financial assistance from regional councils. A regional council could solemnly determine a nil contribution, and in such instance the effect would be no different from that which would result from the Bill as at present drafted, under which it is for regional councils to determine what aid they give to others, whether they be district councils, as the noble Lord wishes, or voluntary bodies, or any other person. That can include, for instance, such bodies as the Scottish National Orchestra.
So I have to ask myself whether the amendment would achieve more than the Bill already provides. I have to answer, no, because the regional councils already have complete discretion. It is for them to decide what they want to do, and what they think their ratepayers would wish them to do. The attempt by the route of the amendment to make regional councils undertake a burden which they are perfectly free to undertake is to be slightly criticised because, as I have said, the discretion is complete and it is a matter for the regional councils. Therefore I am driven to the conclusion that the amendment would not improve the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston has hinted, I think that it would be mildly otiose because it would detract from the way in which we have reshaped the different jurisdictions and responsibilities of the regional and district authorities.
I therefore hope that this debate this afternoon will reassure, not only noble Lords in this House and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in particular, but, perhaps just as important, all those bodies in Scotland which, quite naturally, are very anxious as to their financial future and feel that this disturbance of the practices and organisation of local government may affect them adversely. As I say, I hope that this debate will reassure the noble Lord, and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney for this amendment, mainly because it gives us an opportunity of once again expressing the fears which have been relayed to us by certain authorities. I can think of the Lyceum Theatre Company in Edinburgh, the Citizen Theatre Company in Glasgow and the Borderline in Irvine, not to mention the others of more Scottish context and support, like the Scottish Orchestra, the Scottish Ballet and Scottish Opera. I think myself that probably the Government have gone as far as they can. Of course, the trouble is that the obligation rests upon one authority now, and it is just open to the other authority to contribute. The real danger at the present time, as I see it, is that, with local authorities being pressed by the Government in relation to their overall expenditure, too often the kind of expenditure which is sacrificed as a result of that pressure is money spent on something which may be of majority interest to some of us but which really is a minority interest. The cultural aspects of life are those which are shed first, and that, to my mind, is the real danger.
After all, we have the Government taking new powers to ensure that the local authority will not spend over a certain amount of money. Who is to say that, they not having been given the responsibility in respect of these activities—cultural, sporting, recreational and social facilities—the local authority will not be pressed by the Government to say that what they are spending there is unreasonable? The present local government financial atmosphere is the greatest thing shedding a gloom upon us so far as the future of many of these organisations are concerned.
But I trust that there will be recognition of the contribution that these organisations make, far beyond their district. If they were dependent upon the district they just would not be there. They depend upon people from the region, and even upon people from outside the region in which they are based. There are people from well wide of the Strathclyde Region or the Glasgow District who make visits to the Citizen Theatre in Glasgow. It may well be that the local authorities from which these people come have felt an obligation to contribute and to keep the thing alive. In respect of many other features not connected with local authority I know how much we are dependent on the support of local authorities not in the immediate area. I am thinking in this respect of the National Trust for Scotland, where, at a time like this, I should not like to see the interest of the local authorities disappearing.
I do not know that this amendment is any better than the ones we have tried before, but at least it gives us the opportunity to express the hope that regions as well as districts will recognise the need and the justification that there is for their further contributing to certain of these organisations which have done so much and struggled so much against financial adversity in keeping alive. I do not know what my noble friend intends to do. It may well be that he will decide, on balance, to withdraw his amendment; but that means, of course, inevitably, that we are left to the generosity of the regions in the future—and, indeed, in the first instance, to the acceptance of their obligations, their
488
duties, by the districts, and to their giving adequate support to these institutions.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most gratful for what my noble friend has said. Perhaps it would not be out of order if I were to point out to the noble Earl the Minister that the difference drawn in the amendment between the district authority and all other organisations was indeed quite deliberate, and was in fact the main purpose of the amendment. On the other hand, what is proposed here is in no way a precept. The district council has no power to demand from the regional authority any particular sum. The local authority, as the noble Earl the the Minister quite correctly points out, could make a token contribution of £l, and that would be that. What was sought to be done here was to emphasise the importance of this type of grant in cultural activities, theatres, orchestras and so forth, so as to give the regional authority a greater sense of obligation in respect to a request for a grant coming from a district council than it would feel to the generality of such requests.
However, in view of what the noble Earl the Minister has said, in view also of what my noble friends have said from the Front Bench, and in the hope that what has been said here this afternoon will give assurance outside this House—it is not so important to assure me; it is, I think, very important to assure people who are engaged in the arts in Scotland—and in the hope that this assurance will be no mere figment but one of real substance, I ask the leave of your Lordships to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [Re-allocation of responsibility for the enforcement of certain provisions of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956]:
5.7 p.m.
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 17, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("after") in line 1 on page 18 and insert ("In the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List, and perhaps I may be allowed to preface what I have to say by a few introductory words, because I am not ceratin that if I did not do so some of those present today would understand what I was talking about. This amendment concerns the distribution of functions between regions and districts in Scotland. It seeks to prevent change where change is neither demonstrably necessary nor demonstrably beneficial. It seeks to prevent the taking away of functions from the nine regions and handing them over to the 53 districts, as recommended by the Stodart Committee in paragraphs 157 to 169 of their otherwise excellent report—a recommendation which the Government have accepted and incorporated in the Bill in Clause 22.
The clause was debated in Committee in another place, and a Motion to leave it out entirely was defeated by eight votes to five—rather fewer than the numbers present in your Lordships' Chamber at the present time. This amendment was moved in Committee here

489
by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, who regrets he cannot be with us today to support me. There was a 45-minute debate—a short debate in relation to the nature of the subject. Personally, I regretted the asbence of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who had shown on Second Reading an inclination to be against the proposal in the Bill. I am glad to see him here today, and I hasten to add that I would not for the world (or for the World Cup, if it conies to that) blame him in any way for missing the Committee stage, particularly as I missed it myself.
I have no interest to declare, though I have been for some years an honourary vice-president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, of which the Society of Scottish Directors of Consumer Protection is a component. I think that is not particularly well-known south of the Border. The reorganisation of local government in Scotland under the Act of 1973 necessitated an allocation of functions as between the nine new regions and the 53 new districts. Section 158 of the Act divided the functions of local authorities under the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1956, the principal Act dealing with inspection and enforcement in the field of food.
Under the 1973 Act, functions relating to composition, labelling and advertising of food were allocated to the regions. Functions relating to food hygiene at local level were allocated to the 53 districts. In other words, misdescription and adulteration came under the regions; contamination of food rendering it unfit for human consumption and dangerous to health came under the districts. In the Islands areas, the question of dividing responsibilities did not arise, as the authorities were all-purpose.
Clause 22 of the Bill proposes to transfer the composition, labelling and advertising functions from the regions to the districts so that the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act would all, or nearly all, be administered at one level—that is, by the local authority departments of health and hygiene. This is what the Stodart Committee recommended, saying in paragraph 165 of their report:
"We see considerable merit in concentrating as far as possible all functions under the 1956 Act on one authority"
They also put forward two other reasons which I venture to summarise as, first, the difficulties of demarcation of responsibilities which, in some cases (they use the poetic word) "intertwine"; and, second and much less convincingly, they said in Paragraph 164:
"it is arguable that, because of the public health implications of, in particular, sections 1 and 2 of the Act, they lend themselves to more effective enforcement by district councils in view of their other responsibilities for matters to do with health."
Your Lordships will note that the word used is "arguable". The committee did not state that as a self-evident fact or even as the opinion of the committee but as an arguable point of view.
I am bound to point out that these supposed advantages of concentrating all functions under the Food and Drugs Act on one authority must have been weighed in the balance against the division of functions that was made in 1973. The outcome then was the decision in favour of a division of functions for the very practical reasons given at the time by my right honourable friend Mr. Buchanan-Smith, now Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
490
and Food. Why was this change of attitude made? Is it that arrangements have not worked? The Stodart Committee said in Paragraph 166:
"The Scottish Home and Health Department did not make any major criticisms of the existing arrangements".
Is it wise to make a major change in the existing arrangements in the absence of any major criticism? Surely, the answer must be, no. Secondly, is it that there has been widespread criticism of the working of the arrangements, whether public criticism or in the press or broadcasting, or again from the trade and manufacturing interests concerned? Again, the answer is, no.
The consumer organisations—and I list them—the National Consumer Council, the Scottish Consumer Council, the National Federation of Consumer Groups and also the Consumers' Association are all against the proposed change. As for the trade and manufacturing interests—the CBI, the Retail Consortium, the Food Manufacturers' Federation, the Food and Drinks Industry Council—they, too, are against the proposed change. The only bodies in favour are those who stand to gain from the change—namely, the district councils and the Scottish Institute of Environmental Health.
It seems as if the Government consider it a dangerous threat, which should be resisted at all costs, when industry, trade and the public share the same views as to where their interests lie; and in this case their interest lies in maintaining the status quo. We have heard of the man in Whitehall knowing best; now we have the Scottish Office knowing even better. Let me make it quite clear that I do not wish to say anything disparaging of the efficiency of the health and hygiene inspectors. I do not doubt that they could do the job being done by trading standards departments. What is in doubt is whether they could do it better and more economically—and, of course, one has to bear in mind that there will be transitional hazards. I suggest strongly that, unless it can be shown incontrovertibly that they will do it better if this clause is passed by your Lordships, there is no case for change.
In making the decision in 1973, the Government took into account developments which had taken place since 1956, when the Food and Drugs Act was passed—and it was largely a consolidation Act—and also tendencies which were manifest at that time. Among those developments was the marked growth in prepacked food and convenience products coupled with a tendency towards self-service in retail outlets both large and small. Under new weights and measures legislation in 1963, many products had to be sold in specified quantities. There really was a veritable revolution in the retail trade in progress at that time.
The counterpart of this change in the manufacturing, packing, distribution and marketing field was that more and more of the control over products, packing and labelling (including indications of quality, quantity and composition) was being conducted at factories and packing stations—in other words, the control was not truly local—rather than at retail level. Food manufacturers became more and more accustomed to seeking guidance from trading standards authorities before they launched a new product or adopted a new packing.
By the end of 1973 we were about to be confronted with a spate of regulations and directives from the EEC—for example, the recent change from net weight

491
of contents to average weight, measured at the factory and the packing station by the trading standards authorities' inspectors, who are able to control contents, composition and labelling during the same visits of inspection. There is no wonder that the Stodart Committee—and I quote:
"took the point that the fewer the authorities involved the easier to achieve a uniform approach to food standards".
They did not follow that through by acknowledging that higher food standards mean higher health standards, providing that the higher food standards are effectively and efficiently enforced, as they are at present. The same tendency towards more concentration of effort was evident in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
I am trying to give the reasons why the decision that was reached in 1973 was reached. That trade Descriptions Act was a United Kingdom Act which prohibited misdescriptions in the course of selling any goods, including food. A major and far-reaching decisions was taken in regard to enforcement. The decision that was taken at that time was to confer on the weights and measures inspectors the responsibility for enforcement.
What happened was that a conscious and very far-reaching decision was taken to concentrate all the enforcement responsibilities of local authorities into one large, highly skilled professional organisation called in most cases the trading standards organisation, or consumer trading standards administration, and in some cases the consumer protection department. The Stodart Committee said that they appreciated the need for uniformity in the administration and in the interpretation of the statutes and regulations. During the passage of the Trade Descriptions Act through this House doubt was expressed about the likelihood of achieving a uniform approach and of avoiding conflicting judgments up and down the United Kingdom. It is greatly to the credit of the regional authorities and of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration that they have co-operated to achieve a large measure of uniformity. The Institute of Trading Standards Administration have developed a confidential information service to which all authorities contribute and on which all can draw.
I see the Chief Whip looking puzzled. But I have some things that I feel that I have to say and get on the record. I hope that they are of interest to noble Lords. I shall try to curtail my speech as much as I possibly can.
In addition to that, local associations in the United Kingdom have set up a co-ordinating body on trading standards, known as LACOTS, to which trade associations can refer specific inquiries with confidence that the answer will be accepted by the enforcement authorities. LACOTS have regional panels, one of which has already been established in Scotland to monitor the administration of legislation covering food, agriculture and medicines.
There is great value in having in each region one large department handling all trading standards functions. In this way, both consumers and businessmen know where to go for advice and guidance on matters affecting composition, labelling and advertising. There is no doubt at all that this would not be so easy to run if Clause 22 were allowed to stand in the
492
Bill. Above all, there is the advantage of having a sizeable staff of trading standards officers with a professional qualification, the Diploma in Trading Standards, gained through training on the job, passing a common examination covering a wide range of enforcement duties. The training and experience fully covers food and drugs law enforcement and product testing and analysis. It is the width and scope of experience and enforcement in many fields that counts.
Naturally, changes have taken place since 1973. But the point is that these strongly reinforce the reasons given by my right honourable friend Mr. Buchanan-Smith on behalf of the Government for the decision taken in 1973 to entrust the food composition, labelling and advertising provisions to the regions. They amply justify his foresight.
May I remind your Lordships what he said at that time, speaking for the Government in the Scottish Grand Committee:
"The food composition, standards and labelling provisions are complex and they, I think, quite fairly reflect national and, indeed, in some cases international codes. Enforcement, which must as far as possible he uniform when one is talking about these national and international codes, requires a considerable degree of specialised knowledge and is akin to consumer protection rather than to public health."
That was the principle. He went on:
"Today food manufacture, supply and advertising is essentially a large-scale operation usually conducted over an area wider than that of a single local authority. The enforcement of the provisions by regional and islands councils, as is provided for in Clause 158—that is, by councils which we believe are large enough to employ the specialised staff required for this task—should contribute to an all-round uniformity …".
I repeat the words:
"Enforcement … is akin to consumer protection rather than to public health."
What on earth induced the Stodart Committee to come to the opposite conclusion? Why have the Government endorsed this retrograde recommendation? No positive reasons have been given—only a few moans about duplication and overlapping that surely do not need a major legislative change to pacify.
I hope that my noble friend can give us some—or at least one—such positive reason this afternoon. If he cannot, I hope that he will accept this amendment. If he will not even do that, will my noble friend give an undertaking not to activate the clause until further inquiry is held? He talks about monitoring, but what is the good of monitoring once the change has been made? The chances of it being reversed later are about 99 to 1. Will he set up an inquiry?
In the meantime, may I point out what the Stodart Committee said in their introduction:
"The relatively short period allowed to us for making our own report meant … that it was virtually impossible to commission any independent research in real depth on issues where further information could have been very valuable".
Here was such as issue. All my noble friend need do is to introduce on Third Reading a new subsection to Clause 22, or for that matter into Clause 63, bringing the clause into operation on such date as the Secretary of State may by order provide, and then as soon as possible cause an inquiry to be held by an independent person, such as an advocate or an independent expert. If the inquiry comes down on the side of leaving things as they are, then I hope there will be no question about

493
accepting the result of that inquiry. My Lords, I beg to move.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. I spoke at length on Second Reading and at Committee stage and I shall not trouble your Lordship with repeating all that I had to say. It seems to me that one can but endorse what my noble friend said. This is a clear-cut position in which the Stodart Committee—and I hope that my noble friend Lord Stodart will agree—now appear not to have been as fully informed about all aspects of it as have later come to light—as I brought to your Lordships' attention principally at Second Reading. It would seem therefore that my noble friend's suggestion, that if the Government cannot accept that the status quo would be the best solution and the fact in this particular case that the subsequent evidence confirmed that the region really is the best place for this function, perhaps they could make sure that there is a further inquiry to ensure that there is proper and full information on all aspects of the case. I do not think that there is much point in saying more. I hope that my noble friend will be agreeable to those alternatives.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has given the whole story. This is a case of something which is working perfectly well. It could go on working perfectly well and does not require to be changed. The Stodart Committee—admirable as many of its recommendations are—had not the time to go into this, and they say so in the report. Nobody wants to change. I am speaking as someone who has a quite close association with the Consumers' Associations in England and Scotland. I know they feel very strongly about this, and it would be much better if the Government were to be wise enough and broadminded enough to realise that this is something people do feel very strongly about. It is not necessary. It will multiply enormously the number of people engaged on the bureaucratic side. That is one of the things that we on this side of the House stand for trying to prevent. We are in favour of doing away with as much bureaucracy as we can. This is an opportunity to do that, and I hope that the Government will take this opportunity and heed the advice of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, again I rise with some trepidation. Your Lordships were extremely patient with me at the Committee stage. I shall not detain your Lordships long because I am well aware that I must not be guilty of repeating what I said at Committee stage. All I would say about what I said then, in the light of the remarks made by my noble friends about evidence that has come out since the report, is that we have heard nothing said during the Committee stage, nor have I read of it as having been said in the other place, of which we were not fully aware when we wrote our report, in which we came to a unanimous conclusion.
What I should like to tell your Lordships, because it may be of interest, is the position that my committee found when we were examining how the powers of the 1956 Food and Drugs Act had been distributed under
494
Section 158 of the 1973 Act. That may not be fully known even to some of my noble friends. I think only one section number is given in the Bill we are now discussing, and only four—the regional ones—are mentioned in my report; and I hope that, having told your Lordships of the difficulties that we faced, my committee and I might receive a little more sympathy and, if I may say so, a little less scorn from my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn.
What we found was that four duties that existed in the 1956 Act had been placed on the regions and islands and 12 duties had been placed on the regions and again on the islands. As a result, of course, the island authorities do the whole lot, which shows that there is no argument or difficulty about expertise. It is irrelevant, in my view, for the purpose of this debate, to list all the district functions—all 12—which included such things as the supervision of slaughtering, the registration of manufacturers and traders and the regulations concerning the sale of horsemeat. The spotlight is really on the four functions which were given to the regions, and we remarked that we felt the functions had become somewhat intertwined with some of the district ones.
Perhaps I may explain what we meant. We found, for example, that one of the four regional functions was to see that any substance which resembled cream but which was not cream must not be sold as cream. "Reconstituted cream" and "imitation cream" were defined. That was very good; but then given to the districts was the duty or obligation of seeing that no water or colouring matter or dried or condensed milk should be added to milk intended for sale. We found it quite extraordinary that one authority should be responsible for cream and another one responsible for milk.
We then come to the contentious matters, and I fully accept them. The other duties that were given to the regions, if I may just paraphrase them, were that they must see that nothing was added to food or abstracted from food which renders food harmful. We asked ourselves, if food is harmful, is it unfit for human consumption?—because, if it is, that is a function for which the districts are responsible. Food must not be sold which is not of a substance or quality demanded by the purchaser. That is a regional function. Labels or adverisements must not give false or misleading descriptions of food.
When one found that to the districts the functions were that no food was to be sold or exposed for sale if it was unfit for human consumption, one has surely got a very considerable intertwining there—that food suspected of being unfit for human consumption was to be examined and seized by the district either on exposure or in the course of delivery; and food must not be sold or moved if the medical officer might suspect it could cause food poisoning. And of course, the district do the inspection of food that is imported into their particular area.
I do accept that the regions will still be involved as the watchdogs over such things as weights and measures, but the latter, of course, did not come under the umbrella of the 1956 Food and Drugs Act and I still think that on balance—and this is a matter of balance—it was not a bad thing to tidy up the functions which were allocated under that one statute to two

