Lords Sitting of 14 October 1982

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bristol): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

Air Fares: Discounting
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the serious threat to airline profitability, and in particular that of our national airline British Airways, posed by the sales of cut-price tickets, they are prepared to support discussions with and within IATA on the desirability of either amending or enforcing existing legislation; and whether they will make a statement on the present situation.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the Government fully support the current efforts of the airlines, acting under the auspices of the IATA Fare Deal Monitoring Group, to bring a better measure of order into the international market for air tickets. The Board of Airline Representatives in the United Kingdom have made progress in securing agreement between British and foreign airlines to reverse the trend towards increasing discounting and move back to charging the fares approved by Governments. Success depends on the collective good sense of the airline industry rather than on changes in legislation or Government policy.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is very good to receive an Answer like that and to know that at last progress is being made? May I ask the Minister whether he will comment on the new resolution adopted by IATA, namely, the Tariff Integrity Resolution, which is an attempt to curtail illegal practices? That resolution calls for the active support of Governments. Will the Minister comment on that?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she says. We do support IATA in all the efforts it is making to bring discounting to an end, but in the end this must be a matter that only the airlines themselves can achieve. Two agreements have now been entered into for policing fares between London and Japan and London and the Gulf, and further agreements of this sort are expected shortly.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I do not wish to draw too much encouragement from what the Minister says—because I could hardly hear what he said, though that was not his fault. May I ask whether it is not correct that his department have been asked
906
for discussions on this Tariff Integrity Resolution and whether any such discussions have taken place, particularly as the 11 major airlines involved in this include our own British Airways and British Caledonian?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I certainly take note of what the noble Baroness says and I will let her know what further progress is made in this field.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that cut price air tickets are an inevitable consequence of an excess capacity, whether short term or long term? Would he not also agree that a Government which opposes cartels and believes in the market economy should never interfere in the spontaneous functioning of the market?
Lord Cockfield: No, my Lords, I do not entirely agree that cut price air fares are the result of excess capacity. One could have excess capacity existing with maintained air fares. Indeed, if I may say so, that was the whole objective of the IATA agreements. The problem that one faces here, of course, is that the air lines need a level of profitability to stay in business and, so long as many of them are in fact financed by Governments, complete freedom to compete may be a desirable objective but one remarkably difficult to attain.

Peking Discussions: The Future of Hong Kong
3.5 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the discussions which the Prime Minister had in Peking in September, particularly regarding the future of Hong Kong.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister exchanged views with Chinese leaders on a wide range of international questions and discussed a number of bilateral matters. Prominent among these was the future of Hong Kong. On this she held far-reaching talks in a friendly atmosphere with both Premier Zhao Ziyang and Chairman Deng Xiaoping. Both sides made clear their respective positions on this subject, and agreed to enter talks through diplomatic channels following the visit with the common aim of maintaining the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us had great sympathy with the Prime Minister in visiting China without the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington? Is it conceivable that she should endorse the immoral treaties imposed on China at the end of the most immoral war this country has ever fought—the opium war? Does he remember that the Tories were then in opposition and opposed

907
the imposition of these treaties and that it was a Whig Government which carried them out? Has not the effect been disastrous both in China and in Hong Kong?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is true that there is a difference of views over sovereignty. The Chinese position is well known, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister stated our position clearly. But the great advantage of my right honourable friend's talks with the Chinese leadership is that there was agreement on a common aim to maintain the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong, and the aim of the talks was to build on this. This is the path we are now going down.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is it not one of the lessons of diplomacy that in these great matters it is wiser for the principals not to meet until the ground had been well explored at a lower level and some kind of agreement is already in sight?—otherwise there is surely a danger of both Governments taking up rigid positions from which it is difficult for them to depart in subsequent negotiations.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think it was enormously important that, as a result of my right honourable friend's visit, there was this agreement to enter into talks with the common aim of maintaining the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. It was necessary, as anybody who takes an interest in Hong Kong knows, for minds to begin to meet on the question of Hong Kong. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that, in addition to the subject of Hong Kong, there were extremely valuable talks on other subjects conducted by my right honourable friend.
Lord Shepherd: My Lord, I do not believe any noble Lord would disagree with the need for confidence and confidentiality in these discussions, but would the noble Lord not agree that to attain stability and prosperity there must be a degree of confidence in Hong Kong, and that, I think, can come about only by divulging some progress as the talks proceed? Would the Minister consider with the Prime Minister whether from time to time it might be opportune for statements to be made in the two Houses in this respect? Would he also agree that, perhaps as one of the benefits of this procedure, we therefore might not feel it necessary to put down Questions which might be embarrassing at that particular moment in the negotiations?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for that question and, for reasons which I know are obvious to the noble Lord and to others of your Lordships, the contents of the talks must necessarily remain confidential. But that does not rule out an agreed statement during the talks, if there is anything which ought to be reported.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, while not for one moment wishing to denigrate the heroic efforts of our forces in the Falklands, can the noble Lord assure us that we will not move into this very difficult problem
908
in the Far East and in Hong Kong and be dominated by the Falkland Islands syndrome? May we have a calm period now, before we think of beginning negotiations on a real long distance basis?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I take the opportunity of the noble Lord's question to say that Her Majesty's Government's aim is to preserve the stability and the prosperity of Hong Kong in a way which is acceptable to Parliament and to the people of Hong Kong.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, as the Minister knows, the Prime Minister's visit to Hong Kong was followed by an extraordinary collapse of confidence in Hong Kong—a collapse of stock market prices and of all sorts of things. What I should like to ask the Minister is, whether it is possible that more of the contents of the talks, or of possible provisional agreements, came to be known than is contained in his statement that both sides agree on maintaining the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. That is not a statement which should give rise to a collapse of confidence.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, reads into the fall in the Hong Kong stock exchange, and the exchange rates, reasons of which, certainly, I am not aware. The noble Lord will, with his long experience, know better than I do that sharp fluctuations in the index are more common on that stock exchange, and indeed on other exchanges, than in western stock exchanges. In August, before my right honourable friend's visit, the index fell because it was heavily centred on property shares. In addition, of course, other Far East indices, notably Singapore and Malaysia, have followed a similar pattern over the year, including an August drop which, again, was before my right honourable friend's visit. And, of course, the level of the exchange rate is tied to a considerable extent to the strength at the moment of the US dollar. Incidentally, as we are talking about this, let us remember that the Hong Kong stock exchange has gone up on both of the last two days, and the exchange rate seems to have settled down to a sensible and stable level. So with respect to the noble Lord, whose experience I always respect and try to follow, I would not read the same lessons into what occurred on the Hong Kong stock exchange as the noble Lord has done.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, I merely wish to say—
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, I merely wish to ask the Minister whether he would agree that the reason why the violent movements in stock exchange prices on this occasion were associated with the Prime Minister's visit to Peking was that it was so important to the most respectable portions of the British press, such as The Times and the Financial Times. Otherwise. I would agree.
Lord Belstead: Then, my Lords, so that there is no misunderstanding at all, and on behalf of the Government, may I make it quite clear that the agreement between the Chinese leadership and my right honour-

909
able friend was that talks should open on the basis of the future stability and prosperity of Hong Kong, and that the aim of the talks should be to build upon those two principles of stability and prosperity. I believe that this was a valuable outcome of my right honourable friend's visit.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, would the Minister agree that there is a paradox in that, while we have refrained from extending democracy in Hong Kong in order not to offend the Chinese Government, the Chinese have now themselves proposed the election of the Governor and the association of the people in the administration? Would he hear in mind that we have 15 years in which to reach a settlement, and while it is important that a broad framework of agreement should be reached at an early point, embodying the inevitable Chinese sovereignty and the necessity for economic prosperity, we should leave details in a changing world, including the modernisation of China, for later consideration?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I am not sure where his information comes from, but it is not the same as mine. The only information that I have at the moment is that there was an agreement—I repeat it yet again—and both the Chinese leadership and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister agreed that talks should now open on the basis of the future prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. No details were given by either side as to what was to be agreed or discussed within those two paramount parameters, within which the talks should take place. I think that that was valuable, and I believe that, if the talks can proceed on that basis, this very difficult problem can be solved.

Manufactured Goods: UK/EEC Trade Figures
3.16 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the value of manufactured goods imported from the European Community by the United Kingdom in each of the years 1972, 1980, 1981 and to what extent it is estimated that the amount for 1982 will be affected by the dramatic improvement in productivity claimed by it to have been achieved in the first quarter of this year.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the figures are £2·3 billion, £15·2 billion and £15·8 billion, respectively. Productivity has been rising substantially for more than a year now, but to a large extent this has been offset by pay increases exceeding those in major competitor countries. While a rise in productivity is helpful, just as excessive pay increases are unhelpful, it is not possible to provide a quantified estimate of its effect on the 1982 outturn.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those figures. Does he recall that before the Recess much emphasis was placed upon our manufacturing exports to EEC countries? But is it not a fact that the figures which he now gives us about our imports from those same countries put the position in truer perspective? Is it not a fact that before membership we had a very substantial trading surplus with the EEC countries in manufactures, whereas since our membership we have gone into very significant deficit?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the figures for which the noble Lord asked and those I gave him related to imports only. What matters, of course, is the balance of trade between ourselves and the European Community. Contrary to the popular belief, we did, in fact, on a balance of payments basis, show a surplus in our trade with Europe in both 1980 and 1981, although in the first half of the current year there is a deficit. But Europe remains our most important market, both in the export and import fields.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, would the noble Lord confirm that what he has just said about the balance of our trade with Europe having been favourable was entirely due to oil? The Question related to manufactured goods and asked only about imports. But what is really important, from the point of view of the future manufactures of this country, is the balance of imports and exports in manufactures without taking oil into account.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord that the only thing that matters is the balance in manufactured goods. In fact, the balance in services and in other invisibles is also of very great importance. Nor am I prepared to disregard the importance of oil in the same way as the noble Lord does. If one analyses the trade figures in detail, one can always pick out individual groups in which this country shows either a substantial surplus or a substantial deficit.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this Question itself relates to manufactured goods? Will he not come absolutely clean on this? There has been a deficit in our trade with Europe in manufactured goods; he knows that perfectly well. Is he not prepared to confirm that? The deficit is both unforeseen in terms of the accession and also very substantial and considerable. Will the noble Lord also bear in mind that the oil supplies from this country are, so far as one can see, not of indefinite duration? Will he take steps to cease destroying the manufacturing base in this country?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I do not of course agree with the noble Lord's analysis. That will come as no surprise to him. I have never said, and I do not now say, that we have a surplus on our manufactured exports. The point I am making, which is a very valid one, is that one must look at the totality of our trade and that one is not entitled to pick out individual pieces of that trade and ignore the rest of it, because in this world our prosperity depends on the totality of our output and not simply on the output in specific areas.

911
I regret just as much as the noble Lord does the fall in our manufacturing output, but, unlike the noble Lord, I welcome the increase that we see in other parts of our total economic activity.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord said that we should not look at one narrow sector of our activities, but is it not a fact that when we came to consider exports from this country to the EEC the noble Lords opposite spoke about this narrow sector of manufactured goods? I am asking for comparable figures. On the basis of comparable figures we have gone from a substantial surplus into a very significant deficit with the European countries. If the noble Lord, as he appeared to be, is underestimating the effort of manufacturing industry in this country, can he say why, in the same period when we have run this deficit with the European countries, we have contrived to increase our surplus with non-EEC countries so far as the manufacturing trading balance is concerned?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, on a question of fact, the noble Lord asked for figures of manufactured goods imported from the European Community. That, therefore, was the question which I answered. Had the noble Lord asked for figures relating to exports or the balance of payments I would equally have willingly given them. There is no secret about the figures, which are, of course, published regularly. So far as the general point which the noble Lord is making is concerned, it is perfectly true that great changes have taken place in the pattern of this country's economic activity since 1973, but the important point that needs to be borne in mind is how important a market the European Community is as a whole for the United Kingdom; that no less than 43 per cent. of our total exports go to the European Community.