495
different authorities and to have them operated by one.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, would he not agree that he took no evidence from the food manufacturers' organisations who could have clarified for him the misapprehensions I have just heard him giving us in his speech?
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend may be correct, without my going through all the papers. We saw no point in taking oral evidence, as I said on Committee stage, from those who had submitted excellent papers in writing. I think that is a matter of practical common sense. But what I do repeat, whether or not my noble friend is right, is that nothing he has said and nothing that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, or the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has told me anything that my committee or I did not already know. I repeat that it came to a unanimous conclusion, and on it there sat members of regional councils and the head of the leading supermarket chain in Scotland.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, if I may, I should like to echo the opening comment of the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, that he intervened in this debate with trepidation. I do so with even more trepidation but I do so for a reason which is totally different from the noble Lord's reasons. He referred to the district function in relation to the sale of food unfit for human consumption. Some noble Lords may remember—and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will—when I spoke rather strongly recently in support of a Private Member's Bill which was directed towards an aspect of consumer protection in that it increased the penalties for the sale of unfit food.
I have listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I should like to ask the question: how far does his amendment affect the extremely important and fundamental question of protecting the public from the sale of unfit food? I have heard it said that the status quo is what we want in this matter, and that, therefore, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, should be accepted. I am raising this matter only in relation to the question of unfit food and consumer protection. Will this amendment strengthen, in any way, the powers of the district, the region or whatever it is called in Scotland—I am sorry, but I do not know much about Scottish affairs, as is obvious—and will it affect the protection of the consumer against the sale of unfit food?
5.40 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has already pointed out, this matter has exercised both the other place and your Lordships' House on a number of occasions, and I think that the areas of debate are fairly well defined. I shall not go into all the avenues which we explored in Committee, because most of the points are fairly well known. But I think that I should encapsulate my arguments in small compass, because it is something which exercises the minds of a number of your Lordships.
496
I should first point out what we are actually doing. What we are doing is to give the function of enforcing food composition standards and labelling, under the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956, back to the environmental health departments, which continued to exercise all the food hygiene and safety functions under the 1956 Act till 1975. So we are bringing back what existed before the 1973 Act took effect. Secondly, we are taking this step following the recommendations of the Stodart Committee, and the longer this debate has gone on the more convinced are the Government—and this applies equally to colleagues in another place—that that committee (and my noble friend can cover his ears, if he likes) set about its task and went into the question fully.
It did not have oral evidence directly from the food manufacturers, but it had evidence from the Institute of Trading Standards Administrators and Directors of Consumer Protection. It had a lot of material upon which to base its conclusions and, as my noble friend has pointed out—and, after all, he was chairman of the committee—he has heard no points since his committee sat which are new, and all of those points were fully considered by his committee.
So if I criticise the remarks of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn—and I do not wish to do so—I do not think one can cavalierly dismiss the conclusions to which the Stodart Committee came. As my noble friend has pointed out, it had on it four regional representatives and a number of other highly distinguished people in this field. The Wheatley Report, of which mention has been made, made no recommendation on the subject, other than to suggest that all environmental health subjects should go together, and these functions were given to regions by the 1973 Act, as I have already said.
The aim, as I think I said in Committee, was to help build up the new departments of consumer protection in the new authorities, and they now operate effectively. But the enforcement of milk legislation was left with environmental health departments, and they were given joint enforcement powers where there was extraneous material in the composition of food. I think it is worthy of note that, at that stage, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in his then capacity, thought that the functions could quite well have gone to environmental health departments in the districts. So this is something about which there has been a debate for a good number of years.
Therefore, in the new arrangements, we have the assurance of staff with experience, we have the assurance of the considered recommendations of the committee and, we have the fact that the key technical work, the sampling, is, in any event, carried out by the public analysts who already carry out work for both regions and districts. Furthermore, of course, this is not something which is totally novel, because, as my noble friend Lady Elliot will know, the Borders region, which is her area, has delegated these functions to districts.
We now come to post-Stodart. We have had the assurance of detailed consideration not only in this House, but, before that, going back to the beginning of 1981, and, indeed, having two stages. The first asked for comments on the report, and my right honourable friend made his decision in June, 1981. The second

497
was a reconsideration of the position between June and November, 1981, when the Bill was published. I acknowledge that the Food Manufacturers' Federation have written to me to point out that their comments were made after the Secretary of State's decision in June. But I have assured them, in turn, that their representations, which were first made at that late stage, and those from other bodies were considered by the Secretary of State before the Bill was published, and their representations and thoughts have been much considered in argument and debate since.
So the key point is whether the subject is one for food and drugs or consumer protection. My noble friend's committee, and the Government, take the view that the subject is best returned to the food and drugs work carried out by environmental health departments. This will eliminate some uncertainty and overlap, and it should achieve a strengthening integration of these subjects which should primarily be protection of health functions. Just because we are used to high standards in this area of food safety, does not mean that we should take them for granted.
My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn might care to reflect on whether when in his youth he was travelling about in the Middle East developing British commercial interests, he bought food, his prime interest was in the precise weight and value of the food he purchased, or in whether it was safe to eat and what effect it might have on him. I acknowledge that it is quite true that these changes which we propose in the Bill will result in some overlaps on the weights and measures side. There always will be overlaps, but the Bill will remove the main overlap by ensuring that food law is all dealt with by one local department with existing roots, experience and contacts and greater accessibility, particularly in the more rural areas.
It has been said that the transfer is illogical, but, looking at the perspective in which food standards and composition are presently set, is it not more illogical to leave them where they are? Section 1 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956, by requiring that food shall not be injurious to health, sets the tone for the whole Act. Set alongside regional functions connected with quality and quantity control of equipment, hallmarking, fertilisers, petroleum and explosives licences and price and credit control, I suggest that food functions seem out of place. On the other hand, if one takes the responsibilities of the districts for such things as sanitation, atmospheric pollution, rodent control, food hygiene, safety of milk and ice-cream and port health functions, I suggest that there is a much greater degree of compatibility with these food functions.
There is the argument about uniformity being more difficult because there are many more district authorities than there are regional authorities, but co-operation is already there in environmental health departments in other subjects. There is GB machinery for cooperation into which the environmental health departments intend to slot. They are represented on the European Food Law Group. There will be refresher training of their staff. The two professional organisations, the Scottish Institute of Environmental Health and the Royal Sanitary Association of Scotland, intend in any event to merge to form one very powerful body, and the directors are very willing to enter into
498
consultation with the trade to iron out any possible difficulties before they arise.
In conclusion, I have to say that I still think that what is proposed in the Bill is the right way to proceed. The history of the matter, the investigation by my noble friend's committee and the weight of argument on the health side, the keenness and the organisation of the districts and their officers and the existing machinery for consideration all point to a straight-forward transfer of what is in effect a fairly modest function.
Yesterday my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn rang up my department. Unfortunately, I was out, but I was able to consider some of his points with my officials, particularly the last point he made in his speech concerning the moment when these proposals would come into effect under Clause 68 and what we could do meantime. I say to him that under Clause 68 there is complete flexibility. The commencing days may be made by statutory instrument and there may be different commencing days for different clauses of the Bill.
At this very late stage and bearing in mind the full debates and discussions which we have had, I think that the time is past for any formal inquiry—if that was the noble Lord's thinking. But what I am prepared to do, and I am very happy to give this undertaking, is this. Between now and the making of a commencement order—which, as I have said, is flexible—we shall be very ready to consider any representations of substance which include previously unconsidered matters, and we shall be very happy to consider details of real practical difficulties. If something comes to light, we shall give it the time that is required, and if there has to be a delay about laying an order in respect of this particular clause, or section as it will be then, I give the undertaking that we shall have that delay so that we allow as much time as is necessary to get things right before the actual commencing date takes place.
With that undertaking, which I think is very nearly what my noble friend was asking for, I hope he will see that the Government have given prolonged and anxious consideration to all the matters which he and my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, have raised this afternoon. I hope he will feel that, while the Government have, as it were, remained faithful to Stodart, they have done so for reasons which are genuine and, I would say, cogent. After the assurances which I have been able to give him, I hope that my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I was not here at the Committee stage, so I was denied the opportunity to allow my noble friend Lord Stodart—I do not think he will mind me calling him that—to quote what I said in 1972. I apologise to him for that. I am sure that he spent a long time trying to find out how what I said then is in conflict with whatever I might say now.
People have spoken about handing back to districts or to departments. Let me remind them that they are doing nothing of the kind. New regions and districts were created when the 1973 Act came into being. Handing back is not the point. The point is that we are going back on a decision that related to the functions

499
of three new sets of local authorities. When all the departments were being created anew, I argued that this should go to the districts.
It is ten years since I made that speech. Since 1973 we have had experience of the new position, and I do not think that a case has been made out for the Stodart Committee's proposal. I am very glad to see that paragraph 166 said:
"The Scottish Home and Health Department did not make any major criticism of the existing arrangements".
Even though I said something different as to what the arrangements should be, the existing arrangements have been in being from 1974 until 1982. They have worked well and I do not think that sufficient justification has been put forward for this retrogressive step. It would be far better to leave it alone. You do not do things unless you have really got to do them. In the case of concurrent functions, there was a certain measure of intertwining and overlapping, but both Stodart and the Minister have said that there will still be that. With new departments and officers having been created, our experience of the reorganisation of local government has not been all that good. It would be far better to leave things as they are.
The Minister made the point—so did Lord Stodart, I think—that there were a number of regional councillors on the Stodart Committee. I have had a look at the composition of the committee. There were far more district councillors. One of them made his maiden speech yesterday in the House of Commons. It might have been better if we had kept this back, for he might have been able to enlighten us about his feelings concerning this matter. This was Provost Tom Clarke, who had a very distinguished victory a short time ago at Coatbridge and Airdrie.
My feeling is that it is working well, so why interfere with it? I must also confess that if the speech made from this Bench had been made by my noble friend Lord Hughes, he would have said the very opposite. Our counsels are divided on this.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, my noble friend has referred to what would have been said if I had made the speech. The only thing wrong with that is the tense, because I am going to make the speech. He knows perfectly well from the discussions which we had both before the debate and today that I do not agree with him, so whatever else I may be accused of I certainly cannot be accused of cowardice. It is a bold man who disagrees with my noble friend, particularly when he is sitting on the same Bench. If my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon is here, he will not be supporting me because he has already enunciated the doctrine that anything my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock says is automatically correct, so on that basis I am "out" again.
I do not intend to make a long speech because I expressed views on this point at Second Reading. I support what is in the Bill. I was surprised at some of the things said by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I was equally surprised that they were repeated in almost the same way by my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked why should there be change, and questioned whether there was widespread criticism of the way things are
500
working now. That is a reasonable enough basis, but when the 1973 Act was passed and it was decided to change things from the sanitary inspectors—as I believe they were still known, and he is the same creature as the environmental health officer—it was not done because there was widespread criticism of the way in which the job was being carried out then. So that is no argument against changing now—because there was no criticism—if it was not an argument against changing when the original change was made.
The second point on which I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is where he said that no doubt the job would be done quite well if it went to the district council. That is a perfectly fair statement. He then went on to ask, would it be done better if it was transferred to the district council, or would it be done more economically? Many things have been said about regional councils since the Act was passed in 1973, but I doubt whether there are many ratepayers who would say that regional councils have been economical. I doubt very much whether the shifting of this function from one authority to the other would give an increase in expense. I do not believe that the authorities will need any more staff to do the job than they have at the present time. I am pretty certain that the regional councils will not dismiss any staff because their main emphasis, as has been stated, has been on protecting the consumers' pocket. I thought that the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, about the movements of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in the Middle East, and whether he ought to have been more interested in the price and weight of the food or whether it was safe to eat, shows the difference between what the region is doing and what the district council is doing in their respective functions.
If the matter which is most important is protecting the health of the individual, it will be best protected near to the individual—and that is in the number of district authorities which exist. As to capacities, surely no one would suggest that the Western Islands Council is more capable of undertaking that than, say, Edinburgh District Council or Glasgow District Council? Yet because they are all-purpose authorities, they have these departments at the present time, as they are in Orkney and in Shetland. So size is not necessarily the determination of how the job can be done efficiently.
My noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock said that it was not a case of returning this power because it was borough councils which had it before and they no longer exist: that it is a totally new organisation, with district councils on the one hand and regional and islands councils on the other. But what did not alter at that time were the people who were doing the job. The bulk of the people who were undertaking that function are the class of people who are still employed by the district councils and not by tile regional councils. Under the Bill, the work will be done by those people who have expertise in looking after health and so on. I do not believe there is any political argument on this, and the only reason for saying what I said at Committee stage was to make it perfectly clear that there is no political point of view on this matter on this side of the House either.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, we seem to be agreed on both sides of the House to disagree with our own sides. I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Mansfield for his reply, and I recognise that, in the circumstances, possibly he has gone as far as he can. I believe that the Institute of Trading Standards Authorities and its Scottish counterpart will probably take advantage of his offer. I find it difficult to answer some of the points which have been made without reopening the whole debate, and I am quite certain that your Lordships would not wish me to do that.
My noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston felt he would have welcomed more sympathy towards his committee than I appeared to show. I have every sympathy with his committee because they did not have time to do the job. This is exactly what my argument has been throughout. If your Lordships will look through the list showing the amount of oral evidence, you will find hardly any at all on this subject. I am asking for a proper inquiry and lots of time. I am in no doubt that I have not said anything this afternoon which my noble friend has not heard before. It would be quite astonishing if he had not heard the major economic argument and, for that matter, the health argument that I put to him. The fact remains that since redistribution in 1973, the tendency for more and more control to be exercised at higher and higher levels is one that is very difficult to rebut when one is considering where the questions of composition, trading, advertising and so on are to be controlled. This seems to me to be a cardinal point.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I too am against upsetting things which seem to be going well. I am sorry if I have offended my noble friend because that is far from what I wanted to do, but I think he went a little far in saying that I showed scorn. I showed no scorn at all; it is simply that he did not have time to do the job. He said so, and he said so at Committee stage too the implication of what he said was just that. As I have said from the outset, I think that he did an admirable job, except in this particular case.
I recognise that the conclusion of my noble friend's committee was a unanimous one, but we all know how these things go. There is often a strong emphasis on achieving a consensus—and there has been some criticism of this in your Lordships' House recently—and also, perhaps, there is a tendency to look for recommendations which will stand up when they are put down, so to speak, and this may have influenced unanimity in the Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asked a question about protecting the public from unfit food. I believe he had a copy of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act in his hand at the time. It is not for me to dilate on this, but the provisions dealing with food which is unfit for human consumption are contained in Clause 8 onwards, which are already the district councils' responsibilities. The earlier part deals with the sale of goods. Clause 8 states:
".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person who—

(a) sells, or offers or exposes for sale, or has in his possession for the purpose of sale or of preparation for sale; or

(b) deposits with, or consigns to, any person for the purpose of sale or of preparation for sale,

any food intended for, but unfit for, human consumption shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
502
This is a matter which relates back to the days before the Food and Drugs Acts were consolidated, when so much of the food both in Scotland and in the Middle East was open to the flies and all the rest of it. The responsibility that was placed on the district council was the responsibility to avoid contamination. The responsibility on the regional council was to avoid adulteration. That was the principal distinction. The adulteration now takes place at the level of the factory and packing to a far greater extent than it did before, when it was common enough to put sand in sugar and all the rest of it. I hope that answers that point.
I do not think I will follow up what was said about the Middle East because I have made that very important distinction. Incidentally, it was the person himself who had to look after his health in those days rather than the local authorities. I would simply close by saying that I cannot recommend your Lordships to divide on this matter, not because I do not feel strongly about it. I would add that, quite naturally, the Institute of Trading Standards feel strongly about it because they consider they have not had a fair deal. It is not the fault of my noble friends. There just was not the time. It would not really make sense. It is unlikely that we would win this Division with the proportion of noble Lords present in the Chamber. And even if we did, I feel absolutely certain it would get put back in the other place, so it is not worth the trouble of dividing against it. But I am grateful for the distance to which my noble friend has gone, and, in the light of that, I think it would be ungracious of me to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Consequential transfer of officers of local authorities]:
6.12 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 9:
Page 22, line 34, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall just touch on this amendment and also Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12. I have been thinking whether we are going to continue to be gloriously inconsistent or whether we should, as it were, give effect to the obvious desire of the House for what it considers to be better English, as opposed to the law, which really ought to be more precise. I have considered the matter. I think I must go back and satisfy myself that in showing this delightful inconsistency the House is not going to put something into the Bill which it might afterwards regret. So, with the possible threat of coming back to this matter on Third Reading, I will not now move these four amendments.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 not moved.]
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:
"Power of local authority to incur expenditure for certain purposes not otherwise authorised.
. In section 83 of the 1973 Act (which gives local authorities' power to incur expenditure for certain purposes not otherwise

503
authorised, but limits the expenditure which it authorises)—

(a) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (2)—

"(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the power of a local authority to incur expenditure under that subsection includes power to incur expenditure in giving financial assistance to persons carrying on commercial or industrial undertakings.

(2B) Financial assistance under subsection (2A) above may be given by lending or guarantee, or by making grants.";

(b) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (4)—

"(4A) For the purpose of determining whether a local authority have exceeded the limit set out in subsection (4) above, their expenditure in any financial year under this section shall be taken to be the difference between their gross expenditure under this section for that year and the aggregate of the amounts specified in subsection (4B) below.

(4B) The amounts mentioned in subsection (4A) above are—

(a) any grant paid to the local authority for that year under the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969, in so far as the grant is in respect of an activity in relation to which the authority have incurred expenditure in that year under this section;

(b) the amount of any repayment in that year of the principal of a loan for the purpose of financing expenditure under this section in any year;

(c) so much of any amount raised by public subscription as is spent in that year for a purpose for which the authority are authorised by this section to incur expenditure;

(d) any grant received by the authority for that year out of the European Regional Development Fund or the Social Fund of the European Economic Community, in so far as the grant is in respect of an activity in relation to which the authority incurred expenditure in that year under this section;

(e) the amount of any repayment in that year of a loan under this section made by the authority in any year; and

(f) the amount of any expenditure—

(i) which is incurred by the authority in that year in circumstances specified in an order made by the Secretary of State; or

(ii) which is incurred by the authority in that year and is of a description so specified; or

(iii) which is defrayed by any grant or other payment to the authority which is made in or in respect of that year and is of a description so specified."; and

(c) in subsection (5), for the words "subsection (4) above "there shall he substituted the words "this section"."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships may recall that we had a debate in Committee on this matter, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, who I am sorry is not in his place, moved a very similar amendment, and withdrew it eventually on my assurance that we had the objects of his amendment under urgent and sympathetic consideration, and that I would look at the drafting of his amendment and bring forward an appropriate provision at Report. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have confirmed that the amendment is desirable, and minimal adjustments only had to be made to the drafting. In fact the new clause proposed in this amendment is, except for the side title, identical to that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, in Committee.
The effect will be to make it absolutely clear to local authorities that Section 83 can be used to assist financially persons carrying on industrial and commercial undertakings, and, secondly, to clarify that the limit
504
on the total expenditure incurred under this provision in any financial year is the product of a rate of 2p in the pound calculated net of certain items which are specified in the amendment.
The need for amendment of Clause 83 on the lines now proposed was suggested to the Secretary of State by several Scottish local authorities and in particular by the Convenor of Strathclyde Regional Council, when my right honourable friend last met the convention. The amendment reflects similar amendments made to the corresponding provision for England and Wales in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for fulfilling the undertaking which he gave at the last stage of the Bill. I have gone through the amendment and compared it with that which was moved by my noble friend Lord John-Mackie in Committee. As the noble Earl has said, this one is identical, with just a few minor drafting amendments. If I may give as an example the very first one that occurs, in the amendment as my noble friend put it forward, the 1973 Act was given its full title and, in the amendment as it stands, it is just described as the 1973 Act, because in the interpretation clause the 1973 Act is explained. So there is a saving in language. That is the sort of alteration which has been made.
I am also glad that in moving the new clause the Minister referred to the fact that this had originated with the local authorities concerned. I should like particularly to express thanks to the Strathclyde Regional Council, because it was they who noticed at a very late stage in the proceedings that the Bill did not contain the alteration which had been made to the English Bill in similar circumstances. So between them this somewhat unlikely combination of the Strathclyde Region and the Scottish Office have produced this very desirable clause, which I have much pleasure in supporting.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Limitation on payment which may be required of persons exercising right to purchase under Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980]:
6.19 p.m.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 35, line 40, at end insert—
("(3) In section 4 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 (regarding the conditions of sale), for subsections (7) to (8) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(7) In a rural area to which an Order under subsection (6) above applies, there will be no further disposal of the dwelling-house unless—

(a) the tenant (or his successor in title) has offered to reconvey the dewlling-house to the landlord for a price to be determined by the district valuer as being the value of the dwelling-house at the time the offer is made; and

(b) the landlord has refused the offer or has failed to accept it within one month after it was made".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my remarks will be devoted to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. These were amendments which I withdrew at the last stage and I said then that they would be re-tabled. But just as the noble Lord, Lord