The Welfare State: CPRS Report
3.24 p.m.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will publish the recent report of the Central Policy Review Staff on the future of the welfare state.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is referring to an analysis undertaken by the Central Policy Review Staff of ways in which it might be possible, if the Government so decided, to limit the growth of public expenditure in the longer term. This was a confidential analysis prepared for Ministers and will not be published.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I thank the Leader of the House for her Answer. Her assumption is perfectly correct. May I ask her to be good enough to inform her right honourable friend the Prime Minister that we in the Labour movement regard the National Health Service as an integral and sacrosanct part of the welfare state—and inviolate? May I also ask the noble Baroness to add that a serious and long
912
conflict would arise if steps were taken fundamentally to change the basis of the National Health Service and the thinking that lay originally behind it.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am glad to confirm both to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and to the House what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said last week; that the Government have no plans to change the present system of financing the National Health Service, that it remains as it is, that it is safe in our hands and that it will be financed, as now, largely from taxation.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, in view of the vehement opposition expressed by Labour spokesmen and also by spokesmen for trade unions about varying the arrangements of the National Health Service, may I ask the Leader of the House whether she and the Government are aware that in the latest national opinion poll conducted in May for BUPA the results confirmed an overwhelming majority, even as high as 69 per cent. among the members of trade unions, in favour of private health treatment—not the abolition of the National Health Service but in favour of the option of private health treatment?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have of course seen the opinion poll to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, refers and I should like to confirm that we as a Government welcome the growth in private health insurance. But there is no contradictiion between that statement and our support of the National Health Service.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that this document can no longer be regarded as confidential? Is it not a nonsense to refer to it as a confidential document? Would it not be preferable for the Government to publish it so that we know whether or not what we have read in the press is correct? Secondly, I thank the noble Baroness for referring to the National Health Service, but this document purported to deal with social security, too. Therefore, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the 5 per cent. shortfall in unemployment benefit is likely to be restored in the near future and what other proposals the Government have in mind relating to the social security suggestions in the report? I understand that the report is supposed to have so reported.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sure that it is not necessary for me to refer the noble Baroness to the words of her right honourable friend in another place, the then Prime Minister, who said on 22nd January 1976:
"The advice of the CPRS, like other official advice to Ministers, is normally treated as confidential. While a number of reports by the CPRS have been published under this Government, a decision by Ministers to publish a particular report can only he taken in the light of the individual circumstances".
The Government agree with that statement. On the question of the 5 per cent. abatement of unemployment benefit, I have nothing further to add to the Statement which was made last July in another place.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, although we would accept that the report was confidential, it seems very significant indeed that there have been considerable leaks to the press of the contents of the report? Can the noble Baroness give an assurance to the House that there was no inspired leakage? The publication of details has given rise to a great deal of public anxiety. May I further assure the noble Baroness that the bland assurance given by the Prime Minister at the Conservative Party Conference has not eased public anxiety over the issue?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, that no Government like to see confidential documents leaked. On the noble Lord's second point, I should like him to accept my word and that of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and, as I have said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, that the National Health Service will continue, as now, to be largely financed out of taxation.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, if the noble Baroness says that the National Health Service will continue as now, does she mean at its present real level or at its present level in terms of pounds? Or is it to be left open for the National Health Service to be a reduced health service? All those things are consonant with the preservation of the service. The question is, at what level?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the record of this Government speaks for itself. Spending on the National Health Service has grown each year in real terms under this Government. We now employ thousands more doctors and nurses in the National Health Service than under the former Government, and there is no suggestion that we will do other than stand by the statements we have already made about the future of the National Health Service.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness, Lady Young, aware that those of us who believe in the preservation and indeed the enhancement of the National Health Service are not afraid of the arguments of the wreckers but would welcome the exposure of their arguments to the light of day so that we can contradict them? Is the noble Baroness further aware that it diminishes the standing of the Government when documents submitted to them in confidence are leaked partially to the press in such a manner as to distort their meaning; and that the best way the noble Baroness and her colleagues have of convincing the public that they mean what they say in declaring that they wish to preserve the Health Service is to publish the report in its entirety and then argue against its findings?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government certainly do not accept that leaks are to the advantage of good government at all. At the same time, I would like to make quite clear that our policy on open government has been to make publicly available as much as possible. Indeed, the whole development of the Select Committee system in another place has been proof of this, and we have taken the opportunity to publish a great deal of information not previously
914
published. I would like to make it quite clear that every Government have recognised that they cannot do their job properly without the privacy of confidential exchanges between Ministers and advice from officials to Ministers. Countries which have freedom of information legislation recognise this.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it not a fact that this CPRS was set up precisely to look into long-term plans? Was it not also set up to think the unthinkable about many subjects, and that on certain occasions it has done precisely that'? Would the noble Baroness not agree that it is reasonable for a body of that kind to come forward with propositions which the Government may consider in the end not to be appropriate, or, equally, that it may come forward with propositions which the Government could never have had before if they had left it simply to the normal workings of the Civil Service departments involved?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for that question which I consider to be a very constructive contribution to this discussion; and it does represent the Government's thinking on this matter.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, as to the very alarming statements published in the press concerning the conclusions of this report—that it will imply some time in the future a basic tax rate of 45 per cent. instead of 30 per cent. and a value added tax rate of 30 per cent. instead of 15 per cent. if the present scale of social services is to be maintained—surely these conclusions could have been reached only on the basis of very pessimistic estimates concerning the future of the national income in this country, and would it not be a good thing for the Government to disclose what were the assumptions concerning income which led to these extraordinary conclusions?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, knows well, discussions of economic problems facing this country have continued for a very long time and no doubt will continue long into the future. This discussion proceeds in a great many ways. For example, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer discusssed these problems in his "Weekend World" interview last Sunday. But no decision has been taken about the publication of any further documents.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Report stage of the Transport Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period.
I think I should also inform your Lordships that it has been agreed that we should complete the Report stage of the Transport Bill today. This will avoid the need for the House to sit tomorrow. I believe that possibly the whole House will echo my hope that noble Lords will help the House to finish the business at not too unreasonable an hour this evening.

Cornwall County Council Bill [H.L.] County of Lancashire Bill [H.L.] Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Bill [H.L.] Hampshire Bill [H.L.] Nottinghamshire County Council Bill [H.L.] Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committes (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, the two Motions which appear in my name on the Order Paper are the usual Motions which come before the House at the end of each Session in order to allow Private Bills to continue on their way through Parliament in the next Session. The first Motion refers to those Bills which started in this House and which have not yet completed their passage through it, and the second Motion relates to those Bills which started their progress in another place and have now reached this House.
I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bills, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
That such Bills shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed to each, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bills shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater London Council (General Powers) (No. 2) Bill Severn-Trent Water Authority Bill Yarmouth (Isle of Wight) Pier Bill
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
916
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with them, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
That, if any of the Bills are brought from the Commons in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session;
That the proceeding on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply, in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport Bill
3.36 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Clause 22 [Forgery and misuse of documents etc.]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 31A:
Page 24, line 42, at end insert—
("or
(c) in Scotland, forges or alters a document evidencing such an authorisation;").
The noble and learned Lord said; My Lords, as your Lordships will appreciate, the laws north and south of the Scottish Border are not quite the same—and in particular, the law of forgery north of the Scottish Border is not quite the same as that in England and Wales. This relatively minor amendment is designed to make the forging of documents evidencing authorisation as an authorised person in terms of Clause 8(4) a specific offence in Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Fixed penalty offences and fixed penalty notices]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 31B:
Page 27, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) he has been informed that the constable intends to issue such a notice; and")
The noble Lord said; My Lords, in moving this amendment I will remind your Lordships of the discussion we had during the course of the Bill at Committee stage. At that time the Committee was concerned that the exposure of a motorist's licence