505
Drumalbyn, on an earlier amendment said that he did not propose to divide the House, at this stage I am in that same position so far as these amendments are concerned.
I personally hold views in relation to the sale of houses which are not universally held by people in local government, or even in new town development corporations. My disagreement with what is being done is not concerned with the principle but with the extent to which it is carried out. There are two things particularly that I do not like. I do not like the possibility that all houses in a particular area may be sold. I think there ought to have been some provision for maintaining a balance between houses for sale and houses to rent.
The second matter I do not like concerns the question of the authorities being compelled to provide finance. This is rather important in relation to both amendments. I know from experience that last year, for instance, approximately four-fifths of the money which was seized from the sale of houses to sitting tenants went back in loans to those tenants, and what was left as being available for the building of new houses was such that somewhere between five and 10 houses had to be sold to provide sufficient remaining money to build one house. These two particular categories—houses in rural areas which have been available for renting, and houses which are primarily adapted for disabled people or which, in relation to their vicinity, are particularly suitable for elderly people—are ones for which it would be most undesirable to have no provision of this kind made. If there are a comparatively few houses and they all find themselves in owner occupation, then authorities will be compelled to go on building more houses of this kind.
The two amendments suggest that there should be no further sale of houses of that kind unless the tenant who is exercising his option undertakes to give the authority the chance to acquire the house if he decides to sell it—acquire it not at the price which he paid for it, or even at the updated value of what he paid for it, but at the market value then prevailing. If the authority decides not to take it or—to go further—if it has failed to exercise the right to acquire it within one month, then the sale can go ahead. It gives the opportunity—if the Government were to accept it—in the comparatively small number of cases, for there to be the possibility of houses reverting to the ownership of the local authorities, so that they are available to the people who are on their waiting lists for these particular classes of houses.
The case for the amendment is exceedingly good, but I am in no doubt at all that the Government will not accept it because they are so tied to the idea that houses must be sold and, having been sold, must remain sold, that this flies totally in the face of their wishes in the matter. But it seemed to me, having tabled the amendments in the first place, that it would be wrong not to explain what would arise if these amendments were accepted by the Government. I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, feels so pessimistic about the chances of these two amendments. He will know that we on these Benches have always supported him
506
in this matter and, indeed, when the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill was before your Lordships' House, we fought for the retention of a certain number of specialised houses by local authorities so that they were able to discharge what is their undoubted duty.
It is clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said that it will become increasingly difficult for local authorities to discharge their duty in providing houses of the specialised type, such as, old people's houses, houses for the disabled, houses for the elderly who require attention and so on, it these houses are to be exposed to the possibility of purchase. This is especially true in rural areas; and it is expecially true in the remoter parts of Scotland. I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that this will not receive even a smile from the Government Front Bench. Nevertheless, if there is any hope, I would plead with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, to accept—or to give some hope of accepting—these amendments. If he will not do so, I can only applaud the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and his friends for bringing them before your Lordships' House.
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, once again the noble Lords, Lord Hughes, has spoken briefly but cogently to both Amendments 14 snd 15 and I shall do the same. As noble Lords have said, the matter of the sale of council houses was one which we debated at very considerable length when the Tenants' Rights Bill—as it then was—went through your Lordships' House in 1980.
The amendments apply both to sales of councils houses in rural areas and also to houses in respect of the elderly or disabled. So far as rural housing is concerned, of course we are now in a different situation from that which we were in in 1980, because in 1980 we had to speculate about the possible effects of the legislation. Now the Act has been in operation for 21 months and we have had hard evidence by which to judge its effects. In the circumstances the onus must be on those who want to change the provisions of the 1980 Act, to show that problems have arisen in practice, that the existing legislation is unable or inadequate to deal with those problems, and that therefore there should be a change in the Act. The Government have received no such representations since the Act came into effect which would suggest that there have been problems either in relation to sales in rural areas in general or in relation to the specific issue of second homes, which your Lordships may recall was one of the matters which came to light. Noble Lords this evening have not been able to produce any such evidence, either.
Therefore, I think that the House has to conclude that unless there is something which would cause the Government to reconsider their policy, the Government are at least entitled—whether noble Lords opposite like the policy or not—to pursue their policy unless and until evidence that they should make some sort of reconsideration becomes, as it were, cogent and present.
I do not want to go over the old ground as to the effects of a sale on the stock of houses in the non-rural areas. We did have an independent study of second homes which was completed in 1977. It was called

507
Second Homes in Scotland and it was prepared by the Dartington Amenity Research Trust. It indicated that there had been no net growth in the number of second homes in Scotland in the previous five years, and that state of affairs remains valid today. I submit that the presumption in Scotland is, therefore, that a second homes problem related to the sale of council houses is unlikely to arise. That presumption is so far borne out by experience. It follows, therefore, that special powers should only be available where there is evidence of the emergence of a second homes problem and that is, therefore, where we part company with the amendment.
I remind your Lordships that the Secretary of State may allow a local authority to apply a 10-year preemption condition to council house sales in its area, or in some part of its area, if there is evidence of council houses being resold as second homes. The amendment would remove that requirement from the Secretary of State. In other words, he would not have to be furnished with such evidence, and so there would be no criteria governing the Secretary of State's use of the power, and that I think would be wholly wrong. Therefore, I do not see that there is any case that has been made out for Amendment No. 14.
On Amendment No. 15, again, this is an area which has been extensively debated—I could say exhaustively debated. On at least two occasions the House decided on a Division that elderly and disabled tenants should not be deprived of the same rights as other tenants. That is a principle to which I stick. We have now had 21 months' experience of the legislation in operation. Again, there has been no evidence that the existing legislation is in any way in adequate. We have received no representations on this broad issue from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities since the Tenants' Rights (Amendment) Act—which, as your Lordships may remember, dealt directly with this area of policy—came into effect.
So the legislation as it stands was carefully thought out. It was very thoroughly debated and, so far as I know—and noble Lords have not furnished the House with any evidence to the contrary this afternoon—the Act is working well. In those circumstances, I could not possibly advise the House to accept this amendment. Quite frankly, I do not even think that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was trying to make me do so.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, if I am anything, I at least claim to recognise what is possible, and I know that in matters of this kind, even if I had persuaded the Minister of State that this was the right thing to do, he would have found himself in serious difficulty with his colleagues in another place if he had so far departed from the ideas to which they appear to be so firmly attached.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said that he was surprised that I was so pessimistic about it. If I had thought that there was some way in which we could lock the doors and confine the voting on these amendments to those who had listened to the debate, there would be a fair chance that we would have carried the amendments, but I know perfectly well that as soon as the bell rings people come crawling out of the
508
woodwork from all over the place, and those who would determine the fate of the amendments are those who have not listened to a single word of what has been said. We know that on both sides of this Chamber people will come in and say "How are we voting?". On that basis, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, would win if I divided on these amendments.
However, I did get some help from the noble Earl's reply. He is more or less inviting those who know what the position is to make representations, and I shall encourage my friends in local government to gather evidence on these matters, although not between now and the next stage of the Bill, which I understand is not very far away. Unless the Minister has been making a totally empty promise, there is a possibility that if the evidence can be forthcoming in due course, the Government will table the necessary amendments to the legislation. On the basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 14.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 56 [Liability of water authorities etc. for damage caused by escapes of water onto agricultural or forestry land]:
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 38, line 36, leave out ("(but not any building)") and insert ("and fixed equipment as defined in section 93(1) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 excepting all permanent buildings including farmhouses and farm cotages").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that I moved a very similar amendment to this one at the Committee stage and withdrew it on receiving an assurance from the Minister that he would look into the matter. This he very kindly did and wrote to me suggesting that the wording within the Bill before your Lordships was sufficient to cover all the eventualities that I had in mind. In fact, he was able to suggest that, with the usual caveat that the interpretation of statute is a matter for the courts, the word "land" for the purposes of this clause would attract the definition in the Interpretation Act 1978 and would, therefore, include buildings and other structures.
There is no disagreement between the noble Earl and myself on purpose. I think we both agree that the purpose should be to compensate people for damage to agricultural land in so far as this cannot normally be insured against. Therefore, it is agreed by both of us that buildings—farmhouses, farm cottages and so forth—should be left out because these can normally be insured against damage, and are normally insured against damage. We are trying to make sure that the compensation which it is being strictly enjoined upon the local authorities to give for burst water mains should be given for farmland and for the things that go with farmland which it is not normally possible to insure.
If I accepted the definition which the noble Earl has given to me—that is, the one in the Interpretation Act 1978—it seems to me that for certain one thing which is very important to farmland would not be covered by this provision, and possibly several other things as well would not be covered. The one thing that it seems to me for certain would not be covered

509
is shelter belts, because the definition in the Bill before your Lordships is that where the ground is covered by trees the compensation would be given only if the trees were for growing of timber or for purposes connected therewith.
The areas where it seems to me possible that the farmer or landowner would not be covered are where we refer to a part of the land which, in effect, is not a structure. It really depends on the definition of the word "structure". For instance, I wonder whether a ditch is a structure or whether it is part of the shape of the land; whether an open drain is a structure, or whether a mole drain is a structure. If a flood were to block up the mole drainage system in, say, a clay soil, it would do enormous damage which would cost large sums of money to put right, and if it were not regarded by the courts as a structure, there would be no compensation for this important part of the land.
The same might apply to roads, although one might think that a road was a structure in the sense that somebody has brought something to it and made something on the surface of the land, but one could hardly describe a mole drain as being a structure in the normally accepted sense of the word, and I think that open sheep drains and field ditches might hardly be regarded as structures.
Therefore, I invite the noble Earl to consider the amendment which I have put before him, because, as far as I can see, it excludes as much as would be excluded. I am asking him to accept a definition which excludes,
"all permanent buildings including farmhouses and farm cottages",
from the definition of "agricultural land" contained in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act. So far as I can see, these are the only things to which he could take exception in the sense that they are normally insurable. The remainder of the things listed as being part of agricultural land under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act—the fences, hedges, stone dykes, gate posts, ditches, open drains, tile drains, conduits, culverts, ponds, sluices, flood banks, main water courses and so on—are all things against which it is not normally possible to insure. Therefore, I invite the Government to accept this amendment and, if not, perhaps for your Lordships to ask the Government to accept it.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I confess to a faint feeling of pique that the noble Viscount simply will not accept the effect of the advice which I gave him by letter. I undertook in Committee to consider whether the existing wording of the clause covered such items as ditches, culverts, fences and drains. I have fulfilled my undertaking. I have written to the noble Viscount, and I said to him in the letter that "other structures" do cover these things, and indeed I can say shelter belts too. But apparently the noble Viscount will not be persuaded that his concern is misplaced.
I want to correct one point about what is the object of this exercise. It is not to provide compensation for farmers, as such. It is, in fact, to make the water authorities liable to a measure of strict liability, so that if there is a flood and if a farmer sustains damage to, for instance, his crops and is unable to prove
510
negligence on the part of the water authority, nevertheless he will still be compensated. In any instance, if he can prove negligence of course he will be compensated. But what we were trying to do—and I recognise that it is a compromise, and, as a compromise, may I say is unpopular with the convention—was to provide a degree of strict liability in respect of the uninsurable, but to make farmers certain of obtaining relief, if they suffered a flood in the absence of negligence on the part of the water authority, by insuring that which they can insure.
If I accepted this amendment it would go much wider than the compromise. I should also note that an addition to the Bill of a reference to "fixed equipment" would import a concept of agricultural law which enables waygoing tenants to get compensation for items provided by them during their tenancy. This reference is not at all necessary, and certainly is not appropriate in the entirely different context of this provision.
I cannot accept the amendment. I can only reiterate to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that it is not realistic to try to separate such items as ditches, fences and drains from the land itself. The fence is clearly seen to be for a good agricultural purpose—the containment of livestock. Without it the land, for all intents and purposes, could not be used for an agricultural purpose, particularly if it is adjacent to a road for instance. Equally, without a ditch or a drain the land would not be suitable for any agricultural purpose at all if the drain did not work. That is why the law says that these items, such as fences and ditches, and indeed shelter belts, are part and parcel of agricultural land, and if damaged in the circumstances I have described would attract compensation under the Bill. I hope that the noble Viscount will not divide the House on this because I assure him that it is quite unnecessary.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, before the noble Earl concludes his remarks—which is a different way of putting "before he sits down"—may I ask him a question?
As I understand the point raised by the noble Viscount originally, the farmer in England and Wales was in a more favourable position because of the responsibilities which were placed on the water authorities. Does the Bill as it stands put the water authorities in Scotland in exactly the same position as the water authorities south of the Border? If not, why not?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question, in short, is no. As the noble Lord will know, the water authorities are the local authorities in Scotland and not a separate statutory body as they are in England. It has been a bone of contention for some time that the English farmers had this rule of strict liability and the Scottish farmers had none. During consultations which have now gone on for over two years—just about as long as I have been in the Government—the Scottish local authorities, naturally enough, were unwilling to undertake further possible financial burdens which were not already enjoined upon them, or imposed upon them, by statute.
That is why I say that this is a compromise. What we decided to do was to provide a measure of com-

511
pensation by strict liability in cases where the farmers could not insure. In cases where he can insure then we think that it is incumbent upon him to provide a measure of compensation for himself. That is the way the compromise has been reached. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied before I finally sit down.
Viscount Thurso: I am grateful to the Minister for at least expanding his letter somewhat. His letter, which I hold before me, does not include any reference to shelter belts. It certainly would be a natural mistake for any reasonable person to make to assume that land with trees on it was not land with structures on it. I have never before heard a tree described as a structure. However, the noble Earl has assured me that shelter belts are included; that holes in the ground are also structures and therefore are included; and that all of the things that would be included if he accepted my amendment are in fact included. On that basis I am happy to agree that he has given me what I wished to have. In those circumstances, even though the Scottish farmer is not given the same protection against the burst of a water main as the English farmer is given, even though the strict liability is not so extensive on the Scottish water authority as it is on the English water authority, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 69, line 39, leave out ("such application") and insert ("their so applying").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment to correct a possible ambiguity. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]

Merchant Shipping (Liner Conferences) Bill
6.48 p.m.
Lord Lyell: 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.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Introductory provisions: the Code and the Contracting Parties to it.]
Clause 2 [Implementing regulations: the general scheme]:
On Question, Whether Clauses 1 and 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Glenkinglas: May I make one or two comments about Clause 2 standing part? I have, as some of your Lordships know, spoken on these problems at our Second Reading debate. As I have studied it more carefully, I find myself even more unhappy about some parts of it than I was at Second Reading. The point that I find particularly difficult is that in signing these new conventions each country is allowed to make what reservations it feels likely and appropriate. As I said on Second Reading, the Bill is unbelievably complicated, and I am assured by my legal friends that the complication is owing largely to the extreme complexity of the treaties on which it is based. When one is dealing with a very large number of some not too literate countries, there will be many who do not understand what they have agreed to do and many who will be determined deliberately not to understand it, so there will be a good deal of cheating.
Having said that—and I do not want to detain your Lordships for long because I know the stresses under which you have been suffering for the last few days—I would ask my noble friend whether he has looked at (which I am sure he has) the reservations that have already been made. If one looks at that brave and determined country, France, one sees that the reservations they have made to their signature say, in effect, "The French Government are only too delighted to sign the new code, but if there is anything they do not agree with, then of course they will not abide by that". What is the point of signing the code with a reservation of that width?
Also as I said on Second Reading, you then get the very real fear—which is the basis of a good deal of the opposition of the British shipping industry to the Bill—that we shall move into a period when bulk cargoes are also controlled. On Second Reading I asked my noble friend whether or not it was true, as had been reported, that Indonesia had already said it would include bulk cargoes, and, if so—this was by then already four or five weeks old—what steps the Government had taken to deal with the situation. It is very important indeed, if we are to go forward with the Bill, that the Government should make it absolutely plain exactly what action they will take against people who deliberately break the codes to the disadvantage of British shipping and expect to get way with it.
Lord Lyell: I thank my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas, for the great interest he has taken in the Bill, and I am sure noble Lords who have studied or attempted to study all the articles and legal complications, and then gone into the code, will agree with him about its complexity. My noble friend asked me on Second Reading, as he pointed out, what we were able to do about the problems of other countries. He mentioned Indonesia in particular and spoke of how they wished to include in the negotiations and discussions on what is essentially the liner trade the matter or bulk cargoes, and as noble Lords who are specialists in this matter (such as my noble friend Lord Inchcape and the noble Lord, Lord Cayzer) and others of your Lordships will be aware, bulk cargoes are not part and parcel of the code or indeed of the Bill.
In relation to my noble friend's query, I am afraid that I am not able to go much further than I was on Second

513
Reading regarding any future negotiations, certainly between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Indonesia, on the particular matter of the Indonesian Government and shipping interests attempting to bring bulk cargoes within the ambit of the code. I stress, however, that we regard this intrusion into the code and into the liner conferences and liner trade as being entirely inappropriate and unhelpful to the British shipping industry; and that, of course, is at the heart of the Government's concern with the Bill.
I am sorry I am not able to be more helpful or more specific in answer to my noble friend. But I hope he will accept that we are taking the robust view he always took when speaking for the Government on these matters. With the backing of my noble friend Lord Inchcape and the noble Lord, Lord Cayzer, we shall continue to press that the Indonesian Government should not introduce bulk cargoes, or the problems of bulk cargoes, into the negotiations and discussions with which we are concerned.
On Question, Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Matters which may be provided for by regulations]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved the amendment:
Page 3, line 36, leave out ("may empower the Secretary of State to") and insert ("the Secretary of State shall with their agreement").
The noble Lord said: My amendment relates to the responsibilities of shippers' organisations, which are defined in Chapter 1 of the code and their responsibilities are set out in Article 11. These are weighty responsibilities which, under Clause 3(3) of the Bill, will almost certainly carry with them implied legal obligations. At present, a number of trade associations consult with conferences on such matters as general tariff conditions, freight rates, loyalty agreements and so on, but they do so on the basis that such consultation is generated by commercial necessity. There is no legal obligation on either party for such consultation.
The code creates a new situation inasmuch as it contains consultation rights for shippers who are so designated, and designated under Article 11 at the discretion, in this country, of the Secretary of State. Therefore, if the Secretary of State does not designate an organisation to be a shippers' organisation, certain organisations which presently have a satisfactory consultative relationship with conferences may find their position greatly weakened, if not totally undermined. I should perhaps have said that I am advised by one such organisation, the British Federation of Commodity Associations.
At the same time, it is important that the Secretary of State should consult organisations before designating them. It may well be that some trade associations will consider that because of the staff and expense involved in fulfilling the legal obligations, they are unable to accept designation with all its consequences. On the other hand, there may be others which could have been omitted if there had not been prior consultation and which might well need to have designation in order to
514
perform and continue to perform their functions. This is a very real problem which is worrying several trade associations, and it was with that in mind that I tabled my amendment, which should bring about the necessary improvement to make the Secretary of State's responsibilities more certain with the agreement of those who may be affected. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend for presenting this amendment with his customary clarity, brevity and succinctness. As he pointed out, the problem of consultation affects a very wide spectrum of the shipping and commercial world, which is centred in London and is very important to us. We noted my noble friend's comments on Second Reading, and we have this evening heard expressed his views on the importance of consultation.
I hope that it will help the Committee and my noble friend if, first, I try to deal with what we see as the specific terms of the amendment, and then briefly discuss some of the concerns that we believe lie behind it. The amendment would appear to have the effect of enabling any shippers' organisation, any representative of shippers, or any individual shippers to demand to be consulted by conferences on the very wide range of issues which are set out in Article 11 of the code, which I think your Lordships will find on pages 23 and 24 of the Bill.
The number of persons and groups who could be involved in demanding to be consulted by conferences would place quite unrealistic demands on conferences, and we believe that it would hold out little prospect of sensible, reasonable and helpful consultations, which, after all, is what the Bill is about and what the Government want. Furthermore, the amendment would allow automatic rights to all shippers, but for only some of the issues identified in the code as being of concern to shippers. For those two reasons the amendment is not acceptable to the Government.
I should like, briefly, to look at the broad issues which lie behind the amendment and which were explained by my noble friend at an earlier stage and again briefly this evening. In my turn, I should like to explain that the Government consider it unrealistic to lay a duty on conferences to consult individual shippers, except perhaps in the case of very large shippers prominent in particular trades—and I would stress the words, "in particular trades". In this case shippers' organisations will necessarily incur a major responsibility for consultations.
I think that my noble friend mentioned one or two matters in the definition clause. The Committee will see that the term "shippers' organisation" is defined in Chapter I of the code as
"An association or equivalent body which promotes, represents and protects the interests of shippers and, if those authorities so desire, is recognized in that capacity by"
the authorities. In the United Kingdom the appropriate authority is my noble friend the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may specify conditions for recognising a shippers' organisation, and in that connection I would refer the Committee to Clause 3(8) (b), lines 33 to 35, directly above the part of the text that my noble friend seeks to amend.

515
Further, under Article 11 of the code more specific provision already exists for appropriate authorities to designate persons or organisations who will have to be consulted. It would seem, at least to us, sensible to adopt common criteria for recognition as shippers' organisations, or a shipper, for each provision of the code, and thus any criteria would encompass Article 11 and each of the half dozen or so other articles which give rights to recognised shippers' organisations. The department will be consulting interested parties on what the conditions should be, and the conditions will be specified in regulations which we shall make under Clause 2(1).
In addition, there are a number of important considerations that parties which are interested in the consultations, and indeed in these matters, would wish to consider. Shippers' organisations may be under an implied duty to their members to carry out their consultations properly, but the willingness of a body to be recognised might therefore be an important factor. It would also be possible—I hope that this will help my noble friend at this stage, at least to a small degree; I say that it would be possible, nothing more than that—to include a condition that an organisation would first have to indicate its agreement to be so recognised. In regard to the amendment, and indeed the entire matter, a balance has to be drawn. I am sure that we all wish to avoid an undue proliferation of bodies that have to be recognised, but certainly we see a role for smaller specialist, or indeed larger specialist, organisations and regional shippers' organisations in addition to the British Shippers' Council.
I referred earlier to criteria for recognition, and I should like to take one obvious and clear criterion for recognition as a shippers' organisation. This might be that the body represents shippers who carry a certain percentage of a conference trade on a particular route. But, as I said both earlier this evening and at an earlier stage of the Bill, clearly further consultations are required in this very complex area. I would assure the Committee, and in particular my noble friend, that views will be sought from all interested parties before the regulations are laid. I would stress that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so that your Lordships' House and another place will have full opportunity to discuss them and to consider the form of the consultations and other matters which I believe lie at the heart of my noble friend's amendment.
7.7 p.m.
The Earl of Inchcape: On behalf of the British shipping industry, in which I declare an interest, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Lyell in his rejection of the amendment. In theory, all shippers' organisations, representatives of shippers and, where practicable, individual shippers, all demand consultation. The designating process is intended to reationalise and simplify the consultation procedure. Clearly the regulation that empowers the Secretary of State to designate in this way must be carefully worded, so that it does not exclude from the consultation process those parties which have a legitimate and substantial interest in the trade concerned. It is to be hoped that normally their interests can be adequately represented by the British Shippers' Council, and other similar
516
bodies, but of course there will be many occasions when other voices also need to be heard.
However, the present amendment would largely destroy the value of the designating process. It would require the Secretary of State to designate all those who desire to be designated. In doing so, it would enable consultations to get out of hand, which would benefit no one. It is understandable that some smaller organisations may fear that theirs would be a voice in the wilderness. However, their view would go equally unheard if their's were but a voice in the multitude. A middle ground must be found, and, in our view, this can best be done by the Secretary of State using his common sense in the drafting of the relevant regulation.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend Lord Lyell, though I am not sure that I thank my noble friend Lord Inchcape for his rather heavy-gunned attack on my amendment. He suggested that the Secretary of State would use his common sense. Well, without mentioning any names, it has not been my experience that Secretaries of State use much common sense. However, I see the point made by my noble friend and, indeed, by both my noble friends. I shall certainly take away and read with great care what my noble friend Lord Lyell has said, and I reserve the right to come back on Report. But before I sit down I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Lyell very much for his helpful letter in response to the points that I raised on Second Reading, which of course has been passed on to the appropriate people. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part part of the Bill?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: This clause deals, as we have heard, with matters which may be provided for by regulations. Indeed, I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, confirm that the affirmative procedure will now be used for dealing with the regulations as and when they are made.
A number of the matters to be dealt with by the regulations will undoubtedly be very complicated matters, and will include such things as the definition of a national shipping line. However, my point in rising on the Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill? is to ask how it is proposed to regulate the regulations which are made. Will there be some form of annual report by the Secretary of State setting out how in fact the regulations have been complied with; or should there be some form of regulatory machinery, such as we have in the civil aviation field, in the Civil Aviation Authority? Should there in fact be some sort of authority to report annually on whether the regulations have been complied with and how they have worked?
Lord Lyell: The noble Lord, in his usual kind fashion, gave me some warning of the point that he might wish to raise on Clause 3, alas!, I have not been able to see my way entirely through—if I may say so describe it politely—the jungle of regulations and points that have to be considered in Clause 3. But, as I understand it—and I think that probably the

517
noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, might agree—Clause 3, and above all subsection (1), hangs very much on Clause 2, and above all subsection (1), since Clause 2 sets out the general scheme, as they call it, and Clause 3 details the regulations and especially the matters which may be provided for by the regulations. I hope that the Committee, and indeed all your Lordships, will forgive me if I forgo the marvellous opportunity to go right through the whole of Clause 3 which presents itself to me, and indeed to your Lordships, this evening.
I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that, so far as his query on the regulation of the regulations is concerned, there are two things to start with: first of all, there will be no annual report; and, secondly, there will be no regulatory machinery. But I am given to understand that a five-year review is built into the code; and I think that the noble Lord would agree, and, indeed, that my noble friend Lord Inchcape and the noble Lord, Lord Cayzer, would agree, as I think would my noble friend Lord Mottistone, too, that the code lies very much at the heart of the Bill. So, if I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, there will by no annual report and no regulatory machinery per se, but there will be a five-year review built into the code.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Before the noble Lord sits down, what we shall in fact have, therefore, is a report every five years as to how the machinery has worked?
Lord Lyell: I am given to understand, by devious means, that the answer is, "Yes".
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Transport Bill
7.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 111:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Rear seat belts.
. In section 40 of the 1972 Act (regulation of construction, weight, equipment and use of vehicles) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2A)—
"(2B) Regulations under this section shall require, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, every motor car manufacturered on or after 1st July 1984 and registered on or after 1st January 1985 to be equipped with rear seat belts.".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to have regulations made that every car manufactured on or after 1st July 1984 and registered on or after 1st January 1985 shall be equipped with rear seat belts. There is a powerful case to be made for rear passengers having to wear seat belts, but I want to emphasise that this amendment is not seeking to make compulsory the actual wearing of rear seat belts. But, unless rear seat belts are made standard equipment, there will be no freedom of choice on the wearing of seat belts available to rear passengers in some cars.
This is crucial for adults who may wish to place children in rear seats but who do not want them to be unrestrained—and I am not now referring to children who are young enough to have child restraints. It is also essential for adults who are used to wearing seat belts when riding in front seats but who may have to ride in rear seats and desire to have a similar protection of seat belts—and they may be in cars which are not their own.
Research conducted at the Accident Research Unit at Birmingham University in 1980 covering some 4,300 fatal and seriously injured rear seat passengers concluded that the use of seat belts in rear seats would have saved some 73 per cent. of all the fatally injured rear passengers in that sample on which they worked. Of course, I am not basing this amendment purely on the accidents which may occur but on the freedom of people who want to wear a rear seat belt and who may not be able to do so because there is not one installed. Therefore, there is a sound case for persons wishing to have the use of rear seat belts as much as they wish to use front seat belts.
A somewhat similar amendment was moved at the Committee stage in another place, and the Minister then said that to make rear seat belts mandatory may be a little in advance of what the British driving public may be prepared to take. That might be so if this amendment were seeking to make the wearing of rear seat belts compulsory; but it is not. It is wishing to make mandatory the installation of rear seat belts as from the dates T have mentioned. It is only the making of rear seat belts a standard fitting that we are seeking in this amendment.
I understand that rear seat belts are fitted as standard in many of the more luxurious cars manufactured in this country. The amendment will make them available to those who purchase cars in the lower price range. It may be of interest to your Lordships that countries which already have the fitting of rear seat belts as mandatory by legislation include Canada, the United States of America, Australia, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, West Germany and Brazil—and I understand that in South Africa it will be mandatory from later on this year. The Under-Secretary of State in another place undertook to go away and take a further serious look at the issue and what had been said in debate. I hope that that has taken place and that, based on that review and on what I have said, the Government will find it possible to accept the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: May I ask the Minister, as in this amendment we are talking about seat belts, whether coaches and lorries are going to have them fitted? Also, after what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, have the Government any information

519
from countries like Germany which now fit seat belts in their rear seats? My noble kinsman has a Mercedes car which has fitted seat belts on the rear seats.
Lord Airedale: I dare say that we shall be told that the argument against the necessity for rear seat belts is that the main purpose of the seat belt is to prevent the person sitting in the front from hitting his head on the windscreen and that this hazard does not apply so much in the case of person sitting in the back. But there are those grand chauffeur-driven cars which have a glass screen between the driver and the people sitting in the back. I should have thought that it was worth considering that it might be advisable to make seat belt wearing compulsory in those few instances.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I wonder if I may speak before my noble friend the Minister responds. I hope that the Minister will reject this amendment at this particular time. There are quite serious and positive reasons for a rejection at this time, notably that we in this country have not yet had the experience that we are looking forward to receiving of compulsion to wear seat belts in the front of motor-cars. If I may remind the Committee, we have not discussed the regulations to that measure and it may be that those regulations are not passed. It seems to me that we are jumping the gun and that this is an inappropriate time to apply compulsion to the manufacturing industry to spend more than is vitally necessary in a highly competitive business.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has made it clear that he is not seeking compulsion for the wearing of the seat belt, but we know that it would not be very long, having got this through, before he will be asking for compulsion to be applied. We are particularly anxious about young children being free and rolling around in the back of a car. This can be adequately looked after, to British standards, at the choice of the consumer. That, I think, is where the matter should rest at this moment. To impose this requirement on the industry for two or three years hence is wrong and ill-conceived at this time. I hope that the Government will resist this amendment.
Lord Bellwin: The draft clause suffers drafting defects. There seems to be a strange confusion between primary legislation and secondary legislation. Secondary legislation of this kind is made under enabling powers. The clause is dressed in the guise of a mandatory requirement. This is more apparent than real as the most limited provision which was at once revoked would seem to satisfy it. Nevertheless, the requirement would be incompatible with its context. For example, the mandatory requirement could not be grafted on the discretionary powers in Section 40(1) and incompatible with the purpose of secondary legislation of this kind, which requires genuine consultation and adaptation to new developments.
As it happens, the clause would not add anything to the powers that we already have contained in subsection (1) and (3) of Section 40 of the 1972 Act. Those powers have for many years been exercised to require the fitting of seat belts for certain front seats
520
of certain vehicles. They would suffice to require scat belts to be fitted for certain rear seats. Since October 1981, new cars have had to be fitted with rear seat belt anchorage points and those drivers who wish voluntarily to fit seat belts may now do so without difficulty.
Should the Government be convinced of the desirability, on safety grounds, of fitting rear seat belts they will consider doing so, subject to the restrictions in Section 41(3) of the 1972 Act. However, we are unconvinced that it would be wise now to make rear seat belt fitments mandatory from 1st January 1985 for new vehicles. We prefer to wait and sec whether a clearer picture of the necessity to fit rear seat belts emerges from the early experience of compulsory front seat belt wearing. If that should be the case, it may be undesirable to wait until 1985.
Without going on at too great length on this matter, perhaps I could sum up the position as we see it. First, the amendment, as I hope Lord Underhill will agree on reflection, is unnecessary because the Government already have adequate power under Section 40 to make regulations requiring rear seat belts to be fitted. These powers are subject to the safeguards of giving proper notice and consultation, which I am sure your Lordships will agree is right. Perhaps ironically, this amendment would not allow these to be exercised.
Second, because it would remove the Government's discretion, it could be a retograde step since it would prevent the Government from requiring rear seat belts to be fitted in cars manufactured before July 1984. I suspect that that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would wish. I am sure he will appreciate that cars manufactured since October 1981 have had rear seat belt anchorages fitted, and it may be, in the light of experience from compulsory front seat belt wearing, that it would be desirable for the Government to consider fitting rear seat belts to cars made at an earlier date than the amendment would allow, or, I have to say, equally, at a later date.
To comment on the points raised by my noble friend Lady Masham about coaches, I would tell her that we shall not require seat belts in coaches and lorries. At least as yet, that is not the intention. As to her other points, the results of investigations into the benefits of rear seat belts in Sweden concluded that there would be a 28 per cent. saving in injuries. This is dependent on rear seat occupancy and the extent of front seat belt wearing. I think there is nothing further I wish to add. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in view of what I have said will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: What the noble Lord has said about the drafting of the amendment would appear to be forceful. I shall certainly take that into account. But the other arguments put forward against it, frankly, seem to me not to have any logic at all. Before I pass on to that, on the question of regulations there surely must be some provision for Parliament to be able to say to a Government, "You have this power. We want you to use it"—and not just rely upon when a Government feel that they will introduce a regulation. I shall therefore to have look at that aspect.

521
On the other point about the logic of the argument, not being there, Government and Parliament have said, "We are going to introduce compulsory wearing of front seat belts". As the noble Lord the Minister has said, time will tell whether that has benefits. In the meantime, we want to encourage people to wear seat belts. Let me suppose that I am a passenger in somebody else's car. I am used always to wearing my own seat belt—not because it is the law, as it will be when the regulations come effect, but because I believe in wearing a front seat belt. I am a passenger in a friend's car. I cannot ride in the front seat because someone else is there. I am used to a front seat belt and I want to continue wearing a seat belt in the back of the car. But there is not one there because it is not a standard fitting. Surely logic is on my side? It is freedom of choice. I want to wear a seat belt but it is not a standard fitting.
I shall to look carefully at what the noble Lord the Minister has said about the wording of the amendment. In view of the strong logic on my side in regard to freedom of choice for the passenger in somebody else's car, we shall look to see whether or not we can find for Report stage an amendment that fits in with what the noble Lord has said about the regulations. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 112:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Laminated windscreens.
. In section 40 of the 1972 Act (regulation of construction, weight, equipment and use of vehicles) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2A)—
"(2C) Regulations under this section shall require, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, windscreens in every motor car manufactured on or after 1st July 1984 and registered on or after 1st January 1985 to be laminated meeting prescribed standards.".").
The noble Lord said: This deals with windscreens. The amendment seeks to modify Section 40 of the 1972 Act so that laminated windscreens shall be a mandatory fitting on all cars manufactured on or after 1st July 1984 and registered on or after 1st January 1985. I am advised in this matter that a laminated windscreen is basically a piece of plastic with glass on either side. The argument for the high penetration resistent laminated glass is that it does not shatter. It is estimated that in Britain about 1,000 serious eye injuries are caused each year by the use of toughened glass, not laminated glass. This is because the toughened glass has shattered as a result of the collision.
Members of the Committee will no doubt have had experience of a windscreen shattering without impact. I have two personal experiences. One was leaving a car in a garage overnight and the next morning finding the windscreen shattered. Obviously, a pebble must have hit the glass and the change of temperature overnight caused the windscreen to shatter. The other experience was while travelling on a main arterial road. Again, a pebble must have hit the glass and it shattered in front of me. There was glass all over the place. Fortunately, I was not one of the thousand cases with serious injury.
At least nine countries already have legislation for
522
the compulsory fitting of laminated windscreens by manufacturers. These include the United States, which I believe is still the world's largest car manufacturer, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, USSR and Italy. My information is that these countries all report no incidence of eye injuries of any consequence following the mandatory fitting of laminated windscreens. That is a very important point.
This principle was raised in a different amendment at the Committee stage in another place. The Minister on that occasion was very sympathetic but put the view that there had been insufficient research work on the issue. The Under-Secretary, Mrs. Chalker, confirmed that in four years the cars manufactured in Great Britain with laminated windscreens had increased from 10 per cent. to a current 70 per cent. Presumably the manufacturers of cars in this country must themselves be satisfied with their own research into this, otherwise we would not have the figure of 70 per cent. windscreens installed by car manufacturers.
The problem is that once again it is the cars at the lower end of the market, the cheaper end of the market, which tend to be fitted with toughened glass windscreens, I understand that the car manufacturers seem to have varying policies with different models. At least one car manufacturer, I understand, has all the models with laminated windscreens. The issue is how to close the gap from 70 per cent. to 100 per cent. so that everyone has the protection of laminated glass windscreens. It appears that this can only be done by legislation. Obviously, there is no problem with the British glass manufacturers because they can already cope with 70 per cent. I understand it presents no problem at all to them.
In the Committee in the other place the Minister questioned the drafting of that amendment. The amendment before your Lordships this evening has been redrafted to meet some of the criticisms that were made. The amendment does not seek to lay down any actual specification for the laminated glass and its installation. This is a matter which the amendment would leave entirely for the Secretary of State to prescribe; but there would appear to me to be a sound case for this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: I shall wait to hear my noble friend the Minister regarding whether or not this should be mandatory. I very much favour the fitting of laminated windscreens. Whenever we, our own family, buy a car which we find is not fitted with a laminated windscreen, we have it altered before we drive it.
On several occasions a stone has hit the windscreen but it has not shattered—we still have a chip on the windscreen to show that that is what happened—whereas with the normal windscreen there would be a million pieces of glass flying into one's eyes. I am interested to hear Lord Underhill's statistics of the increase from 10 per cent. to 70 per cent. That in itself is encouraging. I should like to see it reach 100 per cent. I shall await to hear from the Minister before deciding whether to support the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to support this amendment. It is perhaps even more important now that seat belt legislation is coming in. Very

523
often when there is an impact of two cars the windscreens fall in on top of the passengers. When they are wearing seatbelts they will be held in position and maybe they will not slip down underneath the dashboard, which sometimes happens when they do not wear a seat belt. The risk of eye and facial injuries could be greater. Therefore, I think that laminated windscreens are essential. I strongly support this amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I, too, should like to support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, forgot to mention one fact. This covers two aspects, one is the production of new cars and the other is the refit to existing cars. I do not think that he has said what it will cost for existing cars to have a refit of their windscreen or whether there have been other investigations by the industry as to whether the laminated windscreen can be further improved. His evidence on the medical side and the fact that other countries have introduced this element shows a great deal of common sense. I hope that my noble friend will give this amendment a fair wind.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Not for the first time—nor I suspect for the last—I wish to oppose an amendment. We are wrong in making it mandatory to fit a laminated screen. I do not disagree with any of the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has produced. There are, however, some very serious drawbacks to making this matter mandatory. The first is that there is a growing practice with even the lower priced motor-cars to go for electrically-operated windows. In the unhappy event of there being an accident—and there is a documented case of this—if the doors jam and the electric system fails, a large person, if he has the wit and presence, may break the side windows but would still be unable to get out of the car. The laminated windscreen would make it impossible for a person to get out.
If one moves to a mandatory system in a motor-car it would not be very long before we had it in a truck. Truck drivers are always extremely nervous of fire breaking out in a cab. How do they get out? Normally it is by breaking through the windscreen. Furthermore, we have the matter of cost to consider. It costs about £8 wholesale to fit a toughened screen in an average motor-car. It costs around £16 to fit a laminated screen—that is, wholesale, on the production line. The doubling of price is reflected at the retail end; so that if you buy a laminated screen for an average car it is something like £70 and a toughened one is £35. It is not true to say that in an accident or crash a toughened screen shatters so that you are showered with little pieces of glass. I do not know of a toughened screen that has not got, in front of the driver at least, a safety zone, and that crazes in rather a different manner and in different sizes.
There is another drawback, I believe, to this amendment. It says "laminated", and while the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has explained what he means by "laminated", and I think that description is probably very acceptable, if one accepted that as the description, even though the amendment says "so prescribed", I believe it could inhibit the development of other types
524
of safety glass. The Committee are probably aware that Pilkington and Triplex did develop a screen known as the 10–20. It was a highly advanced screen. It was extremely effective, but it was also extremely expensive; and purely on commercial grounds production has now ceased for mass-produced motor-cars. There is a French screen which has been developed and which I understand is made of glass with one skin of plastic on the inside. It is not quite so strong as a fully-laminated screen but it has some of the safety elements the noble Lord talked about.
I believe that we should move towards more freedom. Custom does change. Thirty years ago a laminated screen was the rage, so to speak. Laminated screens were fitted very popularly and it was found that on certain impacts the inside glass did in fact splinter. It is generally recognised that chunks of toughened glass do less damage than splinters of laminated glass, and this can still happen. So I believe there are very good reasons for not altering the construction and use regulations to accommodate this.
I know that the industry is prepared to fit glass if demanded, and Triplex tell me they could move from a position of five years to supply to something like 12 months. However, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders tell me there has been no clear evidence—a number of papers have been written but they are rather contradictory—to support a legal requirement for laminated glass in place of the currently used toughened glass. So until there is greater proof of the necessity for bringing compulsion into this area, I think it is better left to the industry and to the individual choice of the consumer, which is there, as we can tell from what my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle said: she chooses it and she pays for her choice. I think that is where the matter should rest.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? If people in lorries are worried about being trapped, and other people about the possibility of being trapped in cars with electric windows, would it not be a good idea for a little hammer to be fitted such as one has in a sleeping car on a train? Following the tragic disaster when the sleeping cars went on fire and many people were killed, it is now statutory to provide a hammer with which one could break a window. When the noble Lord mentioned this point, I thought as I sat here of my noble kinsman, who has a Mercedes with electric windows, and it seemed that perhaps it would be a good idea to supply him with such a hammer.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: May I just respond. It is my understanding that apart from the sliding glass in the door of a railway carriage, which is laminated, other glass is either toughened glass or annealed glass, and the little hammer is there to save you from actually putting your fist, your shoe or whatever it may be, through the glass. But that little hammer will not go through a piece of laminated glass. Even if your noble kinsman were to have one attached somewhere in his car, he would not be able to get out with it. He would have to cut his way out, and it might be too late.
Lord Airedale: In the course of this short debate we have heard the two sides of this argument and we have