917
before the constable had made up his mind with regard to the offer of a fixed penalty award or a summons would affect his attitude. We suggested the same amendment as that set down this afternoon—that it should be a requirement that the constable should have to make it quite clear to the motorist that a fixed penalty was to be offered.
We discussed this at great length and there was general acceptance by the Committee that this was desirable, notwithstanding the fact that it was the intention for the department or the Home Office to include that requirement in guidelines to police forces. However, my noble friend the Minister said at that time, at the conclusion of our debate on 9th July (Hansard, col. 1003):
"In view of the support he has had around the Committee, perhaps my noble friend will offer to withdraw his amendment now and I will go back to counsel and say that the Committee wants this and that he will have to find some way around it."
I am very much obliged to my noble friend for his letter of 12th October, in which he tells me that for technical reasons—that is, to ensure that motorists do not find a loophole in the law and so escape their just penalty, whether it is a fixed penalty or a summons—the draftsmen are not able to meet the point. He goes on to suggest that I ought to be perfectly assured with the intention. I do not know whether he has had any further thoughts since 12th October. My further thoughts are that it should not be impossible for counsel to find a way round the difficulty; that is precisely what they are there for.
Secondly, in the Stewart Committee Report (Cmnd. 8027), which has featured so frequently in our debates on road safety matters, particularly matters of this kind, there is at the end, as an appendix, a number of suggested fixed penalty notices, pieces of paper. It does not seem to me to be beyond the wit of draftsmen, parliamentary draftsmen or others, to attach to that notice a disclaimer; that is to say, on being handed this by the policeman the alleged offending motorist might sign it acknowledging that he has been offered a fixed penalty award, subject of course to anything that might transpire later on examination of the licence; it would mean disqualification or that the law does not provide for a fixed penalty under those circumstances. That should be quite simple. I do not see why, if my idea of simplicity is correct, the requirement of such a notice cannot be included in the Bill, as suggested in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I do not think one need argue the case too much, because the noble Earl, Lord Avon, not only said that he would go back to counsel but also said at Committee stage that a police officer would have to do what the amendment would require him to do and therefore the amendment is unnecessary. Therefore, the argument is really accepted by the Government, and I do hope that the noble Earl has been able to get back to the legal advisers and will support this amendment.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as both noble Lords have said, the House will be aware that this issue was debated in Committee when I attempted to persuade noble Lords that this amendment would cause difficulties. In view of the support that my noble friend Lord Lucas got in Committee, I undertook to go back
918
to counsel. Of course, the only trouble with writing to my noble friend, having gone back to counsel, is that he has now more or less read out my whole brief for me.
The situation is this; we had considered and we have now considered it again, but unfortunately we find that we still cannot welcome the amendment, nor offer an alternative form of words such as my noble friend is suggesting. I hope noble Lords will not mind if I cover some of the same ground again to explain the problems that might arise with such an amendment. In order to see the contents of the licence, to inspect it for points, the officer will have to explain to the driver why he needs to see it and therefore that he is thinking about offering a fixed penalty. This is because the provisions in Part III give no entitlement to the police to inspect the endorsements, if any, on a licence. We are, as I previously explained, having to rely on the willingness of the driver to show his licence.
The amendment will thus require the officer to do what he will have to do anyway, but putting such a requirement on the statute book would increase the number of grounds on which the validity of such a notice could be challenged and give rise to technical defences which I am sure noble Lords will agree are unwelcome. It might subject the police to false claims that the offer was not made first, despite the fact that a fixed penalty was in fact issued. There could be claims that the fixed penalty was, therefore, issued invalidly; and for offences such as failing to comply with traffic directions governed by Section 179 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 the time allowed for warning of an ordinary prosecution would almost certainly have passed. There would thus be a risk that some motorists who had accepted fixed penalties would seek to exploit this technical defect and escape altogether.
To conclude, it is indeed our intention that an officer will do exactly what my noble friend Lord Lucas would like him to do, but we believe it is unwise to give the status of law to this requirement, which may lead to technical defences. I cannot think that my noble friend would wish to see this. He mentioned that there is going to be Home Office guidance. I would add that the chief officer of police will also give instructions on this line. May I say finally that I do not believe there would be any incentive for the police themselves to act otherwise than in the way my noble friend wants. I hope, having said that, that my noble friend will find this constructive enough to enable him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I have to thank my noble friend for his further explanation. I was looking at my own driving licence and wondered exactly how a policeman could see other than the name and address. My fear is that when greater knowledge of the fixed penalty system comes about motorists will still, rightly or wrongly, hold the view that a decision is going to be made on sight of the licence. They then may well elect not to offer the licence at that time, saying they have not got it, in which case they will be served with a further notice to produce it at the nearest police station in five days' time. It could well be that the motorist will take advice from a lawyer and the whole procedure gets drawn out. There is then further work at the police station, even

919
when that work may ultimately end in a fixed penalty notice being offered.
I think the argument my noble friend has advanced about technical defence is liable to lead to greater difficulties. In the circumstances, particularly since our conversations finished only two days ago, I would like to consider again what he has said, in the hope that I or my advisers and his own department can find some formula to meet this problem. With the assurance to your Lordships that I will not weary you too much at Third Reading next week on the point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 31C:
Page 28, line 35, at end insert ("and such notice shall be in the form which the Secretary of State shall from time to time by regulation prescribe.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure there is no doubt at all in your Lordships' minds that the majority of the Members of your Lordships' House, and certainly the two Front Benches, are completely in favour of fixed penalty notices. The only concern that we all have is that there should be clarity, that there should be uniformity and that there should be justice in regard to the fixed penalty notice.
At Committee stage I ventured to draw the attention of the Committee to one hit of injustice, as an example, which might occur if we did not know that the fixed penalty notice was in a prescribed form. I dealt with the issue of an endorsement of a licence, a very serious matter to many people who as ordinary amateur drivers take a pride in their driving record, but of even more serious consequence to people who earn their livelihood as a result of being able to show a clean licence. There are occasions—the noble Earl was good enough to confirm this to me in a letter—when the court is entitled to take into account special reasons relating to the facts of the case before deciding whether or not an endorsement should be placed upon a licence. That is a series of cases within the transport legislation which is not within the knowledge of the ordinary member of the public. Therefore, the ordinary member of the public, when stopped or approached by a police officer in regard to an offence which is capable of being endorsed, might well concede the endorsement which would automatically follow without knowing that there are cases where, if he wanted to fight the endorsement, he had the right to do so by electing to appear in court.
Therefore, instead of complicating the statute I humbly suggested that there should be a prescribed form, prescribed from time to time so that there is no question of fixing it for time immemorial and losing flexibility. The form should give in its wording an indication to the motorist concerned that, if it is that type of offence, if he wished to make a submission in regard to endorsement he need not accept the fixed penalty notice; instead, he can elect to have the matter heard by a court if it is decided to prosecute him. That was one of the grounds on which I wanted to argue for a prescribed form.
The noble Earl, Lord Avon, with his customary courtesy, having promised that he would write to me
920
and certain other of your Lordships in regard to matters raised in Committee, did so. In his kindness and generosity he added in the course of his objection to a prescribed form one additional argument in favour of such a form which I had not myself advanced. I am sure he will not mind my saying that, and quoting briefly from the letter that he sent to me. He said:
"The present fixed penalty system relies on forms prescribed by Statute and in looking at the weaknesses of the system, we concluded that one of the reasons people do not pay their fixed penalties or respond to their notices is that they find them difficult to understand and fill in."
If there is one good reason for prescribing a form in language which can be understood by everyone, so one hopes, that one good reason for having simplification and clarity of language has been given to the House, I suggest, in that sentence in the letter. If it be true and it is not too charitable a view one is expressing in regard to the motorist that the reason many of them do not pay fixed penalties is because they do not understand the form, how foolish it would be to leave the matter to various authorities which are merely obeying, no doubt, a general direction to be as clear in their language as they can.
One does not doubt that Ministers of Transport will always have the great gift of being able to express themselves in good clear simple English, as indeed the present incumbents of that office undoubtedly can. In those circumstances, therefore, should we not ask that the Minister from time to time, and with flexibility, should see that there is a prescribed form which everyone can understand and which will be just because it will point out the rights of the motorist in certain circumstances.
I only add this because I must do so in fairness. To suggest that that was the only answer given in reply to my submission would be grossly unfair and inaccurate. The Minister added the point in a subsequent letter that a prescribed form might give the motorist an excuse to point out, through the agility of mind of a lawyer that he would instruct, that there was a comma missing from, say, the third line in the notice he received, but that the comma was in the form prescribed by statute. That would be an answer to every prescribed form that we have in many statutes. One can only say from the point of view of experience that the court will not in any way respect a de minimis argument of that kind. If that is the only slight variant or there is a misprint no court will say that the motorist has a good defence in those circumstances. This is an important point. It is a sensible amendment and I hope that your Lordships will agree.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and it is clear from what he says that our intentions are the same. We both want simple forms in plain language that are easy to understand. We differ only in how that might be best achieved. In fact, we differ to such a small degree that he can actually turn one of my arguments to his own advantage.
This is a narrow point. If people are to use the rights and safeguards in the system we all believe they must understand them and we agree that the House will consider that crucial. That is why the Government have decided to move away from prescribed forms