525
heard much expertise from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; but we are surely entitled to say that this is indeed a very serious problem and to hope that before too long the Ministry, having continued its research into this question, will arrive at proper prescribed standards for windscreens—but probably not, or possibly not, within the time-scale laid down in this amendment. The situation that I think we want to avoid is one in which the Minister, wanting to prescribe standards for windscreens, finds that he has no power in the existing legislation to make regulations and that he has to await the opportunity of a future transport Act before he gets that power. If that is the case, let us at least take the opportunity in this Bill to enable the Minister to make construction and use regulations about standards for windscreen construction, so that as soon as he is satisfied that prescribed standards can be laid down they can be put immediately into regulations, without having to wait for a parliamentary opportunity for another enabling Act.
Lord Bellwin: Let me explain the Government's view on this matter, if I may. This clause attempts to compel the Minister to introduce regulations outlawing toughened glass windscreens and making only laminated ones lawful. I am sure the intention is to be helpful in so far as it is based on the commonly held but nevertheless mistaken view that laminated glass is always superior on safety grounds to toughened glass. The evidence, on the contrary, is inconclusive. At present there is insufficient data to show beyond reasonable doubt that in British operating conditions laminated glass is superior. I should say straightaway that investigations on this matter are being made by the Transport Road Research Laboratory and by the department's engineers. The first investigations are almost completed and the latter ones are well under way. A report will be made in September of this year. If I may take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I can reassure him that there are powers already under Section 40 of the 1972 Act so that if action needs to be taken, action can be taken. I think that was really his concern.
The views of manufacturers, users and research bodies regarding the relative safety merits of both types of glass are divided. As my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out, hauliers, in particular, stress the advantages of toughened glass in an accident, when the simplest means of driver-escape may be through the windscreen. This could indeed be a vital escape route should a turned-over lorry be carrying highly inflammable or toxic loads. I am told that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is the fourth public figure—I should be fascinated to know the definition of that—who has been involved in an incident and came out unscathed. I am glad to add myself as the fifth who has had not one, but several, such incidents. I happily confirm that, although it was a frightening experience, with the enormous bang and everything going opaque, I did not suffer any ill effects.
That is not in any way an attempt to say that that makes the case for toughened glass as against laminated glass. I am not saying that at all. Nevertheless, it is a point which should be made. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, there is an increasing trend towards fitting laminated windscreens in motor-cars,
526
and a leading glass manufacturer estimates that by 1984 voluntary fitment will be in excess of 80 per cent. in new cars. This is despite the financial drawback that laminated glass is more expensive than toughened glass, although increased use should lead to marginal diminishing costs.
As I have said, the Government have recently arranged for fresh research to be made into the merits of toughened and laminated windscreen glass. Although the majority of newly manufactured motor-cars are fitted with laminated glass windscreens, most existing ones are fitted with toughened windscreens. Accident data findings are inconclusive and the research tests should be helpful in enabling the Government to decide what further action is necessary.
To sum up, I say again that investigations carried out in the past have not indicated a clear preference for either laminated or toughened windscreens on road safety grounds. But there have been significant changes since those investigations were made. For example, it is estimated that, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, properly reminded us, over the last four or five years the fitting of laminated screens to British-made cars has increased from some 15 per cent. to over 70 per cent., and this figure may go up to 85 per cent. by 1985. However, the majority of cars on the roads have toughened glass windscreens and the effect of this change in accident terms has yet to be assessed.
On the point about the position in other countries, I am advised that developments abroad show that feelings about the merits of either type of glass are not unanimous. My noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned France, which will require laminated screens from next year, although I noted the qualification which he added on that. But, as yet, they have not published their reasons for doing that. On the other hand, a recent Dutch-report concludes that there is little to choose between the two types. That is why the Government feel that they should await the results of the the test, which are not far away. In order to assuage any anxieties, may I again confirm that, if the case is made out, then the powers are there for something to be done. In those circumstances, perhaps the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull: Before my noble friend sits down, can he say whether his department will publish the report of the tests which they are at present carrying out? Secondly, what triggered off this report?—because it seems fascinating that other countries have taken a different view from that taken by the Ministry.
Lord Bellwin: I am sure that there will be no problem about publishing the report. It is a matter of such general interest that it is surely only right that it should be published. As to why we are not, as yet, taking a line, I hoped that the reasons I gave would explain that. Here is something which, in our view, is not clear-cut. I am sure that those who argued the case for either side do so with absolute conviction and sincerity. But we feel—not least in the light of other people's experiences—that the case has yet to be made firmly, one way or the other. But the report should not be long now.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I wonder whether the Committee will allow me to correct a response that I

527
made to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I am fairly sure I said that the glass in the sliding window of the door of the car was laminated. That is not so; it is more probably toughened. The side window is likely to be toughened glass or double glazed soft annealed glass.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am mainly disappointed with the Minister's reply, but encouraged in one direction, that the Transport and Road Research Laboratory are conducting an investigation and, with with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I hope that it will be fairly quick in reporting. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I believe that, of the six speakers who joined in the debate, four supported the amendment. It is said that there is no conclusive evidence. Why have British car manufacturers installed laminated windscreens to the tune of at least 70 per cent.? Surely, they have done that based on their research—and the British car industry has done quite detailed research. Why do practically all models of one British car manufacturer have laminated glass windscreens? They must be satisfied that it is a great improvement and a development which ought to be encouraged—
Lord Tordoff: I wonder whether there are some historical reasons for the development of this process. It seems to me that about 25 years ago many windscreens had laminated glass. One of the problems was that if, in an accident, people put their heads through the windscreen, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, the way in which that glass shattered was much more damaging, because it tended to go into long slivers or daggers which were very destructive. I remember later being quite pleased at the thought that in front of me was a windscreen that would break into small pieces, and would not do so much damage. With seat belts, and the hope that fewer people will be going through their windscreens in future, it may be that the move should be back to laminated glass. These are considerations in a dynamic, developing situation in the technology of windscreen manufacture.
Lord Underhill: I do not think the Committee would wish me to re-open the debate. I am just trying to deal with the points which have arisen. Both the Minister and I referred to personal accidents, and I believe that his was the same as mine. Mine was not as a result of impact; it was as a result of splinters on the road. If there is impact, the small pieces fly towards you, and that is why there are so many cases of very serious eye injuries. Another factor is the inconvenience of driving through rain without a windscreen and trying to have a new one fitted on a Sunday. That can be very difficult. There is also the fact that small pieces of glass may get into the heating apparatus of the car and do considerable damage.
I have already referred to the fact that there is a considerable amount of evidence to justify this amendment. We shall await the TRRL report. I did not refer to France or the Netherlands. The nine countries which I mentioned did not include them, but there are another two which are considering this matter. Therefore, the figure is going up. The point
528
I was making was that none of the nine countries has stated that there have been any serious eye injuries since the compulsory fitting of laminated glass, and that is a very important consideration.
The Minister has made it quite clear that the Government do not wish to act on this matter at this stage. This is another case where I believe that Parliament has the right to say to the Government: "We want you to do it". They have the powers and I am very pleased to know that. I shall consult further on this matter and take into account what the Minister and others have said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 54 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.59 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I rise to acquaint the Committee of a rather technical inclusion in this Bill—what I might almost describe as a pretty sneaky piece of practice. Clause 54 removes from the 1967 Act the imposition of a speed limit on a trunk road or a classified road by virtue of street lighting being put into place. May I refer to Section 71 of the 1967 Act? It says:
"(1) It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour".
Subsection (2) provides that the Minister and the Secretary of State can alter that speed limit. Subsection (1) of Section 72 provides:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, a road is a restricted road for the purpose of section 71"—
that is the speed limit to which I have referred—
"of this Act if there is provided thereon a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than two hundred yards apart".
Subsection (2) says:
"A trunk road or classified road is not a restricted road for the purposes of the said section 71 by reason only of the provision thereon of such a system of street lighting as aforesaid unless such a system was provided thereon before 1st July 1957".
Clause 54 of the Bill reverses that position. At this stage I cannot see any reason for this clause to be inserted, particularly as the 1967 Act quite specifically exempted the trunk or the classified road. This was no accident. It was included on purpose in the 1967 Act. Looking back over the record, a good deal of debate and thought went into the matter.
If we reverse the 1967 Act—and it appears to me that this clause does that—we arrive at the paradoxical situation of ensuring that certain stretches of road which are currently free of speed limits will be brought under a speed limit provision while at the same time they will be made safer only by the provision of increased lighting. It might be argued that if the road to be improved was previously not a restricted road, such an improvement should allow the non-restriction to obtain.
If Clause 54 stands part of the Bill, I understand that this would allow the authorities to impose speed limits, purely by providing lights, without having to go through all the safeguarding regulatory procedure of applying for an order. That seems to be wrong and that is why I say that it looks, on the surface, as

529
though it is a pretty sneaky thing to put in. I suppose it is not unfair, on the same argument, to suggest that there will obviously be much more administration and public expense in connection with action to be taken, as provided for by Clause 54, which is not going to have to be proved to be necessary or justified.
That is what I understand Clause 54 to mean. I should be obliged if my noble friend the Minister would tell me whether I am correct in my understanding of Clause 54 and why it has been put in.
Lord Airedale: When a clause like this links speed limits to the provision of street lighting, it is rather important that the street lighting should be working properly. This enables me to mention briefly an experience of mine which I feel sure is shared by other noble Lords. I regularly travel on a certain route and I can be fairly certain that on a given evening one or other section of the street lighting will not be working and that that section of the road will be in total darkness. This affects not only road safety. It also plays into the hands of muggers. When I make the journey in the opposite direction the next morning, the chances are that that particular section of street lighting will be ablaze, competing with the bright sunlight.
I have mentioned this problem to senior police officers. They point out that, whereas the motorist commits an offence if he does not display the lights on his vehicle, a highway authority is not guilty of an offence if it fails to ensure that the street lighting is working properly, and no officer of the authority is guilty of an offence, either. Perhaps it would not be much sense to make it an offence, because the bill would presumably be footed by the taxpayer or the ratepayer. However, this is a serious problem. I would urge the Government to investigate the frequency of street lighting not working on our roads and seek a solution to this problem. I do not pretend to know the answer, but it is a problem which I think that the Government ought to try to tackle.
Lord Davies of Leek: Clause 54 is a little ambiguous. One does not know where one really is once one starts driving around. The position now is that, where there is street lighting, 30 miles per hour is generally the maximum speed. As has just been pointed out, there is no penalty imposed upon a local authority if lights are not working. However, lights may not be working in most dangerous places. But if I drove my car with one lamp out of order, although in 99·9 per cent. of cases police officers, who are intelligent individuals, would just say that I should get my lights put right, nevertheless I should technically be liable. No penalty, though, is imposed upon local authorities who neglect in some places—indeed, in some very important places—their lighting system. I do not want to be awkward or to make a long speech, although I could easily do so, but this is a vital point. I do not expect cataclysmic changes to the Bill as a result of our discussion this evening, but I think that the Government ought to look again at the matter and try to find a constructive answer.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for raising this point,
530
because the Committee will want an explanation from the Minister of exactly what it means and what its effect will be. I am the last person to want to increase speed limits where they should not be increased. All those of us who are motorists know that there are many roads on which there is a 40 miles per hour speed limit. If you have to go down to 30 miles, you will be the only one doing it, but you will get a fixed penalty notice if the police are around.
We want to know what the effect of this clause will be. I was very grateful to the Minister for the notes on clauses, which are detailed and very helpful on this point, but they still do not tell us exactly what will be the effect of the clause. It seems to me that there will be a vast number of roads where the position will change. The point which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, made was that you can have a road which has now got a 40 mile per hour speed limit and no street lighting. What will happen if street lighting is installed? Will it still have a 40-mile per hour limit, or will the limit come down to 30 miles per hour? We ought to know exactly what will be the effect of this. Where a 30-mile per hour limit is essential there ought to be a 30-mile per hour limit, but where that is unnecessary, on roads where one can travel quite comfortably at 40 miles per hour or even 50 miles per hour, where there may be street lighting, we ought to know what will be the effect of this. On the last page of these notes on the clauses, reference is made to local public opinion which is often biased in this direction.
Lord Davies of Leek: Will my noble friend give way for one moment? A concrete example of the point he is raising occurs in that famous little town of Banbury. If one is driving through Oxford to Warwick and once gets on the Banbury road, watch out! There is one stretch of it where there is a sign showing "30 miles per hour" in great big letters. In your car, purring away on a lovely evening when the sun is still shining or the moon is bright, you come, within a distance of a few hundred yards, into a 40 mile per hour area—although both stretches of road are lit all the way along. There will be a lot of expense on local authorities rushing to change 40 mile per hour signs to 30 mile per hour signs. They had better be forewarned about the cost of this clause.
Lord Underhill: My noble friend has almost concluded my speech for me. I will just draw attention to the last few lines in these notes on the clauses, where it says:
"The drawback is unlikely to have consequences anything like as serious as those which led to the introduction of the distinction between unclassified and other roads in 1956".
So the Government recognise that there are going to be drawbacks; they just say that the drawbacks will not be as serious as those of 1956. If it is obvious that there are going to be drawbacks, we ought to know the scope of them.
8.12 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: As my noble friend said in his speech, this is an extremely complicated amendment. I would say right away that there is meant to be nothing sneaky about it and I am surprised that it has generated

531
so much discussion. Clause 54 does serve a useful and desirable purpose and I will try to explain why. It would eliminate the existing divide as regards the relationship of lighting to speed limit status—a divide which the ordinary road user can hardly be expected to appreciate—between on the one hand unclassified roads and trunk and classified roads lit before 1st July 1957, and on the other trunk and classified roads lit after that date.
It would do this without altering any speed limits as shown at present to exist by the speed limit signing of the road in question. And it would do away with any doubts as to the legal status underlying such signing. Here I might say that, without Clause 54, the only means of removing such doubts would be by the making, in every case of doubt, of an individual order to impose—I stress the word "impose"—the limit already signed on the road. This would entail a considerable extra demand on the resources of local authorities and also on my right honourable friend in his capacity as highway authority for trunk roads. This is why we need it.
Now to try to get rid of some doubts. This clause should not result in any application of 30 miles per hour limits on trunk or classified roads where such limits would be inappropriate to the particular road. On roads that are already lit, of course, it would not, because of the clause would establish the existing speed limit status of these roads as already signed. This issue could arise, therefore, only on new trunk and classified roads lit from the start, and on existing ones which are currently unlit but on which lighting is installed in the future. As regards trunk roads, I can of course say positively that it will not; my right honourable friend is highway authority for these, and will see that the speed limits upon them, whether they are lit or not, will be those appropriate to the conditions of each.
The speed limit which is appropriate to any particular road depends on many factors, including the volume of traffic using it, the speed of vehicles, the accident record, the environment through which it passes, the frequency of junctions, and so on. The national limits—30 miles per hour at one end of the scale and 60 or 70 miles per hour at the other—are simply the starting points from which authorities make any adjustment that may be necessary. The department has supplied local authorities with guidance as to how to determine the speed limit appropriate for any length of road. It has also, for many years, reminded local highway authorities of the importance of keeping their speed limits under constant review and of adjusting them if necessary, whether up or down, according to the requirements of individual roads, which needs to be done if speed limits are to make the most effective contribution possible to road safety. These principles will apply to newly lit classified roads—and to trunk roads, on which we practice what we preach—just as they already apply to all roads.
Here, perhaps I might point out that they apply equally to lit unclassified roads—which are subject by virtue of the lighting to 30 miles per hour limits unless and until different limits are imposed. Many lit unclassified roads have notwithstanding this automatic restriction had their speed limits raised above the 30 miles per hour limit—because, we must assume, the
532
highway authority has deliberately and conscientiously considered what is the right limit for the road, and applied it. We have no ground for expecting that authorities will do otherwise with newly lit classified roads. We shall of course be reminding local authorities of the need to look carefully at the speed limit consequences of installing lighting—on classified roads, in future, as well as, at present, unclassified roads.
I do not think there is anything very much in this clause except a tidying-up measure which is highly complicated and relates, as the Committee can see, to the legal standing of the roads before 1st July 1957. I hope that when my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has read this I shall have assuaged his doubts. If he wants to come back to me on it, I know he will do so. I recommend this, I think, fairly harmless clause.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Earl the Minister was good enough to mention the words that this was a "tidying-up" clause. May I beg of him, in the name of the Committee, to tidy up the wording of the clause, if it is meant to be a tidying-up operation? May I give him just one example of really dreadful draftsmanship from the point of view of interpretation? I will choose the shortest and simplest example but I could refer him to other parts of this clause. Will the noble Earl and other members of the Committee look with me at subsection (4), which could obviously be worded in a very simple way. I will just take the Committee through its three lines:
"(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(a) above, a maximum speed limit is one in respect of which no sign is required if it is one in relation to which Section 75 of the 1967 Act does not apply"
I, as a humble pupil of English at school, was taught to avoid a double negative if I possibly could. That is only because a double negative taxes people's brains in finding out what the affirmative is. I do not believe that members of the public ought to be taxed to this extent, nor should our courts, nor should the poor person who is trying to read this clause, even if he does not have a professional training in order to do so. I ask that before Report stage, whether this clause stands part of the Bill or not, the tidying-up operation to which the Minister referred be extended to its wording.
The Earl of Avon: I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says. I would equally like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his kind remarks on the Notes on Clauses where the explanation of subsections (3) and (4) is not much clearer.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his explanation. He and, I am sure, the Committee will appreciate that I could not take in the whole of that verbal explanation and I shall want to read it. One thing worried me very much—and the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, just touched on it. My noble friend used the expression "tidying up". I do not like tidying-up operations because they usually mean sweeping things around and sweeping things under other things. A little shiver went through me when my noble friend said that some trunk road speed limits may have changes but that this was not greatly material. What does he mean? What are "some"? What are "not very material"? What are the changes? I shall want to have a careful look at

533
this clause. I cannot say I am very happy with the explanation the Minister has given, but I can do no more at this stage than beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 54 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
8.21 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 114:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Speed measuring devices.
. In section 78A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (Speeding offences generally) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (2)—

"(2A) where proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) are commenced after the coming into force of this subsection, evidence of the speed of a motor vehicle ascertained by means of a reading from a radar speed measuring device shall not be admissible in evidence against the person so charged unless the device used is of a type approved in regulations made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and operated and maintained in accordance with requirements specified in those regulations.

(2B) Regulations made under subsection (2A) shall—

(a) provide that radar speed measuring devices shall conform to a prescribed British Standard Specification;

(b) provide that radar speed measuring devices shall be operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions as specified in the current edition of the manufacturers' instruction manual;

(c) make such provisions as are necessary to ensure that radar speed measuring devices are not susceptible to any interference which may affect the accuracy of the readings produced by such devices, whether that interference results from the operation of a device of from any external source.

(2C) without prejudice to subsection (2B), regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section may include provisions generally as to any matter incidental to the manufacture, use or maintenance of radar speed measuring devices.".").

The noble Lord said: I hope the Committee will bear with me. This is a very important amendment. While I do not want to detain the Committee unduly, I shall have to explain exactly the reasons why it has been introduced. It proposes a new clause and it relates to the speed measuring devices commonly known as radar guns. Hand held radar guns are used by many police forces to provide corroborating evidence in prosecutions for speeding offences. Each individual chief constable selects the type of device to be used by his force from the variety of guns of different design which are currently available. No standard has been laid down to govern the accuracy of these devices, and tests have shown that certain guns are susceptible to interference. The effect of interference, or the incorrect use of the device, may result in the display of an inaccurate speed reading which, if not dected by the operator, may lead to wrongful prosecution and conviction. Therefore this issue is one of justice.
The amendment in no way seeks to prevent the use of radar guns. Its purpose is to provide that evidence of the speed of a motor vehicle obtained by means of a radar gun or any other speed measuring device should not be admissible in court proceedings for speeding offences unless the device used is of a type approved by, and operated and maintained in accordance with, requirements specified in regulations made by the Home Secretary. Such regulations would introduce a British standard for speed measuring devices, regulate
534
their operation and maintenance and ensure that such equipment is adapted to eliminate suspectibility to interference. I again emphasise that at present there is no standard whatever laid down.
In the absence of a common and approved standard it seems necessary for a motorist disputing the accuracy of the gun to arrange for an electronics expert who has examined the device to give evidence. For example, I have here a newspaper report of a recent appeal against a speeding conviction in which a Mrs. Ann Skelton of Whity successfully applied to the Teesside Crown Court for an order requiring the North Yorkshire police to allow a Sheffield University electronics expert to test a radar gun. It has often been difficult to obtain a radar gun for such testing in this type of case. Both the AA and the RAC have, I understand, arranged legal representation of members in cases which have resulted in decisions of courts not to accept the evidence in support of prosecutions, or have led to the abandonment of the prosecution, when the accuracy of the evidence of radar equipment has been challenged.
I have the transcript of a judgment by His Honour Judge Pitchford in R. v. Desmond Hughes on 24th March 1981 at the Newport Crown Court. This case was referred to in the other place, and it is a very important judgment. It was an appeal against conviction for speeding by the Newport Magistrate's Court when considerable attention was given to evidence on the radar equipment. Evidence for the Crown was given by Mr. Selby, and by Mr. Halford for the defence. I am assured that both these gentlemen have great experience and high qualifications in radar electronics.
I would like to refer to two statements made in the judgment. I am quoting from page 8:
"The result of their evidence"
—that is the evidence of Mr. Selby and Mr. Halford—
"is this: not only can moving objects give readings upon this radar device but also things that are not objects and are not moving, namely, radio impulses of different frequencies and nature, in particular, wireless transmissions. It has been abundantly shown and proved beyond a shadow of doubt that a wireless transmitter, either by a voice or by electronic sound, can induce a reading of speed in the Muniquip …"
that is one of these devices. Another statement made by the judge was:
"Both Mr. Selby and Mr. Halford agree that if in this patrol car parked at the bottom of Waterloo Road the wireless transmitter was being operated at the time when Constable Knight was taking his reading, they it is possible that a false signal could have been produced in the Muniquip. It would have overcome in intensity the signal give out by the Ford Capri towards the limited range of the device".
If I may make one other quotation from page 12, the judge said:
"We find that the machine may have been showing a false reading in the circumstances, and therefore it could not corm-borate his impression of the speed. It is very important that the machine should be reliable and not make mistakes."
He allowed the appeal.
The Under-Secretary, Mrs. Chalker, said in Committee that, in her view, the judgment was because of the manner in which the equipment was used and not necessarily the nature of the equipment. But the judge did say that a machine may misbehave in tracking moving objects even though it may not misbehave in the laboratory when tested. Then again, he referred

535
to the source of interference in the air and the need for greater insulation of the equipment. Therefore, he was drawing attention to two points of the actual equipment, as well as making other references to its use.
There have been made various independent tests, and I know that the AA, for instance, has carried out considerable testing of radar equipment, and its views have been based on the results of this particular research. Since 1978, the AA has persistently sought to persuade the Home Office to take action to implement a common standard specification which such devices would have to meet before being approved for evidential use. As recently as 19th March this year, the association wrote to the Home Office that, following discussions with other organisations and in the light of recent developments, the Home Office should arrange for representatives of all those directly concerned to meet to discuss the need for a standard. I will not read the whole text of the Home Office reply, but it is to the effect that the Home Office take the view that it is not appropriate for them to be involved in testing radar devices, that this should be left to the individual chief officers of police, and the responsibility for evaluating particular equipment is left in their hands.
The subject of speed check equipment was raised by Mr. Donald Anderson in an Adjournment Debate in the other place on 24th April this year. During that debate Mr. Anderson also advocated the introduction of a common standard, and the Minister of State, Home Office, replied that the Association of Chief Police Officers working group recognised that confirmation by a BSI standard would enhance public confidence, and consequently the Association of Chief Police Officers' had contacted the BSI to see whether a standard could be devised.
The matter was raised again during the Committee stage of this Bill in the other place, when the Under-Secretary stated that such equipment, "must be properly used by a trained officer". But she went on to say that she hoped that,
"we shall see a speedy move to a device which everyone respects, resulting from the meeting between the Association of Chief Police Officers and the BSI."
Although discussions have taken place since then, as far as I am aware, no progress has been made. All this seems to confirm the need for the terms of the amendment which I am now proposing. I should also like to point out that Amendment No. 124 is consequential to this amendment.
What is against having a standard approved by the Home Office in this matter? It is argued that it is not the job of the Home Office and that it should be left to chief police officers. I ask the Minister why, in the Transport Act which we passed last year in this House, I find Section 8(1)(a) referring to what we commonly term "breathalysers":
"to provide two specimens of breath for analysis by means of a device of a type approved by the Secretary of State".
Parliament considered that it was such an important matter in the course of justice that the breathalyser machines must be of a type approved by the Secretary of State.
All we are asking for in this amendment is that there shall be a national standard and that the interests
536
of justice are such—and I refer your Lordships to the case which I have mentioned—and that this should not be a matter that is just left to the chief police officers to determine but there ought to be a national standard. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is very correct in saying that this is a serious matter. I am sure that the whole Committee is grateful to him for bringing forward the amendment. We are dealing with a criminal offence; we are dealing with convictions which are entirely based on the supposed accuracy of machines. We are dealing with machines which have no conformity throughout the country. We are dealing with evidence which has been challenged in the courts. Doubts have been expressed and cases have been dismissed. I hope that my noble friend will now see that it is no good saying, "We are considering the matter; we are taking more evidence and we are having further discussions". He should either accept the basis of the amendment in the Bill now, or he should withdraw for the time being the use of the radar gun. I fully support the amendment.
Lord Davies of Leek: I should like fully to support my noble friend's amendment dealing with these speed measuring devices. The amazing thing about man is that he is a gullible creature. Murphy's Law tells us that nothing is foolproof, because fools are so ingenious. I am sure that many of us have had elementary dealings with electronics. I knew an old woman who used to say that she could get Austria on a cooking stove at certain times when she was boiling something. It was quite true. Nobody could explain it. It was one of the idiosyncrasies of the electronic and mysterious world in which we live.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He was referring to the gullibility of the human race and I was wondering whether what he was saying possibly had a bearing on that?
Lord Davies of Leek: Yes, I was referring to the gullibility of people who believe that machines are always accurate. We now find that millions of pounds are being made by men who know how to use computers and diddle the public. Let me explain a little bit about this. As the RAC and AA say, there has been considerable controversy in recent months and years about the use of radar speed measuring devices, because that is what they are. During the Committee stage in another place, unfortunately, an Opposition amendment to require such devices to comply with a British standard—and, as my noble friend said, to be approved by the Home Office—was defeated on a Division. That was rather sad.
The RAC has arranged legal representation of members in cases which have resulted in decisions by the courts not to accept such evidence in support of prosecutions or abandonment of prosecutions by the police when the accuracy of the evidence has been denied. This has attracted widespread publicity and widespread knowledge of the fact that these things can go wrong.

537
These machines increase the aggro between the motoring public and the police—of that I am quite convinced. A little more courtesy on the roads on the part of the motorist and a little more courtesy on the roads on the part of the police, always helps. But when we have a machine like this that is outside the judgment of human beings, we are confronted with something that needs attention. One does not need much knowledge to know about this. If one drives down to the House day in and day out there are motorcycles around without suppressors, then the reception on one's radio of music or whatever, is altered. I have heard may a policeman say how right that is.
I assure the Committee that one's future, when one is brought before a court for speeding, should not depend solely on these radar instruments. Whether or not we force this matter to a Division—which we may not do—I hope the Minister will say that the matter will be looked into in depth. It is a matter which the police, representatives of bodies like the RAC and the AA and representatives of the Government and the motoring public, should look into in depth if it is only to do one thing for us all; namely, to increase the confidence between the motorist and the police.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I may briefly add a bit of technical interest. As an ex-naval signals officer who did some time in a research establishment in liaison between the Navy and its scientists, I can assure your Lordships that what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was saying about the possible interference between radio transmitters and radar sets, is very real. Therefore, I very much back up paragraphs (b) and (c) of the amendment.
As regards the question of accuracy and the British standards, that is obviously essential. I am absolutely appalled, if it is true, that the Home Office is saying, "Leave it to the chiefs of police to buy it off the shelf". If we do that, we cannot get a standard which is common throughout the country; we cannot guarantee it. It is extremely important from the point of view of all the factors that other noble Lords have mentioned that there is a central authority like the Secretary of State, and the device must have a scientifically proven basis like the standard produced by the British Standards Institute. It sounds to me absolutely appalling to take a type of laissez faire view and to say, "Let the chief constables go and buy them in the shops". It is quite dreadful.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I rise to support the amendment. In everyday life, a housewife or a husband buys an appliance or a piece of clothing which complies with a British standard. Even in hotels we have standards—British standards. We have those standards in electrical appliances; in every field of life we have British standards, and I do not see why we cannot have that as regards this gun.
Lord Mishcon: I referred a moment ago, when I addressed the Committee, to what I learnt as a pupil at school in regard to English. I also learnt as a pupil in the law that if you find that the court is with you, then for Heaven's sake shut up and do not go on
538
speaking. It looks as though, from the views which have been expressed so far, that the court, as it were, or the Committee, is with the mover of the amendment and, therefore, I want to add very little in case something I say disturbs the unanimity in the Committee in a wrong direction.
I want to emphasise only three short points. First, it must obviously be wrong for chief constables to be allowed to choose for themselves a type of equipment upon which a conviction can follow, which conviction obviously—and we have been referred to this very often in our discussions—can lead to a disqualification, quite apart from ruining a driver's reputation if he has a clean licence.
The second point I want to make—and I was glad to hear the expert voice of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, tonight, in the most courteous terms, leading the Committee in the right direction—is that it is obvious that the technical faults that occur here have made courts decide that certain devices are not fair. The third point I want to make is a fresh point. Discussions have gone on and have so far achieved no results. The Minister may well be tempted to reply that while those discussions are going on—and they are going on—this Committee ought to be content, the amendment ought to be withdrawn, because no doubt regulations will come out of the bag one day.
We have a duty. We have come across, not for the first time, something which ought to be put right. There is nothing to stop the Minister, if this is what is in his mind—if I may be permitted the impertinence of endeavouring to read it in advance—from saying that he would agree to this amendment if this subsection was not put into force for a reasonable period—and it could be six months—in order to allow those discussions between the British Standards Institute, the Chief Constables' Association, the Home Office and anybody else who wants to be brought into it, to be finalised and for some positive result to be achieved from those discussions. So I hope we shall not hear that discussions are going on, therefore the Committee's mind can be relieved and there is no need to deal with this subsection.
Lord Elton: I am already aware that the noble Lord's amendment touches upon a matter which is the subject of very widespread and real concern. I am aware of that, not only from the careful and persuasive speech with which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, introduced the matter and from those noble Lords elsewhere in the House who spoke in support of his amendment, but also from the very considerable post bag which I have received on the subject. Another indication, of course, was the extensive debate held on this subject in another place. Indeed, I must ask those of your Lordships—and they may be many—who have read that debate, as I have, to forgive me if a little of what I say seems to be somewhat familiar and repetitive for that very reason. For the benefit of noble Lords, whether in the Chamber or reading Hansard tomorrow, who have not read those interesting clauses, I must repeat some of the vital and important points made by my right honourable and learned friend in another place. It would be incomplete if I did not and my case would go by default.
It is very undesirable for either Parliament or the public to lose confidence, and I am anxious to lay to

539
rest the doubts that have been expressed about the equipment—doubts which have inspired the amendment. As the House will know, radar speed checking devices have been used by the police for some considerable time. This is perhaps the first important point to get across: we are not talking about new technology in the way, for instance, that we were then we considered the introduction of evidential breath testing equipment in last year's Bill. Similarly, it would be quite wrong to assume that things were appearing to go smoothly in the past simply because nobody could tell that they were going wrong. It cannot be emphasised too often that the case of Mr. Desmond Hughes, which was the starting point of the concern that has been expressed and which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, demonstrated not that the equipment was not working properly, but that the operator had made at least one, and possibly two, mistakes in his use of the device. Indeed the judge in the case did not recommend withdrawal of the device. Instead he recommended four guidelines for the police to use when operating it. Three of these were already included in the ACPO's Instructions; the fourth, that the equipment should be checked against a vehicle travelling at a known speed, was adopted by the Association of Chief Police Officers, although they did not feel that it was technically necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has quoted the judge as saying that it is very important that the machine should be reliable and not make mistakes. We are not at variance on that.
This brings me to my next main point: no matter what equipment we use, we shall always be dependent on an operator; this is something which goes far wider than speed-measuring devices. Certainly we must give the police the best equipment we can; certainly we must make sure that they receive proper training in its use, but beyond that we have to leave it to the individual officer. You simply cannot legislate out human error: the last time we tried to do that in this field we found ourselves in a morass of unmeritorous technical defences to the drink and driving law. Subsection 2B(b) implies that we should take that fruitless path again, with the consequence that the slightest defect almost in the style of an officer's conduct of the speed check will render the evidence obtained from the device invalid. Surely what the case of Mr. Hughes shows is that the courts are quite capable of discriminating between good evidence and evidence which is not so good but which has been obtained by the same hand-held radar. We do not need to make regulations to achieve this, and, as I have said, we may make difficulties for good law enforcement instead if we do.
My next point is the question of radio interference, at which subsection 2B of the amendment is aimed. As my noble friend, in his customarily courteous manner has said from behind me, it is quite true that radar devices can be affected by nearby radio interference. It does not happen that often and, indeed, I have tried to procure this effect myself in London's streets with this equipment, in order to satisfy myself, but without success. But when it is procured, it produces a quite different and easily distinguished signal on the machine. It operates in a different mode and you do not actually
540
read the radio signal as if what we you are reading was bounce-back from an approaching motor car.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether the Minister, with the usual courtesy which he shows and which he ascribed quite correctly to the noble Lord behind him as well, would kindly deal with this point. He is talking about having used a machine. I have no doubt that the machine he used was a very good one. The point of this amendment is that there is no standard machine and there is, therefore, no point in the argument that some machines are very good and some machines are very bad. The noble Lord, the Minister, has been using some very good ones, I have no doubt. I want to see a standard, good machine. At the present moment diverse kinds are being used.
Lord Elton: I take the noble Lord's point absolutely. It was, in fact, the sort of machine that was used in the Hughes case, which I thought was the most appropriate. But I shall come to the noble Lord's point in due course. I shall doubtless flounder a bit, because I think I have taken off the cuff, as it were, a bit of speech that lay further ahead.
As I was saying, what has not perhaps been given sufficient prominence in previous discussions is that the false speed reading which shows as a result of radio interference is highly characteristic and easily detected by a trained operator. Indeed, the standard procedures approved by the Association of Chief Police Officers require him to make sure that the reading is not attributable to radio interference. It is most unlikely, therefore, that false readings will lead to prosecutions. In spite of this, however, the issue of the accuracy of the device and its use have caused the anxieties that have been expressed here tonight.
But we and the Traffic Committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers recognise the need to raise public confidence in this equipment. Some of the committee will be aware that to that end the Association of Chief Police Officers Traffic Committee decided to hold discussions with the British Standards Institute to see whether a standard could, in fact, be devised for the equipment. The Committee will be aware of the high esteem in which this organisation is held; indeed, the amendment before us acknowledges as much. These discussions have been taking place, and the Traffic Committee was able recently to put their preliminary findings before the full Council of ACPO for its view. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Council has formally accepted the need for impartial evaluation of the devices and has instructed the Traffic Committee to enter into discussions with the Home Office about this. In the light of this, I hope that the noble, Lord Underhill, will feel able to withdraw his amendment. We are all concerned with road safety. I entirely accept that the supporters of this amendment are concerned to see justice done. I hope that I have persuaded them that justice is, in fact, being done, and that steps are being taken to reassure the public on this point, that they can see it is being done.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: May I ask my noble friend a question, since I am a signatory to this amendment?

541
He said, in effect, precisely what his colleague said to me last year during the passage of the 1981 Act, when I had down a somewhat shorter amendment in exactly the same terms, and argued in similar terms to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I do not disagree with any additional argument he has volunteered. My noble friend the Minister gives an explanation, on the face of it very acceptable, but he has done nothing more than to repeat the promise, "Yes, we are moving forward, and, yes, steps are being taken, and I am quite sure that the public will in the fullness of time be totally satisfied".
The public are not satisfied now, and I do not think that it is reasonable that we should be put off with what I can only describe as a delaying tactic. If my noble friend would care to say to the Committee, "Yes, recognise there is now a great urgency in this matter. I will deliver some goods this time next year"—let us put a time on it, six months hence, or something of that nature—then I think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, may feel justified in withdrawing his amendment. I do not know; I cannot answer for him.
I am not worried about BSI. What I know is that there are experts in the Home Office, because I have been to Aldermaston and seen some of the work they have done on evidential breath testing devices. They can establish a machine that has a variable tolerance which is acceptable. They can invite quickly, within a matter of weeks, all the machines available in the world, perhaps 40, or 100. Twenty may come up. Within a matter of weeks they can produce three which have the characteristics which the RAC, the AA, and the police and everybody else wants. It can be done if there is a will. My noble friend should show a little more willingness to meet the Committee's genuine anxiety on this matter.
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for having paraphrased what I tried to say in regard to what I anticipate might be the Minister's reply. I now direct a question to the noble Lord the Minister, which I hope he will be able to deal with in a helpful way. I think the Committee expects this.
In view of the fact that we have now been informed that it looks as though there will be a conclusion to these discussions leading to an acceptable standard for the device we are talking about, what is the Minister's objection, if any, to this amendment being passed, this clause being put in the Bill, subject to such time limit that he might wish to suggest for the subsection to come into force? I take Lord Lucas's period of time, which I myself suggested. If he wanted to make it six months, or nine months, or whatever it was, we would then know that the public were being satisfied, that the Minister had been positive and helpful and that these continual discussions which have been before Parliament have under his reign ended in a satisfactory manner.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: If we are talking about the relations between the police and the public, would the Government consider withdrawing these machines until there is a standard?
Lord Elton: My noble friend always urges difficult courses as though they were easy, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, always makes what may be a thorny
542
path appear rosy. I have told your Lordships that progress is being made in the search for an acceptable standard. I cannot put a date upon its conclusion because the question of a standard has to be achieved by consensus.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggests that if we achieve the consensus and a satisfactory standard—there is no earthly use in having a standard which is unsatisfactory and does not cover all the aspects of the operation of the equipment which at present give rise to concern among not only your Lordships but many motorists—it would not be appropriate then to proceed with the regulations unless we were so convinced. Furthermore, it is debatable whether the regulations then would be necessary.
The precedent has been quoted of the breath testing equipment. That is not entirely apt. First, the equipment is not itself subject to regulations, merely to approval, which is a much less laborious process. Secondly—and perhaps I did not emphasise this enough at the opening of this debate—unlike the radar equipment we are now discussing, the evidential equipment would be the sole evidence given on which a conviction is based. The function of the radar speed checking gun is to confirm, or otherwise, the estimate of the speed of the motorists made by the policeman carrying out the check, or by his associate or colleague by any other method, whether by the subjective method of an experienced eye or a stop watch, or a pneumatic line across the road, or whatever, The penalty, moreover, is much lighter, and the evidence from a gun is merely corroborative. So it is quite open to a court to accept evidence from a stop watch or another officer, or whatever.
I must also address myself to the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, who suggested that the equipment should be withdrawn. I cannot accept that the equipment is as defective as your Lordships seek to suggest. Nor can I accept that courts are not quite capable of distinguishing between cases where there is proper evidence and cases where there is not proper evidence. Therefore, I do not propose that such devices should be withdrawn, whatever the interim period may be.
I should like to hear the reaction of the noble Lord to what I have said to the point that we are approaching, I hope, a consensus and consequently a British standard and that that standard will be satisfactory for the purposes we want, and that having that standard, regulation will be elaborate and costly and unnecessary and that it therefore would be rather precipitate to put this into this Bill at this stage.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for putting his position clearly. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have given support to this proposal, and, as my noble friend Lord Mishcon said, to have the expert confirmation from the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, of what the radar electronic experts said in the case to which I have referred. The Minister said that Judge Pitchford was dealing mainly with the method of use. I do not want to weary the Committee but I have three places marked where the judge referred to the equipment itself and not its use. He referred to the way it was used as well, but he referred to possible defects in the equipment.
While it may be that the courts will use the radar gun evidence as additional corroborative evidence,

543
surely the fact that we have instruments—and it need not be one instrument, there could be a number of instruments approved as standard—makes it easy to determine that the regulations, or any additional amendment, could still enable them to be used as corroborative evidence. I am not happy with what the noble Lord suggests.
The fact that discussions are taking place confirms what I have said and the advice I have been given about that. But even if those discussions had, as we were told tonight, resulted in the Association of Chief Police Officers and the BSI agreeing on two or three pieces of equipment as standard, why cannot it be written into the Bill that the the equipment used must be that approved by the Secretary of State? If my amendment is too detailed, then so long as the Minister will say that he will bring forward an amendment on Report which, if it does nothing else, says the equipment shall only be that approved by the Secretary of State, or words to that effcet, that would be acceptable. And if he wishes to attach to it a date in the future for when it will apply, I shall be happy about that.
I do not want to divide the Committee on an issue of this kind, but unless I am given a firm assurance that something will be written into the Bill—I do not mind if the whole of my amendment is taken away, so long as such an undertaking is given—which will lay on the Secretary of State the responsibility for approving whatever the standard is, that will be the only way to satisfy us and the public on this issue. It should not be left to the chief police officers and the BSI together. We want the seal on this to be the Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for giving me an opportunity to reply to what he said in conclusion to the debate on this amendment, and I would refer first to his reference to the words of the learned judge in R. v Hughes. He referred to the performance of the machinery in the context of its inaccuracy induced by other influences not having been detected because it had not been properly used. The noble Lord has given a fairly clear map of what he would and would not find acceptable in the way of a modification of his amendment, and I hope he will be kind enough to give me from now until Report to consider whether it would be possible to move some distance towards what he wants, and to decide at that stage whether to divide, having seen whether what we can come up with will satisfy him.
Lord Underhill: I should be ungenerous and unwise not to accept that offer. I will consult those advising me and I may as a precaution, have to table a suitable amendment on Report in case the Minister finds he cannot do anything. I wish to make it clear that I want the Minister to come forward with a proposal, but I give notice that we shall probably table a precautionary amendment at Report in case he decides not to move. I hope his attitude tonight means that he will.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I could take the noble Lord's mind on one idea, which would be some form of procedure
544
such as he suggested, or part of it, based on a satisfactory BSI certificate. That, presumably, is the sort of thing he is talking about? I am not making an offer—I should be rash to do that—but trying to take his mind so that, in the relatively short time that remains to me, at least I know in which direction he is thinking.
Lord Underhill: If it were a BSI certificate approved by the Secretary of State, we might possibly approve that; but I want something in the Bill to the effect that the Secretary of State approves the equipment, be it BSI equipment or otherwise. I think the Minister understands my view on this and that of noble Lords who have supported me. We hope there will be movement but, as I say, we may have to table an amendment for Report as a precautionary measure. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 114A:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Temporary speed restrictions.
. In section 12(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, after the words "of this Act" or there shall be inserted the words", where there is considered to be a likelihood of extreme danger to the public,".").
The noble Lord said: To avoid delaying the Committee, I am wondering whether my noble friend, who is aware of the substance of what I wanted to discuss, agrees that we could possibly resolve the point outside the Committee, so enabling us to move rather faster.
The Earl of Avon: I think that would be entirely satisfactory.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Amendment of certain penalties in the 1972 Act]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 65, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) In column 5 of the entry in Part I of Schedule 4 relating to section 1(1) of that Act (causing death by reckless or dangerous driving) after the word "obligatory" there shall be inserted the words but not less than two years to commence after the completion of any period of imprisonment ",").
The noble Lord said: This arises from correspondence referred to me by a Member of Parliament, one of whose constituents had been in touch with him over the prosecution of a driver responsible for the death of her brother. I understand that the Member has been in touch with the Secretary of State for Transport on the matter in relation to the general question of penalties for causing death by reckless driving. The Secretary of State, if I may respectfully say so, correctly stated that it would not be proper to comment on the particular case, but he pointed out that a person may be imprisoned for up to five years, or two years if convicted by a sheriff court in Scotland, and fined an unlimited amount. Disqualification is obligatory for