921
where the language and content is often dictated by regulation. That is to say, although the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, understands them well sometimes the ordinary driver does not understand them as well as those accustomed to the regulations. Instead, in the Bill we have enumerated some of the things about which a recipient of the notice must be warned and we have taken powers to specify in regulations what further information the fixed penalty notice should contain. I take very much the point made by the noble Lord in his opening remarks and I am sure that will be borne in mind as well.
The forms themselves will not have to conform to the language of statute which I believe is often found difficult to understand by the average person. I can assure noble Lords that any information that can be usefully included in the forms as suggested by the noble Lord, will be included. The flexibility that is provided by not prescribing the forms will mean that they can be expressed in as simple English as possible. It will also mean that any very minor variation between forms of different police areas, necessitated for instance between different set-ups, can be accommodated. However, while our aim is simplicity and comprehension we do not want to see different areas produce different forms which might possibly lead to confusion in themselves. There, the Home Office intends to prepare model forms to recommend to chief officers and police, after taking advice from experts in the sphere of form design. I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Lord how clearly we want the same end product. The Government do not believe that the amendment is the best way of achieving it. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should have loved to start off this afternoon with a reasonable reply to a most reasonable request. My misfortune is that I feel I have a duty here. These are important measures. The form should be laid down. As I said, it can be changed from time to time, and with great respect to the Minister—I do not intend to make a second speech—to say that guidance will be given to various chief constables and that that necessarily will result in a clear English document that is capable of being understood by the average motorist is being far too optimistic.
I believe I have a duty and that the House has a duty and I intend to test the opinion of the House on what in no way at all can be conceived to be a party point. I therefore hope that your Lordships will agree with the amendment.
3.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 31C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 104.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Banks, L.

Ardwick, L.

Barrington, V.

Aylestone, L.

Beswick, L.

Balogh, L.

Bishopston, L.

922

Blease, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McNair, L.

Brockway, L.

Mayhew, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Collison, L.

Molloy, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Peart, L.

Phillips, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Plant, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Denington, B.

Diamond, L.

Roberthall, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Evart-Biggs, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Ferrier, L.

Segal, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stamp, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Stedman, B.

Gormley, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hale, L.

Stone, L.

Hankey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jacques, L.

Thurso, V.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Underhill, L.

Kaldor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Whaddon, L.

Leatherland, L.

Willis, L.

Listowel, E.

Winstanley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Hives, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Avon, E.

Inglewood, L.

Beloff, L.

Kemsley, V.

Bessborough, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blake, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Braye, L.

Long, V.

Caccia, L.

Loudoun, C.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McFadzean, L.

Carrington, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Cathcart, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mar, C.

Clancarty, E.

Marley, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mersey, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Milverton, L.

Cross, V.

Morris, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Daventry, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

De Freyne, L.

Norfolk, D.

De L'lsle, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Derwent, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Pender, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eccles, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Effingham, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Portland, D.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Ferrers, E.

Reigate, L.

Fortescue, E.

Renton, L.

Gainford, L.

Rochdale, V.

Glanusk, L.

Romney, E.

Glenarthur, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gormanston, V.

Sandford, L.

Gridley, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hatherton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Henley, L.

Stradhroke, E.

923

Strathclyde, L.

Vaizey, L.

Strathspey, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Suffield, L.

Vickers, B.

Swinfen, L.

Vivian, L.

Terrington, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Westbury, L.

Trumpington, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 27 [Fixed penalty notices given at a police station]:
4.8 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 31D:
Page 29, line 36, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said; My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 31D. Subsection (4) of this clause, which this amendment seeks to leave out, provides that the entire section shall:
"not apply in respect of offences committed in Scotland and a notice under this section may not specify a police station in Scotland".
Noble Lords will recall that at the Committee stage there was pressure for there to be similarity of treatment for Scottish motorists in respect of an offence committed in England or Wales. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that very few motorists would be involved and he referred to the cost of equipping and manning police stations in Scotland if the provisions which we wanted had to be carried out. On 9th July, at col. 1015, the noble Earl said:
"the purpose of Clause 27 is to allow a driver to get a fixed penalty notice even though he is not carrying his driving licence. This is achieved for Scotland by Clause 40".
The noble and learned Lord Advocate also said that the number of motorists likely to be affected would not justify the burden of performing this particular job. I must emphasise that there is no desire on the part of myself and my noble friend whose name is attached to this amendment to change in any way the procedure with regard to the procurator fiscal in Scotland. We would not attempt to do that. However, many references have been made to the Stewart Committee. I would refer to paragraph 6.13, which makes absolutely clear that a motorist should not be prevented from getting a fixed penalty if he does not have his licence with him. It refers to the requirement to present a licence for inspection at a police station within five days—I merely paraphrase to save time. We propose the deletion of this subsection. Motoring organisations want this subsection. The Royal Scottish Automobile Club, while expressing some sympathy with the position of the police with regard to administration, takes the view—whether in Scotland or in England—that a motorist must have the right to take full advantage of the law and that when this Bill becomes an Act, the Scottish motorist in England and Wales should be treated just the same as any other motorist—his position must not be prejudiced.
We have the provision of Section 161(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 which provides that a motorist may within five days produce a licence or other document at any police station in Great Britain. Therefore, we see no reason why the Scottish motorist should not have this provision. If by any chance the Government again stress the problems of the small police stations in
924
Scotland, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—who will most likely reply to this amendment—will accept the spirit of what we are after in this amendment and will bring forward an amendment of his own on Third Reading which may specify certain particular police stations in Scotland. However, it appears that there ought to be the maximum amount of uniformity for any law passed by our Parliament. We hope that the Government will accept the equity of this amendment and agree to the deletion of this subsection.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I should like to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said. I find it difficult to understand how this will work. Let us take, for example, the case of an English tourist going to Scotland who commits a road offence there. Let us say that he does not have his licence on him. What will happen in that case? Subsection (4) is totally disapplied here. It says:
"This section does not apply in respect of offences committed in Scotland and a notice under this section may not specify a police station in Scotland".
But as it is disapplied completely, nor can it specify a police station in England. I hope that my noble and learned friend will make that position clear, because I believe that an amendment is certainly necessary there to clarify the position, if it is the intention that he can specify a police station in Scotland.
As regards the Scottish aspect, I notice that no amendments are down to Clause 40, but as this is so closely linked with Clause 40 I think it would be relevant to mention one point at least in it. I would suggest that my noble friend might explain what is to happen in the case of an offence committed in Scotland by a person domiciled in Scotland who does not have his certificate with him. Clause 40 makes it tolerably clear but, as is so often the case in Scottish legislating, it leaves the discretion with the procurator fiscal, which is entirely separate from what happens in England. It is not an inherent consequence of the difference between law in England and law in Scotland that that should be so. Why should the procurator fiscal or, in this case, the clerk of the court, have this option? I cannot see why he should. If the conditions are complied with—namely, that the licence is forwarded to the clerk of the court—why should there be a discretion? Surely he can proceed in exactly the same way as one would in England where a licence has not been in the possession of the motorist at the time when the offence is committed. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend could comment on that and make the matter clear.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said in moving this amendment, this is a subject which we have discussed fairly fully before, but in view of the interest that has been expressed in it I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I speak on it at a little length.
Our objective in framing the fixed penalty provisions of the Bill as they apply to Scotland was to offer to the Scottish motorist the maximum possible range of opportunities to have his offence, if he so chooses, dealt with by a fixed penalty. In this we have been much assisted by the recommendations of the Stewart Committee on Alternatives to Prosecution,

925
which dealt not only with road traffic but the situation generally—and it is still dealing with that—to which we have referred before and to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has referred today.
We accept, of course, that road traffic law should be uniform throughout the country, but we must take account of the fact that the systems of criminal procedure north and south of the Border differ in some significant respects. What we are dealing with in Part III of this Bill is procedure for dealing with road traffic offences which remain, as I think all noble Lords agree as regards this Bill, criminal offences.
For the purposes of this Bill, the most important difference between Scottish and English criminal procedure is that there is in Scotland a public prosecutor who prosecutes almost all criminal offences. It was on that foundation that the Stewart Committee built its recommendations. As noble Lords will recall, it recommended that the police and the procurator fiscal should both be empowered to deal with offences by fixed penalty. The police should be able to issue fixed penalty notices at the roadside for a list of offences which is more or less the same as the list in Schedule 1 to the Bill, and the procurator fiscal for those offences—fixed penalty offences under Schedule 1—plus others, now listed in Schedule 2 to the Bill. We shall perhaps hear more about Schedule 2 later on.
In accepting this recommendation for Scotland the Government had in mind that it would provide the maximum opportunity for the use of fixed penalties in appropriate cases. The fiscal would be able to offer fixed penalties in cases where the police had been unable to do so and for a wider range of offences than is available to the police. This is to the advantage of the motorist and will relieve in addition some of the burden on the criminal courts.
Against that background perhaps I could just look briefly at the provisions of Clause 27 of the Bill. That clause allows a fixed penalty notice to be issued at a police station in cases where it has not been issued at the roadside because the driver was not carrying his driving licence. The clause does not apply to Scotland because it would be an unnecessary duplication; these offences can he dealt with by the offer of a fiscal fixed penalty. There is no need to have the two systems running in parallel; to do so would be wasteful.
I pause here to deal a little more fully with the question which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn put to me. The situation is that for an English motorist going to Scotland who happens to commit an offence in Scotland and who does not have his driving licence with him, the police meet him on the roadside and are unable to give him a fixed penalty for the reasons that all understand—that he does not have his licence with him and they cannot say whether or not he is qualified. The next stage in the ordinary case will be for that matter to be reported to the procurator fiscal. We took the view that it is the simplest administrative provision for the procurator fiscal to deal with that case and he can deal with it very simply by the procedure set out in Part III of the Bill. That is certainly not to the disadvantage of the motorist because he deals with it without the motorist having to come to any police station. He is able to deal with it by post to the motorist's home; so the motorist need not bother
926
further until he hears from the procurator fiscal about the matter.
There is also this advantage, I think all noble Lords will agree, that the primary responsibility of the police is the conduct of law and order on our roads and streets. It is undesirable in principle to put on the police administrative burdens if these can reasonably he put on some agency more specialising in administration. That is a view which is strongly held by the Scottish police. They want to use their resources for their primary responsibility and to minimise, so far as possible, any unnecessary administration. In the case of anyone offending in Scotland the procurator fiscal is able to give him the full range that the police at the roadside in England can do, plus the other offences listed in Schedule 2. To our mind that is an advantage. For the advantage of the motorist committing an offence in Scotland, we have used the existing system to extend the availability of fixed penalties.
The other side of the question is the one that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to primarily in moving this amendment. I turn to that now: the question of the Scottish motorist driving in England or Wales without his driving licence. I accept that such a motorist will not be able to have an endorsable offence dealt with by a fixed penalty, and I accept that this can be construed as a disadvantage. But I want to make two points about it. First, the motorist will be able to plead guilty by letter, and this whole argument applies only of course to motorists who wish to accept the penalty and not go to court in any event. There is no point in going to a police station anywhere to get a fixed penalty notice if you do not mean to accept that you are guilty of the offence.
When the motorist pleads guilty by letter he will have the opportunity of explaining the circumstances to the court. In particular he will be able to point out that the offence would have been dealt with by fixed penalty had he been carrying his driving licence at the time. Then of course it will be up to the court to decide on the level of penalty, but I should have thought that, applying commonsense and being fully apprised of the circumstances, the court will be inclined to impose a fine equivalent in size to the fixed penalty. That would in our view he what is likely to happen. The court, I am sure, will give full effect to the circumstances, so that the driver in that situation would only have to write to the court in the ordinary way. That is my first point. Very few motorists would be affected and they could easily deal with the position in this way.
The second is a more practical matter of considerable concern to the police. In order to enable motorists from Scotland offending in England to get a fixed penalty at the police station, arrangements would have to be made in every police station in Scotland to issue them. Remember that Scottish police stations would not be issuing fixed penalty notices for offences committed in Scotland for the reasons I have sought to explain. The effort involved in providing specially in every police station in Scotland against the possibility that someone committing an offence in England will want to report there in order to get a fixed penalty would be out of all proportion to the number of motorists likely to benefit, and I speak here with the full support of the Scottish police who know exactly the nature of the administrative burden which would be involved.