545
at least 12 months, and the licence must be endorsed unless there are special reasons why the offence was committed. The Secretary of State added that if the court decides to order imprisonment, it will be for them to judge the appropriate length of disqualification bearing in mind the period the offender spends in prison.
The amendment would require the court to impose a driving ban running for not less than two years beyond the period of imprisonment. There are many cases where Parliament decides on minimum sentences and the amendment seeks to do just that. In other words, when a man has served whatever period of imprisonment it may be, there should be a driving ban of at least two years after that in order to protect the public. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Would the amendment include children? I have known of cases where children have taken a car, sometimes their parents' car, and might have this type of accident. Does the noble Lord mean to include children?
Lord Underhill: I must bow to the greater knowledge of the Minister in answering that. The amendment refers to those who are liable to imprisonment, and a child would not normally be so liable. As to the age limit of those liable to be affected, perhaps the Minister could give the Committee some guidance.
The Earl of Avon: It is always saddening to hear of tragic accidents, and of course I am aware of the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has referred. However, I should like to confine my remarks to the amendment before the Committee. Disturbing though any fatal road accident is, the court has a duty to consider the individual circumstances of each case, to reach a conclusion on that basis, and to impose the penalties that it sees fit within the range available to it.
I think the Committee will agree that it is a fundamental principle of our system of justice that within a maximum fixed by Parliament for each type of offence (not only traffic offences), the courts have the discretion to determine appropriate penalties according to the individual circumstances. As the noble Lord has said, the effect of the amendment would be to direct the court in the punishment that it may impose by determining when a minimum period of disqualification should commence. Clearly that could not be easily reconciled with the principle which I have just mentioned.
The penalty available to the courts for the offence in question is substantial; the noble Lord has stated what it is. A person may be imprisoned for up to five years (or two years if convicted by a sheriff's court in Scotland) and fined an unlimited amount. Disqualification is obligatory for at least 12 months, but many courts disqualify for longer periods, and the licence must be endorsed, unless there are special reasons why the offence was committed. In 1980, of 226 cases where disqualification was imposed for offences involving death or bodily harm, only 34 were for a period of one year or less. The remainder ranged up to a life ban, though most lay between three and 10 years. It is our view that there are sufficient powers to enable the courts to deal effectively with offenders according to
546
the degree of seriousness of the particular offence. I do not think that we can go further than that in directing the sentence that the court should impose; only it can judge what is appropriate according to the individual circumstances, which can of course cover a very wide range.
If the court decides to order imprisonment, it will be for it to judge the appropriate length of the disqualification, bearing in mind the period that the offender spends in prison. It is unlikely that any court would order a period of disqualification to run concurrently and for the same length of time as a period of imprisonment.
I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the penalties available for the offence are adequate and that any attempt to direct the courts in the sentences that they impose would not be acceptable to us in principle. I shall be interested to hear his reaction to my remarks.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the explanation. Of course there are some offences for which there is laid down a minimum period of imprisonment, and, if we were to refer to various Acts, we should find that clearly stated. Naturally, I shall have tomorrow to read very carefully in Hansard what the noble Earl has said, to see whether his explanation is as satisfactory as it seemed when I heard it just now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 116:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause:
("Proceedings in respect of offences in connection with Crown vehicles.
.—(1) In section 188 of the 1972 Act (application to the Crown), for subsections (8) and (9) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(8) Where an offence under this Act is alleged to have been committed in connection with a vehicle in the public service of the Crown, proceedings may be brought in respect of the offence against a person nominated for the purpose on behalf of the Crown; and subject to subsection (9) below, where any such offence is committed any person so nominated shall also he guilty of the offence as well as any person actually responsible for the offence (but without prejudice to proceedings against any person so responsible).
(9) Where a person is convicted of an offence by virtue of subsection (8) above)—

(a) no order may be made on his conviction save an order imposing a fine;

(b) payment of any fine imposed on him in respect of that offence may not be enforced against him; and

(c) apart from the imposition of any such fine, the conviction shall be disregarded for all purposes other than any appeal (whether by way of case stated or otherwise)."

(2) The subsections substituted by subsection (1) above for subsections (8) and (9) of section 188 of the 1972 Act (referred to below in this section as the 1972 Act subsections) shall also be substituted—

(a) for section 97(4) of the 1967 Act; and

(b) for section 102(3) of the Transport Act 1968; renumbered in the former case as subsections (4) and (5) and in the latter case as subsections (3) and (3A) (and taking the reference in each of those subsections to the other as correspondingly renumbered).

(3) As inserted by subsection (2) above in section 102 of the Transport Act 1968, subsection (8) of the 1972 Act subsections shall have effect with the substitution of the words "this Part of this Act" for the words "this Act".").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to put right an unsatisfactory situation whereby, through no fault of his own, an officer nominated as departmental representative in court proceedings in respect of a Crown vehicle in the service of the department may be personally prejudiced. In the normal course of events, an employer who owns a vehicle driven by an employee may be prosecuted—for example, for defects discovered during the vehicle's use on the employer's business. The employer may be convicted, and penalties, which may include endorsement of the employer's licence, or even disqualification, may be imposed. Where a corporate body, such as a limited company, is the employer, the penalties will attach to the body, and cannot therefore include licence endorsement or disqualification. Where however a specific individual within the organisation can be shown to have had personal responsibility, it is open to the authorities to prosecute the individual in his own right.
However, because the Crown is immune from prosecution, the position regarding Crown vehicles needs to be specifically provided for. Section 188 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, and similar provisions in other Acts with which the amendment deals, provide for the department in the service of which the vehicle is used to nominate a representative for the purpose of any proceedings under the Act. In effect, that puts the Crown in substantially the same position as any other corporate employer. Unless the courts are satisfied that only the driver was responsible for the offence, the person nominated is deemed to be the person actually responsible. Because he stands before the court in his own right, he may have fines imposed on him personally, as indeed has been the case, and that could have the effect of putting his personal motor insurance at risk. Indeed, he could even find that his own driving licence was endorsed for certain offences. As your Lordships may imagine, there are not many volunteers for that dubious privilege. It is clear that a better way needs to be found of solving what is essentially a procedural problem. I think that the amendment provides a better way, and I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: May I ask the Minister just two questions arising on this Government amendment? First, in subsection (8) of the proposed new clause it says that the person so nominated (which is, of course, the notional defendant)
"shall also be guilty of the offence as well as any person actually responsible for the offence …".
That could mean that the driver as well as the notional defendant could, in certain circumstances, both be held responsible.
The other point arises on the new subsection (9), where paragraph (a) says:
"no order may be made on his conviction save an order imposing a fine".
Does this whole clause in any way affect or limit the rights of any other driver, a third party, who may be involved in an accident in respect of a Crown vehicle? Would it not be advisable that under paragraph (a) to which I have referred, in addition to the words "save an order imposing a fine", there should be added, "or compensation to any injured party", or
548
words to that effect? Because, surely, a court should have the authority to do that as well as to impose a fine.
Lord Bellwin: I am not sure whether I can clarify the matter to the extent that the noble Lord requests. I think the answer to the first point he made is, yes, that is so. At least, that is the interpretation I would give. On his second point, I would think the answer is, no, because it really has nothing to do with civil liability. That is the interpretation I would give, but if it should prove to be otherwise, then of course I will tell the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 117:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause:
("Builders' skips.
. In section 139 of the Highways Act 1980 (control of builders' skips) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (a) of subsection (4)—
"(a) that the skip is properly lighted during the hours of darkness and is equipped with such fluorescent and retro-reflective diagonal markings as may be prescribed in regulations made under this Act by the Secretary of State in such positions as may be prescribed;".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the question of builders' skips, and I think I can save the time of your Lordships as this seems to be such an obvious thing that ought to be dealt with. I am referring to the skips that people have outside their houses while building operations are going on. Many noble Lords will have used them. Only a few months ago I used a builders' skip to take away lots of rubble which I had. These often cannot be distinguished at night. I know that they are supposed to have lights attached to them after authority for them is given by the local authority, but lights can go out. All we are really asking here is that there should be the fluorescent and retro-reflective diagonal markings—the type of thing one has on lorries. It seems such a sensible thing in my view that I will not elaborate on it. I hope the Government will accept it or decide to do something about it. Therefore, I will refrain from saying anything more until I hear the Government's view.
Lord Bellwin: I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this amendment, which, as he says, seeks to improve the conspicuity of builders' skips left on the highway at night. We think there is much merit in this amendment. As drafted, the clause is in fact deficient in one or two respects, but without going into detail as to what and why, may I say that we shall be glad to draw up a revised provision to cater for the object which really both we and the noble Lord seek to achieve. Therefore, if he would agree to withdraw his new clause, I will undertake to table a suitable amendment for consideration by the House at Report.
Lord Airedale: One thing that the Minister may have in mind is: do we need to use the word "builders'"? There are skips which are run by people who organise what I believe are called bottle banks for collecting non-returnable bottles, and their skips ought to be covered by the amendment. That can be done by not insisting on the word "builders'".
Lord Bellwin: We shall certainly take note of what the noble Lord says.
Lord Underhill: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving the assurance that he has, and welcome it. I very much appreciate his decision on this matter on behalf of the Government, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 118:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause:
("Provisional licences for motor-cyclists.
. In section 23 of the Transport Act 1981 (provisional licences and driving tests) in subsection (5) after the words "remain in force for such period" there shall he inserted the words "not exceeding one year".").
The noble Lord said: I am certain the Committee will appreciate that on some of these matters I am advised by different organisations, and on this one I am advised by the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety, known as PACTS, who have looked into this matter with a great deal of serious consideration. A two-part motor-cycle driving test was introduced on 29th March this year. The 1981 Act will allow a person to ride a motor-cycle with a provisional licence for up to two years before passing both parts of the test.
The two-year period is unlikely to decrease significantly the number of motor-cycle accidents, about which many noble Lords have expressed serious concern in various debates in your Lordships' House. Surveys have shown that riders are most likely to be involved in an injury-producing accident within their first six to 12 months of riding. I am sure that there is general agreement on this. There is much evidence available. I was going to quote from the TRRL, from their Working Report numbered 913. But the Government will well know the contents of it and therefore I will not do so. That makes quite conclusive the points that I have made; that it is the lower age groups that suffer from these serious motor-cycle accidents, and it confirms that most of the serious accidents take place in the six-months to 12-months period.
For myself, I am concerned—and I expressed this when we debated the 1981 Bill—with the first-time rider, and I should like to see some training provision before a new driver takes a motor-cycle on the road; because they do not have to be accompanied by a proficient driver as does a person with a provisional licence for a car. I had a probing amendment to that effect to the 1981 Bill. The PACTS which advised me on this matter consider (and I support them in this) that the urgent necessity, one capable of realisation, is the reduction of the testing period to one year as proposed in the amendment.
If we are serious on the need for training and testing new riders during the first six to 12 months, then it is wrong to adhere to the two-year provision. Therefore, in dealing with the amendment I would appreciate it if the Government could give the Committee some indication of where we now stand on the question of training and testing organisations.
I was going to give the Committee some information
550
—they may know it—on the working of the scheme of the RAC and ACU which has been going on for the best part of 35 years and for which they have received only limited Government financial assistance. In a Question in the other place on 16th June this year, we were told by the Under-Secretary that for the current year, 1981–82, the amount of financial assistance towards a big training scheme carried out by the RAC and ACU was £69,000. The Minister said that another £80,000 to cover the shortfall in the funds provided by the Motor Cycle Safety Foundation to carry through the STEP scheme had been made for this year. The RAC and ACU said that £350,000 was needed to carry through an effective scheme, and they generously offered to put in £50,000 of their own money to cover the cost. The Government, unfortunately, offered only £143,000, and that on condition that the RAC and ACU accepted responsibility for the Part I testing at their own training centres and emphasised that this would be a once-and-for-all payment and that the scheme must be made self-financing in future years.
I understand that the Government said in respect to another question, that the financial help which was given to the RAC and ACU will now be transferred to the Motor Cycle Safety Foundation because regretably the RAC felt they had to withdraw from the scheme that they had carried out all these years, using enthusiastic motor-cycle volunteers to carry it out, and this money was therefore transferred to the Motor Cycle Safety Foundation. We understand that RoSPA has now offered to come into the motor-cycle training scheme. Therefore I must ask this: Will the money which has gone to the Motor Cycle Safety Foundation be transferred to RoSPA? What will happen in future years?
I want my amendment to be accepted by your Lordships, but we must know where the present scheme is. Is it in operation? Can it carry out the two-year period? I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell me that, despite what I have said, there are good alternative plans and therefore he will be able to accept the amendment so that we can concentrate on the six-month to 12-month new riders, which everybody says is the group at risk.
9.25 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: The object of the limit on the duration of provisional motor-cycle licences, together with the introduction of the two-part test, is to ensure that learner riders take training and pass their tests. I am sure no one will quarrel with this objective. We recognise a certain amount of criticism of the means that we have taken to achieve it. Nevertheless, a proposal was passed and we are now in the process of laying the necessary regulations to implement it. I understand some will come out, I think next week. These regulations are necessary because, as the Committee will recall, we did not specify in the Act either an "on" or "off" period. We said that we expected the "on" period to be two years and the "off" period to be one year. We also said that we should prefer not to specify the periods in the Act itself because circumstances could change. The "on" period has to be short enough to encourage a rider to start thinking about the need to take training and pass his test at the outset of his riding career when he needs

551
training most. At the same time, it must in fairness be long enough to ensure that he has a reasonable chance to take his test more than once, given that even the best of riders can for one reason or another fail the first time. And remember that a rider now has to pass two tests: part 1 and part 2.
There is therefore a nice judgment to be made, and making this judgment is not any easier because one factor, the length of the test queues, is changing all the time. At present, the waiting time is, I am glad to say, being steadily reduced. In the Metropolitan area, for instance, it remains at 18 weeks. It only needs an occurrence outside our control, such as a prolonged spell of bad weather, to put it up. Our judgment is that in present circumstances a two-year period is about right. It may be that in future we could reduce the waiting time for tests still further; we could reduce the period to something like that which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, suggests. We do not think that we have reached that point yet. While I have every sympathy with the intention behind the noble Lord's amendment—indeed, I have sympathy with the case that he mentioned about motor-cyclists generally—I should not wish the Committee at the moment to accept this amendment.
The noble Lord went on to ask me about the present situation. The Government have been contributing towards the running cost of the RAC/ACU scheme for the past 20 years. We have never made any secret of our belief, with the introduction of a motor-cycle safety measure in the Transport Act last year, that motor-cycle training can and should operate on a self-financing basis. Training has not been self-supporting in the past simply because of the low throughput of trainees. Only about 15 per cent. of riders have actually taken formal training. However, the Transport Act provides much stronger incentives for new motor-cyclists to take training courses and we therefore expect that in future training will become something which the majority of riders take rather than the present small minority.
We had long and detailed discussions with the RAC about how they saw their role in the new system of training, in the course of which we made an offer for substantially increased grant for the current financial year to help the RAC adjust. Unfortunately, they came to the conclusion that without the assurance of long-term financial support from Government they could not continue to take part in motor-cycle training. We heard of this decision with considerable regret. The RAC have a long and distinguished involvement with motor-cycle training schemes and the RAC/ACU scheme has made an important contribution to road safety.
I should like to express my gratitude to the RAC and the many other volunteers who have so generously given of their time and experience. I hope that they will continue to play just as important a role in training as they have in the past. Many individual RAC/ACU centres have already taken the initiative and applied for appointment to conduct part 1 of the new motor-cycle test in their own right. Over 100 such centres have so far been authorised. There is every reason to believe that we shall have sufficient facilities available to cope with the expected increase in demand for motor-
552
cycle training in the future. Indeed, we have so far appointed bodies to conduct part 1 of the test from over 570 sites up and down the country. They include motor-cycle training organisations, both large and small, local authorities and driving schools. Further applications for appointments to conduct the tests are being considered. More organisations are applying each week now that the scheme has begun.
We recognise that some training organisations, particularly the smaller ones, may have difficulty over the initial cost of participating in the scheme. We have therefore made available to the British Motor Cycle Safety Foundation a significant proportion of the grant originally allocated to the RAC this year, which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned. This will enable the foundation to help defray the initial expenses of those training organisations—and the noble Lord mentioned both RoSPA and STEP—including the former RAC/ACU centres, who would like to take part in this scheme but lack the necessary financial means to do so. I have tried to indicate that the new scheme that we debated last year is getting off the ground and going well. We hope to see a great general improvement in motor-cycle training.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for the information he has given. I am also encouraged by what he has said about the development of the scheme. We shall have to wait for a review—presumably there will be a review presented to Parliament in due course as to whether this has proved successful. I hope that any suggestion of making schemes self-financing will not make it difficult for some organisations to carry this through, because we must get the young motor-cyclists trained as quickly as possible. I still should have liked to see a one-year scheme, because, although the two-year scheme will enable people to take the test more than once if they fail the first time, it is the six to 12-month first-riders that we want to catch and the present scheme may not catch them. In begging leave to withdraw my amendment, I hope that the Government will keep that in mind and, if they find that the present scheme is not really affecting the six- to twelve-month new riders, that I hope they will reconsider the matter of the one-year scheme. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 119:
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
("Extended pension provision for members of transport Boards.
. In paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Transport Act 1962 (salaries, pensions etc. of members of Boards of nationalised transport industries), in sub-paragraph (1)(b) (Minister may determine pensions to be paid on the retirement or death of members of Boards), for the words "on the retirement or death" there shall be substituted the words "in the case'..").
The noble Lord said: With permission, I should like to take with this Amendment Nos. 23 and 137. These are technical amendments and are designed to rectify a problem which has come to light in connection with the procedure for contracting pension arrangements made for board members in the transport industries under Schedule 1 to the Transport Act 1962 out of the state pension scheme. It has been the policy

553
of each Government since the current state pension scheme came into operation to contract out the pension arrangements made for members of the nationalised industry boards and similar bodies, in the same way that the great majority of occupational pension schemes are contracted out.
I have here some quite detailed notes on this, but I will not go into them fully at this stage unless I am asked to do so. I want to emphasise that these amendments would not provide access to a pension for any person who did not already enjoy it under existing legislation. They would simply remove an anomaly and bring the provisions of the 1962 Act into line with those of more recent legislation applying to the pensions of Board members.
The first amendment would achieve this by replacing the specific reference to "retirement or death" by a more general form of wording. The second would extend this provision to Northern Ireland, in line with the coverage of Schedule 1 to the 1962 Act. The third makes the necessary consequential amendment to the Title. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 119A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
9.35 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 119B:
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
("Payments in respect of applicants for exemption from wearing seat belts.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may make payments out of money provided by Parliament in respect of the examination of applicants falling within any class mentioned in subsection (2) below, being applicants for medical certificates required as a condition of any exception prescribed by regulations under section 33A or 33B of the 1972 Act (wearing of seat belts).
(2) The classes referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) those in receipt of—

(i) attendance allowance under section 35 of the Social Security Act 1975 at the higher rate referred to in subsection (3) of that section;

(ii) mobility allowance under section 37A of that Act;

(iii) disablement pension under section 57 of that Act at a weekly rate increased by virtue of section 61(1) of that Act (constant attendance needed); or

(iv) an allowance under article 14 of the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1978 (constant attendance allowance) at a rate increased by virtue of paragraph (1)(b) of that article;

(b) those in receipt of—

(i) family income supplement; or

(ii) any benefit under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976;

and their dependants; and

(c) those whose names are in the register of disabled persons maintained under section 6 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2) above (whether as originally enacted or as previously amended under this subsection) so as to omit any of the classes mentioned in that subsection or add to or substitute for any of those classes other classes of any description.").
The noble Lord said: some of your Lordships present here today will remember that last year the noble Lord, the Lord Nugent, introduced a clause into the Transport Act 1981 during Committee stage, which enabled my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport to introduce regulations requiring
554
the compulsory wearing of seat belts. The draft regulations were, in fact, laid before Parliament on 6th July—indeed, relaid with a minor correction on 13th July—and we shall be having the opportunity to debate these provisions in due course.
Some of your Lordships will also remember that the Transport Act provides for some specific exemptions from compulsion, and one of these is for medical reasons. For people to be exempt in this category they must hold a valid exemption certificate, signed by a medical practitioner, to the effect that it is inadvisable, on medical grounds, for them to wear a seat belt. The Medical commission on Accident Prevention has produced guidelines for the profession on medical exemption, which we shall be circulating to doctors along with copies of the forms for certificates. The guidelines cover physical conditions, such as pregnancy, and mental conditions, such as claustrophobia. However, the Medical Commission has said that few, if any, medical conditions are aggravated by wearing a seat belt and that exemption is most likely to be necessary because of a temporary condition or the combined effect of more than one condition.
Doctors will be able to charge a fee for examining applicants and the British Medical Association has recommended to its members that this sum should be £19. We expect that most people will apply to their own GPs for exemption, and we hope that GPs will consider applications from those on low incomes or disabled, without charge or, at least, at a nominal charge. However, if this were not possible, it would clearly be wrong for someone to have to wear a belt which might be detrimental to his or her health simply because he or she could not afford the fee for an examination. The Government therefore believe that they should assist certain people who are on low incomes, or who are disabled, so that they may apply for medical exemption. Since this will be an ongoing service, it is not proper for the expenditure implications to be covered by the Appropriation Acts. The Secretary of State is therefore taking powers in this clause to make the necessary payments.
Subsection (1) enables the Secretary of State to make payments for examinations. The present proposal is that this should be done by providing examinations through the auspices of the DHSS Social Security Medical Service. Subsection (2) sets out those people who will be eligible for help. This will, I am sure, be the aspect of this new provision of most interest to your Lordships. It is also the part which has involved the most difficult decisions. Clearly, it would have been inappropriate and excessively bureaucratic and time-consuming to set up new categories of eligibility. We have therefore had to look at existing schemes for those on low incomes and disabled and decide which should be used as "passports" into these new arrangements. In deciding which "passports" should be included, we had to bear in mind the possible number of applicants involved, the time available to process a reasonable proportion before compulsion is introduced, the ease with which eligibility can be checked and the likely cost.
We therefore decided that those eligible for examination on low incomes would be those in receipt of Supplementary Benefit or Family Income Supplement and their dependants. The disabled who will be