927
It is not possible to say how many motorists would be involved but the number will certainly be very small, because in order to be covered in this matter at all they have to satisfy a number of qualifications. They must be Scottish motorists—that is, motorists with their homes or places where they would like to present their licences in Scotland—driving in England or Wales. They must be without their driving licence and unable to produce it in England within five days. They must be stopped by the police for an endorsable fixed penalty offence. It must be an offence which, in the constable's view, merits a fixed penalty, not so serious as to merit prosecution. The motorist must be willing to admit his guilt and to accept endorsement. If he disputes either of these he will have to go to court. Finally, he must be liable to disqualification on a totting up basis if convicted of the offence. Therefore, in order to be affected in this way at all he must have all of these qualifications—if that is the right way to describe them. These conditions must be satisfied.
All these considerations will mean that the number of motorists likely to derive benefit from a system allowing the nomination of a police station in Scotland will be very small, and the Scottish police have represented very strongly to us that the effort needed in equipping, training, and manning Scottish police stations to cope with what would be required is out of all proportion to the benefits likely to be derived. The Government accept that view. We consider that the first priority of the police is to minimise office administration and to devote their efforts to their ordinary work. We have to accept, and do accept, their view that to make this special provision which will have to be made—and I emphasise this—at every police station, because the Scottish motorist is going to be able to nominate any police station in Scotland for this purpose, would be out of all proportion to the benefit to be derived. In our view the system which has been set up is one which uses the qualities of the existing system very fully for the benefit of all the motorists involved.
I hope that in the light of these explanations the noble Lord may feel able not to press the amendment. I would emphasise that this amendment has the effect not only ofdealing with Scottish motorists offending in England, but also would put into the Scottish system a duplication requiring every police station to make it possible to give a fixed penalty in respect of motorists offending in Scotland, thus duplicating the role of the procurator fiscal. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned Section 161(4) of the Act of 1972, which allows a person who is asked to produce his licence, and does not have it with him, to produce it within five days. There is no difficulty about that. That provision is not in any way being repealed or interfered with. The amendment is dealing with the provision of additional facilities to enable fixed penalty notices to be issued at police stations in Scotland in respect of offences committed in England and in Scotland also. That is a quite additional burden which is quite apart from anything in Section 161(4). I hope that the noble Lord will feel able, in the light of that explanation, to withdraw the amendment.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend finishes, can he tell the House what is the additional burden when, as I understand it, the Scottish police stations still have a number of forms and pieces of paper to complete with regard to a case that will go to the procurator fiscal? It is only substituting one set of forms for another. Secondly, as I understand it, the Association of Chief Officers of Police, and notably the Strathclyde Division, have made no submissions on this matter. It seems to me that we are making a sharp division, even though it be for allegedly a small number of potential offenders. This does not seem to be right to me.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the fixed penalty notice in respect of an offence committed in England is a type of notice which will not be familiar to the Scottish police. The procedure that has to be used to deal with that is quite different from the procedure involved in reporting a case to the procurator fiscal. The fact that you have only a few customers in every police station, or in any station, does not in any way reduce the fact that the necessary provision has to be made in every police station. It is the number of' police stations which, in effect, creates the burden. You cannot tell at any time how many people will come to the police station wanting this facility. Therefore, it has to be provided everywhere. I can assure your Lordships that the view of the Scottish police on this matter is very clear indeed, and they are against Clause 27 for Scotland.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Underhill asked me—it was a coincidence that I happened to be here—if I would comment on the amendment. I am not certain he will be happy that he asked me to do so by the time I have finished. I understood him to refer principally to the Scottish motorist in England, and I shall come back to that. I understood the Lord Advocate to say that the Scottish motorist committing an offence in Scotland is at no disadvantage compared with an English motorist committing an offence in England, so from that point of view I am perfectly satisfied with what the noble and learned Lord said.
When we come to the case of the English motorist committing an offence in Scotland, he appears, through the different procedure, to be at no disadvantage either. The one who is at a potential disadvantage is the one to whom my noble friend Lord Underhill referred; namely, the Scottish motorist committing an offence in England and not having his licence with him. I am not certain the Lord Advocate is right in saying with such certainty that the courts in England will almost automatically impose a fine which will be the equivalent of the fixed penalty. He may be right, but I should not want to bet a large sum on the noble and learned Lord being right all the time.
However, I could not support the amendment because what is being sought for Scotland is the simplest possible procedure for giving the maximum benefit to the motorist. I think the Scottish motorist going South can deprive himself of any disability by the simple method of making damn certain that he has his licence with him.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, it has become clear from the debate that it would have been wise for the amendment to have concentrated on specifying the police station in Scotland. I said in my opening remarks that we had no desire to interfere with the procedure of the procurator fiscal in Scotland, and I appreciate that the amendment might have that result. The fact that only a few motorists may be affected is no reason to allow any possibility of injustice, a point we have stressed time and again.
When the noble and learned Lord stresses the complications of handling the matter in a Scottish police station—if we concentrate only on the position of the Scots motorist in England and Wales—that is surely overstating the case. The position could be handled quite simply. We are faced with the situation that if the Scots motorist driving in England and Wales has his licence with him, he has the option of a fixed penalty. The very fact of not having his licence places him in the situation to which reference has been made. Naturally, I shall not press the amendment to a vote, but I shall seek advice on how we might still deal with the position of the Scots motorist in England and Wales because I am thoroughly dissatisfied over the possible outcome for him.
As my noble friend Lord Hughes asked, have we any guarantee that the courts will act in the way the Lord Advocate suggested? I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could say, either today or in writing to interested noble Lords, if the Government would be prepared to see that guidance is given to the courts to ensure that in a case of this kind, no penalty will be greater than that which would apply to the fixed penalty had the motorist had his licence with him. An assurance of that kind would help the situation. If the noble and learned Lord cannot give such an assurance, I shall have to seek advice on whether to raise on Third Reading the matter of the position of the Scots motorist in England and Wales.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I shall gladly consider the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, just made. It would of course be a matter for the authorities in England and Wales. I shall consult to see what can he done in that connection, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for the very constructive way in which he has dealt with the problem.
Lord Underhill: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 31E:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Fixed penalty notices given by magistrates.
A fixed penalty notice may be issued in court by a magistrate provided that—

(a) the offence under consideration is among those listed in Schedule 1 as a fixed penalty offence;

(b) the magistrate is satisfied, on inspecting the licence, that the holder would not be disqualified under section 19(2) of the Transport Act 1981 (disqualification where penalty points number twelve or more) if he were convicted of that offence; and

930

(c) it can he shown that a fixed penalty notice would have been issued by a police constable had the driving licence been available either at the time of the offence or for presentation at a police station within 5 days of the offence; and

(d) it can be shown that the non-production of the driving licence within 5 days of the offence was due to circumstances beyond the licence holder's control.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would probably be for the convenience of the House if I addressed myself also to Amendment No. 31F standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and I am sure that were the Minister able to accept 31E, he would wish to accept 31F. My amendment is designed essentially to cater for drivers who at the time of committing what might be a fixed penalty offence are without their driving licence. We have been over the various procedures which follow being without a licence. People will have the opportunity of taking the licences to a police station, and if the licence is in order and they qualify, a fixed penalty notice could be issued at the police station.
If, however, the offending motorist is not able to produce his licence due to circumstances totally beyond his control, the situation is altered, and immediately two examples come to mind. One concerns the procedures of the DVLC at Swansea, where, I am reliably informed, licences can at present be held for up to six weeks. Secondly—this has happened in recent years—there might be a postal upset or strike. In other words, there can be proper reasons why the motorist should not have his licence available. The police at the police station have no alternative at present but to summons the offender, probably at the same time adding the technical offence of not producing the driving licence.
In due course—in perhaps six, 10 or 12 weeks' time—the motorist goes to court, by which time he has perhaps received his driving licence. Nevertheless, he has a summons to appear before the magistrates, who will deal with the primary offence—be it for careless driving, speeding, an insurance matter or whatever the case may be—and will probably, when the offender has given the reason for his failure to produce the licence, dismiss the second charge. But magistrates have no power, as I understand it, to award a fixed penalty; they must proceed via the normal process.
That means, irrespective of the award they make—if the man pleads guilty or is found guilty; it may be a fine, and while my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate suggests that it would be no more than the fixed penalty, frankly, I doubt that—the grave disadvantage will accrue that the motorist will suffer a conviction. By not being able to take advantage of the fixed penalty award procedure, he denies himself the opportunity of steering clear of a conviction. The fixed penalty award is not recordable in the same way as a magistrates' court conviction. I am suggesting that there is a very grave disadvantage for someone who has committed a secondary offence totally outside his control. Perhaps one can live with a fixed penalty and some points on one's licence. But there are many people, in particular young people aspiring to positions in perhaps the public service or in other areas, for whom a conviction could prove to be of very great disadvantage.
So the amendment is to provide for the magistrates to take on board—I am sorry to burden the