555
eligible will be those in receipt of attendance allowance at the higher rate (that is, for 24 hours); or mobility allowance; or a disablement pension with a constant attendance allowance (for 24 hours); or a war pension with a constant attendance allowance (for 24 hours); and those registered as disabled with the Department of Employment.
A total of about 7 million people will therefore be eligible for free examination, although, clearly, only a very small number will be eligible for exemption in view of the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention's advice. Subsection (3) of this clause enables the Secretary of State by order to change the list of eligible applicants. Whatever your Lordships' views on compulsion as an issue, and however you think it should be applied in practice—and as I said before, we shall be able to debate the latter point in due course—I hope your Lordships will agree that this clause should be inserted into the Bill, so that, should the regulations be approved, the Government can proceed immediately to make the necessary arrangements. I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I am certain that there will be general satisfaction that the Government are introducing this clause to provide for exemptions under certain circumstances. I should declare an interest as a retirement pensioner—but one who, I hope, will not have to apply for medical exemption. Retirement pensioners are included in the list of persons who are exempted from payment for medical prescriptions. It might be argued that if a retirement pensioner can afford to drive a car he can afford to pay for medical exemption, but there will be pensioners who wish to travel as passengers who may want to apply for medical exemption. It should also apply to those pensioners who wish to drive themselves. If they want to apply for medical exemption on real medical grounds, £19 is a lot of money for a retirement pensioner with no other source of income. I wonder whether the Government can tell me if there is a special reason why retirement pensioners are not included in this list of exemptions.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. There is a parallel with the charges made for dental services. In no way, I understand, will it ever be possible to give people all dentures entirely free. There are people who do not come into the categories listed here and who manage reasonably well on the basic pension which they receive but who would find that a sudden charge for dentures—£35—or £19 in this case might be too much for them. There is a special application form for both dental and medical services. An application can be made to the Department of Health and Social Security specifically for a payment to meet either optical or dental charges. I should have thought that a similar provision would be appropriate for this category. It seems that it may already be covered by the words in subsection (3) of the amendment. The Secretary of State for Social Services could introduce some type of application form which would require various questions to be answered. May I ask the Minister whether this
556
category is already included in subsection (3) or whether words would need to be added to that effect? I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is asking that every pensioner should automatically have it free, because many pensioners have no need for assistance and are well able to meet the charge.
May I take up another point which my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox has asked me to raise tonight, as she is unable to be here? It is whether the orange badge holders will be included in the category of being able to get help if it is needed. I should also like to make the point that if people have already been through a full medical examination for the disabled driver's orange badge which, under the new regulations, will be much more strictly controlled and the badge issued only to cases of genuine need—not rather loosely as might have been the case in the past—it is surely unnecessary for these people to have to submit to a second medical examination and provide a second certificate or other proof of their need for the badge. I should like the Minister to comment on that point.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I hope that as few people as possible who are disabled will be asking for exemption. I have already received one or two letters from disabled people who are worried about wearing seat belts. I have written back to them and said how important it is to wear a seat belt wherever possible. I know that there are going to be some problems over this. May I ask the Government whether this will be a once-and-for-all examination and exemption or whether it will be required at regular intervals? Would the Government consider, since the orange badge scheme is to be tightened up, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has said, including these people?
There is a category which has not been included; namely, the people who drive the three-wheeled invacars. As your Lordships will know, disability is a very expensive thing and if one is just above the supplementary level, life can be very expensive—and this £19 might be a great worry to some disabled people.
One other point that worries me, as chairman of the Spinal Injuries Association, is that people wearing seat belts without the benefit of a headrest can suffer a whiplash injury and break their neck. This is something that some people who are disabled might worry about, and they might apply for exemption because of this. I hope that the Government will encourage makers of cars to include headrests, because this is a very important point. I should like an answer from the Government, especially about the people on the orange badge scheme. RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—covers a large selection of organisations for the diabled and it, too, is worried about this point.
9.46 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am quite sure that the Committee would not wish to dispute the necessity for this new clause, which deals only with exemption from paying the fee. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the reason why this clause is even necessary. Is it not true that the Government

557
totally abrogated their responsibilities under the 1981 Act? Section 27 of the 1981 Act states:
"(d) The Secretary of State may prescribe cases in which a fee of a prescribed amount may be charged on an application for any certificate required as a condition of any prescribed exception."
In the press release issued by the department on 6th July, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport was quoted as saying:
"I am pleased to say that arrangements are being made for people on low incomes and the disabled to obtain free examinations through the DHSS Social Security Medical Service if they need medical exemption and cannot afford to obtain it from their doctor. The British Medical Association are recommending a fee to doctors of £19 for considering an application for medical exemption. In view of this rather high figure, I believe it is only right that those least able to afford such sums should have access to a free examination."
One does not, of course, argue with the sense:
"In view of this rather high figure,"
says Lynda Chalker,
"I believe it is only right that those least able",
should have some help. Fair enough—but why is this a "rather high figure"?
There is little doubt in my mind, because I have seen nothing to the contary, that the Government have failed to reach an agreement with the medical profession over this figure. I cannot remember how many years we have been discussing seat belts, but certainly we have discussed fees ranging from £1 or £2 to the last figure I can recall, which was £5 or £6. Now we have arrived at a figure of £19. I am almost tempted to suggest that the medical profession have behaved in a manner of which I should not have thought them capable. They have held us over a barrel for £19, for considering—just for considering—a certificate.
It is late. This clause has not yet been to the other place, so obviously it will have to be fully debated there. The regulations to which the Minister referred, of which this is a part, are due to be debated in the other place, I believe next Thursday. I have little doubt that when that Chamber debates the regulations they will have in mind this new clause. I hope they will. Certainly we shall have it in mind when these regulations come to your Lordships' House to be debated. If it were any other body, a commercial body, the Committee would howl with rage. There can be no justification whatever for this figure of £19. The Government should have found a satisfactory sum, which may or may not have needed the insertion of the new clause now before the Committee. I find a grave disappointment in the behaviour of the medical profession and the BMA in this matter.
Lord Bellwin: May I take up some of the points made as to the extensions that would be required to the list of exemption? Of course it was inevitable that there would be groups which would be brought to our attention as perhaps worthy of inclusion in the list. I said that drawing up the list is a judgment, and one always has to bear in mind the possibility that further categories may be included. I should be going beyond my remit if I were to say that the chances of further inclusions are fairly remote; but, having said that, I also hasten to say that I will certainly want to discuss the examples given today.
558
As to the individual recommendations drawn to our attention, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, first of all, asked about retirement pensioners. Well, those pensioners who are on supplementary benefit, as I said earlier, will of course qualify. The remainder come within the category of those where one has to come to a judgment in making the list and putting some limit somewhere. My noble friend Lady Gardner brought to our notice specific cases that both she and my noble friend Lady Faithfull are concerned about. Certainly we shall have to look at those and see whether anything can be done about those. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about drivers of three-wheeled invalid cars. I understand that in any case they would not be within the compulsion list and therefore they would not have the problem of compulsion being applied to them.
Baroness Masham of Elton: But could they not be passengers, like the pensioners the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned?
Lord Bellwin: But even as passengers, if compulsion does not apply to them then the choice of wearing the seatbelt or not would be theirs. Therefore they do not need to have exemption in the form of a medical certificate. So they certainly do not have this problem.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: But because they are disabled should not mean that they should not wear a seatbelt. Surely they must have a special need. Being disabled, one should wear a seat belt.
Lord Bellwin: Indeed, but then if they choose to wear the seat belt, which I agree with the noble Baroness would be a wise thing to do, we are faced with the problem of who will be exempt from a medical charge for a certificate to make them exempt. Therefore, the problem does not apply to them so far as I can see. As regards the other point which she made, she asked whether the list was a once-and-for-all exemption. I would always hope that there is no such thing as "once-and-for-ails" in matters of this kind. That must be right. I have said that it will not be easy to have the list extended for the obvious reasons, but to say that it should be once-and-for-all, is much further than I would want to go. However, I will consult on that and write to the noble Baroness.
I also want to look into the point which she raises about headrests. Before I come to the point made by my noble friend, Lord Lucas—which I shall leave until the end—I should like to refer to my noble friend Lady Gardner, who raised the orange badge point. I said a moment ago that we would want to look at that matter. The difficulty is that not all badge holders need to be exempted. Even so, I undertake to look into that and to take the matter further.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth used terms such as, "the Government having failed to come to an agreement". He said, "the medical profession have held us over a barrel", and, "there can be no justification for £19". He said that it is a grave disappointment. I would not attempt to be so arrogant as to say that this is or is not a correct figure. It is not for me to justify the figure or otherwise. The

559
fact is that it is a figure. It is correct when he says that it has been negotiated and discussed over a long period of time. There always comes a moment when one has to say, "Yes", or "No", this is the figure. As he also says, it will be discussed and debated elsewhere. It will probably come back and be debated here also when we come to the regulations. But I do not accept his criticism in the way in which he put it. Had he put it in another way, I might have felt more kindly disposed towards it. Frankly, I am not kindly disposed when it is put in that particular way, but he
560
will not mind whether I am disposed kindly or not, as he has so readily said in the past when he has not agreed. That is entirely his prerogative.
I think that this is a very good clause. I think that it has the approval of the Committee. I recognise the concern that we should look carefully at the additional suggestions which have been made, and that I undertake to do, although in doing so I stress that I fear that there will be limits on the extent to which I can get further movement. However, it is in that spirit that again I beg formally to move this clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Regulations and orders]:
9.59 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 67, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) Before making—

(a) an order under section 28(2) or (5) of this Act; or

(b) regulations under section 48(1) of this Act;

the Secretary of State shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit.").
The noble Earl said: The Government were happy to give an undertaking in another place to bring forward an amendment to require the Secretary of State to consult as he sees fit before making orders or regulations in connection with the fixed penalty proposals in Part III of the Bill. This will in fact merely put on a statutory basis what we would propose to do in practice anyway. I therefore have no hesitation in recommending this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I do not want to make a big issue out of this particular question, but I hope that the Secretary of State will keep in mind that any consultations of this kind must be meaningful consultations. Without going into details, I understand that there have been two cases in recent weeks where only two weeks were given for consultation. When one considers that the consultation involves the need to examine very carefully what the regulation is and perhaps the need for some organisations to have their own consultations before replying, two weeks is not sufficient. I hope that this matter will be kept in mind in any future consultations.
The Earl of Avon: Indeed, I shall undertake to do that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [General interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 68, line 35, leave out ("section 56") and insert ("sections 56 and [Extended pension provision for members of transport Boards]").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 87, line 12, leave out from ("functions") to ("and") in line 15.
The noble Lord said: This is purely a technical amendment, necessary to make Schedule 5 consistent with Clause 8, which was amended at an earlier stage in another place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 87, line 20, at end insert—
(". The provisions of the Transport Act 1968 requiring transport managers for operating centres for authorised vehicles under goods vehicle operators' licences (which have not been brought into operation and have since their enactment been largely superseded by other provisions) are hereby repealed; and accordingly, in section 85(2) of that Act, for the words "Schedules 9 and 10" there shall be substituted the words "Schedule 10".").
The noble Lord said: With this amendmnet I also want to take Amendments Nos. 129, 131, 132 and 136. These amendments relate to the proposed repeal of Section 65 and Schedule 9 and related provisions of the 1968 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 126A:
Page 87, line 21, at end insert—
(". In section 33(6) of the 1972 Act (protective helmets for motor-cyclists) there shall be inserted after the word "headdress," the words "visor or other equipment intended for use in connection with a helmet,".").
The noble Lord said: In order to protect their eyes against grit, insects and other small objects, motorcyclists often wear visors on their helmets, When a visor is sold with a helmet it is regarded as being part of the helmet and must then comply with British Standard 4110 on eye protectors for vehicle users. However, if a visor is sold separately from the helmet, it is not required by law to comply with the British Standard, or, indeed, with any standard at all.
In practice, a visor is often not supplied with the helmet, so the motor-cyclist buys the visor separately. As I have said, this visor may well not comply with the British Standard. Even if the visor is supplied with the helmet, the motor-cyclist will find it necessary to replace the visor quite frequently owing to damage by abrasion from normal wear. Indeed, it is generally considered advisable to replace the visor after as little as six weeks of regular use. So the replacement market is considerable.
It is vitally important for a motor-cyclist to be able to see where he is going. Medical authorities and others responsible for dealing with motor-cycle accidents have identified two major hazards for motorcyclists wearing visors on their helmets, particularly at night. The first is the use of tinted material for the visor. At night, in particular, this can result in a failure to distinguish objects, and certain motor-cycle fatalities are attributable to this. All motor-cycle visors made to British Standard 4110 must be made of clear material. The standard effectively prohibits the use of tinted materials. But visors sold separately

563
from helmets may be of any density of colour or tint that happens to be fashionable.
The second major hazard is the effect on vision of surface scratches on the visor. In the course of even normal wear, visors are liable to damage from scratching. Scratches result in a substantial reduction in clear vision during the day, and at night the motorcyclist, faced with oncoming headlights, can be totally blinded by what is called the star effect, with fatal results. Evidence from the Accident Research Unit at the University of Birmingham provided further corroboration. The unit recently sent to the Consumers' Association who, I might say, are advising me on this matter, two motor-cycle helmet visors. Both, rather macabrely, had been worn by motor-cyclists involved in fatal accidents. They brought them and showed them to me here. One was heavily tinted, the other was made of clear material but badly scratched. The scratched one in daylight, or even in the light of the Peers' Lobby, looked adequate, but you could imagine that if you looked at a light you could see this starring occurring.
At present the Road Traffic Act 1972 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to cover visors only when they are sold with helmets, but there appear to be no powers under the Act to make regulations to cover visors sold separately from helmets. Such powers could exist under the Consumer Safety Act 1978, which makes provision for safety regulations. Indeed, the Department of Transport in a consultation document circulated in May 1980, has suggested that it might use the provisions under the Consumer Safety Act to regulate visors sold separately from helmets. However, it seems inappropriate to deal with helmets and visors sold with helmets under the Road Traffic Act, and then to deal with visors sold separately under the Consumer Safety Act. It would be far simpler and more appropriate for comprehensive regulations to be made under a single Act of Parliament to include all visors, regardless of whether they are sold with or without a helmet. Hence the need for the present amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: The word "intended" is often ambiguous. In this amendment does it mean intended by the manufacturer or intended by the motor-cyclist? It might be worth considering making it clear in the amendment who is intended.
The Earl of Avon: For some time the Government have been aware of possible shortcomings in this primary legislation. While Section 33 gives the Secretary of State powers to prescribe helmets which will offer protection to motor-cyclists in the event of accident, it does not extend this power to control accessories which may be fitted to helmets. The Government have been concerned that visors which are either excessively tinted or scratched impair vision, particularly at night or during inclement weather. They have been a contributory factor in accidents.
In 1980 the Government considered making regulations, but decided, because at that time the problem of abrasion had not been fully explored, to wait until the standard had been revised to include abrasion resistance. This is now nearly completed. The Government
564
also welcome the proposal to cover other equipment intended for use in connection with a helmet. For example, with the recent developments in CB radio, intercom sets have been produced for use with motor-cyclists' helmets. While the Government have no reason to believe that those at present offered by helmet manufacturers for use with their helmets seriously compromise the protection offered by the helmet, there is the possibility that in ignorance the motor-cyclist may be tempted to remove part of the protective energy absorbing inner lining of his helmet in order to fit the intercom set, and action may need to be taken about such points later.
The Government welcome this amendment, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will be happy to know that we would like my noble friend to withdraw it so that we can produce our own amendment at Report stage. The amendment itself does not really fit where it now is, and we should also like to consider combining wearing and selling. Otherwise, I would very much go along with what my noble friend suggests.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend. I look forward to seeing his amendment at the next stage and have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 88, line 22, at end insert—
(".—(1) In section 93(4) of the 1972 Act (extended period of disqualification in case of certain previous convictions), for" 6(1) there shall be substituted 6(1)(a)".
(2) For the purposes of section 93(4), as amended by paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 to the Transport Act 1981 and by subparagraph (1) above to refer to sections 6(1)(a) and 8(7) of the 1972 Act (which are among the new provisions substituted by the Transport Act 1981 for sections 6 to 12 of the 1972 Act), a previous conviction of an offence under the corresponding provision of the old law shall be treated as a conviction of an offence under the new provision.
(3) In the case of section 6(1)(a) of the 1972 Act, as substituted by the Transport Act 1981, the corresponding provision of the old law for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above is section 6(1) of the 1972 Act, as it had effect immediately before that substitution.
(4) In the case of section 8(7) of the 1972 Act, as so substituted, the corresponding provision of the old law for those purposes is section 9(3) of the 1972 Act, as it so had effect.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. Its purpose is simply to rectify an anomaly which has arisen from the re-ordering of the drinking and driving offences in Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 by Schedule 8 to the 1981 Transport Act.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 90, line 46, at end insert—
(".During any period when Schedule 7 to the Transport Act 1981 (penalty points for offences) is in force but Schedule 8 to that Act (new provisions substituted for sections 6 to 12 of the 1972 Act) is not, Schedule 7 shall have effect as if for the references in column 1 of Part II of that Schedule to sections 6(1)(b), 7(4) and 8(7) of the 1972 Act (which refer to the new provisions mentioned above) there were substituted references respectively to sections 6(2), 8(3) and 9(3) of the 1972 Act (which are the provisions in that Act as it has effect apart from Schedule 8 to the Transport Act 1981 that correspond to the new provisions mentioned above).").
The noble Lord said: This, too, is a technical amendment, also intended to deal with a slight anomaly raised

565
by the Government's intention to bring Schedule 7 to the 1981 Transport Act into operation in advance of Schedule 8.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 91, line 11, column 3, at beginning insert—

("In section 59, in subsection (1) the words "and by Schedule 9 thereto", and in subsection (2) the words "and the said Schedule".

Section 62(3).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 91, column 3, leave out lines 15 to 20 and insert—

("Section 64(2)(b)").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 91, column 3, leave out line 21 and insert—

("Section 65.

In section 67(5), the words from "and a licence" to the end.

In section 68, subsections (1)(c) and (4)(a).

In section 69, in subsection (1)(a) the words "section 65 of this Act or", and in subsection (4)(b) the words "or Schedule 9 thereto" in subparagraphs (i) and (ii).

In section 82(6), the words "or Schedule 9 thereto".

In section 84, the words "or a transport manager's licence" in paragraphs (a) and (d).

In section 87, the words "or Schedule 9 thereto" in subsections (1) and (4) and in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (5).

In section 88, the words "or Schedule 9 thereto" in subsections (1) and (3) and the words" and Schedule 9 thereto" in subsection (2).

In section 89, in subsection (1) the words from "and respect" to the end and in subsection (2) the words "or Schedule 9 thereto".

In section 90, the words "and Schedule 9 thereto" in subsections (1) and (3)(b).

In section 91, in subsection (7) the words "or Schedule 9 thereto" and in subsection (8) the words "or the said Schedule 9".

In section 92, the words "and Schedule 9 thereto" in subsections (1) and (5).

Section 94(3).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 91, line 22, column 3, at end insert—

("Schedule 9.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 92, column 3, leave out lines 35 and 36.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 92, line 49, at end insert—

("1980 c. 34.

Transport Act 1980.

In section 66(2), the words from "and" in the second place where it occurs to the end.").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this, and beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 92, line 49, at end insert—

("1980 c. 62.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.

Section 31.").

The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical amendment. It repeals Section 31 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, which is re-enacted in effect in Clause 57 of the Bill. Section 31 is therefore redundant and can be repealed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 136:
In the Title, line 14, leave out from ("licences") to ("; to") in line 16.
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this, and beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 137:
In the Title, line 18, after ("defence;") insert ("to extend the power under Schedule 1 to the Transport Act 1962 to determine pensions for members of certain Boards;").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Are we not still in Committee?
Lord Sandys: No, my Lords.

British Railways Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.