931
magistrates, by virtue of the amendment, with additional duties—duties almost the same as those of the procurator fiscal. Certainly the magistrates would take on board some of the responsibility that might normally have fallen inside the police station.
I suggest to your Lordships that if my understanding of the current position is correct, there are people who are gravely disadvantaged. I do not believe that it is the intention of the Bill, or the extention of the fixed penalty system, to disadvantage anybody at all, and I am suggesting that the amendment would ensure that no such disadvantage occurred. I beg to move.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved as an amendment to Amendment No. 31E, Amendment No. 31 F:
Line 1, leave out ("court") and insert ("England and Wales").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the fact that I have down an amendment means that in general I accept the principle contained in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The change that I propose would mean that the first line of Amendment No. 31E would read:
"A fixed penalt?, notice may be issued in England and Wales by a magistrate …"—
deleting the reference to a court. So, as the noble Lord said, a magistrate would be free to act in the way outlined in the amendment. Also, I am advised that it would be inappropriate to attempt to apply the proposed new clause to Scotland; hence my amendment that it should apply to England and Wales. For the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has explained, I support the principles of his amendment, and he has indicated that he has complete support for my amendment, No. 31F. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend a question. What about Northern Ireland? Is it affected at all?
Lord Underhill: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can help me when he replies to the two amendments. My information is that the position in Northern Ireland is that the matter is dealt with by a form of orders and not by legislation. I think that that might be the answer in this particular case.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I thank my noble friend.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the new clause would widen even further than the Bill already provides for the circumstances in which an alleged offender may be able to take advantage of the fixed penalty procedure. To put the other side of the picture, I would say that I think it is important for us to remember that a person who is alleged to have committed an offence is entitled to a court hearing to determine whether or not he is guilty of that offence. That is his right. He does not really have a right to a fixed penalty notice. The fixed penalty system proposed in the Bill is an extra, a choice available to the alleged offender at the discretion of the police. Every further complexity of
932
the kind that we are envisaging and that we build into these provisions makes it more and more likely that we shall end up with a system that at worst the police and the courts cannot operate, or at best barely makes few savings in police or court time.
In Clause 27 the Bill already allows a driver who is not carrying his driving licence at the time that he is stopped by a police officer for allegedly committing a fixed penalty offence, to take advantage of the fixed penalty procedure by producing his licence at a police station of his choice within five days. Noble Lords will be aware that we discussed this matter in Committee. This provision is similar to Section 161 of the 1972 Act. If due to circumstances beyond his control the driver fails to attend the police station within the five days, the new clause would allow him to apply to a magistrates' court to be allowed nevertheless to be issued with a fixed penalty notice. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would like.
Interesting though that approach is, the Government cannot recommend acceptance of the new clause. The procedures which the Bill at present enshrines maintain very clearly the distinction which now exists between the role of the police and the role of the courts. Decisions on whether to take action where an offence has been committed, and, in the case of a fixed penalty offence, on whether to proceed by way of fixed penalty or through the normal processes of laying an information and bringing a prosecution, are matters solely for the police. It is no part of the role of the courts to decide how an offence will be prosecuted. The new clause would therefore give the courts a role which they do not have and which would surely blur the clear line dividing the responsibilities of the police and the courts. In the Government's view that would be an undesirable development, even in the narrow field of fixed penalty procedure. Further, I cannot see the magistrates' courts being terribly happy if this proposal were to be put to them.
If the fixed penalty procedures proposed in the Bill are to succeed, the essential requirement is that in their practical operation they should be simple and clear-cut. Clause 27, which allows a fixed penalty notice to be given at a police station if the alleged offender was not carrying his licence when he was stopped by the police, is a complication of the procedure which the Government were happy to accept in the interests of allowing as many people as possible to take advantage of it. However we do not feel that it would be reasonable to go further by granting some authority—and I have explained why that authority should not be the courts—discretionary power in effect to lengthen the five days within which a licence has to be produced at a police station under Clause 27. That would inject into the procedures a degree of complication that would make their administration unacceptably onerous for the police.
I must also point out that as drafted the new clause places no restriction on the time within which an alleged offender may apply to the court for the issue of a fixed penalty notice. The present drafting would also allow an application to be made by the offender when the case came before the court in the normal process of prosecution. That might indeed be what my noble friend has in mind. It would be even more undesirable than a procedure requiring an earlier application, since at that stage the police would have considered the case

933
in full and decided to prosecute the offender for his alleged offence. At that stage the court's normal task is to judge, upon the facts presented to it, whether or not the individual is guilty or not guilty. It would be totally undesirable for the court to be given the discretion which the new clause in effect would give it to order the police to withdraw the prosecution in favour of a different procedure; namely, the fixed penalty procedure.
I referred earlier to Section 161 of the 1972 Act. Under that section if a police constable requires production of a licence for whatever reason and the driver fails to produce it within the five days allowed, he is actually committing an offence, and it would be open to the police to prosecute the licence holder. Five days was chosen in this case as the period for the purposes of a fixed penalty system to tie in with the existing procedure. I do not know that anyone is complaining that the procedure has gone particularly awry, and I suggest that without such evidence we should go on in the way that we are proposing. I do not believe that if one goes to a police station after four days and says that one's licence is at Swansea, the police constable will not do something about it.
If the new clause were to be inserted into the Bill, and if the Government felt bound to view that as an expression of the will of the House which they must accept, consideration would have to be given to its drafting with a view to amending it at Third Reading. However, I very much hope that for the reasons I have given the House will reject the amendment. The reasons are twofold. First, we believe that the five-day arrangement is a good step forward in a new system which is an additional help to the motorist. Secondly, we believe that the magistrates' courts should not be given this particular task.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his explanation, and while I am not too happy about his suggestion to the House, I have the feeling that at the end of the afternoon it will have to be accepted. However, there are some points which I think the Government might take on board, perhaps for another day. When my noble friend talks about Section 161 of the 1972 Act and the five days which were generally thought to be quite reasonable, and that there have been no complaints, we did not have arising the situation that I have suggested; that is, that an offender may be denied an opportunity.
The same argument really goes through. I suggest to him that certainly nobody wants to draw the distinction between the police authorities and the courts authorities. Certainly nobody in your Lordships' House would wish to dictate to the courts what they shall or shall not do, particularly in relation to the police. However, by virtue of the fact that after a certain period the fixed penalty cannot be offered by the police, the offender is denied the opportunity to take an award which he might well have had offered if he had had his licence at the time. He is going to get a conviction. So rather than make things better for the motorist and, indeed, better for the court, the reverse is going to happen: the courts will get a job which they might not have had otherwise, and the offender will in all likelihood get a conviction—and I do not believe that is right. I do not accept that within this clause the advantage the motorist has in rejecting a
934
fixed penalty award in favour of a court hearing is analogous in any way whatsoever.
My Lords, I accept what my noble friend says. I leave him with the thought that perhaps some of the difficulties which I envisage and which he, too, has accepted as being possible rather than probable might well have been thought out before we got to this stage—indeed, perhaps before the provision was drafted—and I am disappointed that we can do nothing more about it at this time. It is sufficient to say that the various motoring associations, who give general support to the principle here, will no doubt monitor cases, so that if there is a grave injustice being carried out to a large number of people we can come back to it, perhaps another year. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 31E, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 31G:
After Clause 27 insert the following new clause:
("Issue of fixed penalty notices by chief officers of police.
The Secretary of State may by regulation make provision for the issue on behalf of chief officers of police in England and Wales of fixed penalty notices in respect of any offence mentioned in Schedule 2 to this Act where the chief officer of police has received a report that there has been committed such an offence in his police area.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Schedule 1 to the Bill lists the fixed penalty offences which are applicable to England and Wales; Schedule 2 lists other fixed penalty offences which are confined to Scotland. At the Committee stage, on a totally different amendment, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate explained that it would not be a correct assumption that because an offence is listed in Schedule 2 it is necessarily considered less serious in Scotland than it is in England. He also pointed out, as he has done this afternoon, the responsibilities of the procurator fiscal in exercising discretion at a fairly high level, as he said, with the protection of a very considerable measure of independence.
It is not at all the purpose of this amendment to interfere in any way with the procedure in Scotland as outlined by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. However, if the procedure in Scotland enables motorists there to have the benefit of a fixed penalty option in respect of the offences listed in Schedule 2, I ask your Lordships: Why should this not be extended to motorists in England and Wales? I recognise that the list of offences in Schedule 2 may include some the nature of which is such that the decision should not be made by a police constable at the roadside; but why should not the police in England and Wales have the same power as is given to the procurator fiscal in Scotland? That is what this amendment is proposing.
The police set in motion a substantial number of prosecutions on other matters, and they are considered competent to do so. The amendment seeks to give motorists in England and Wales the same advantage of a fixed penalty for offences listed in Schedule 2 as applies to motorists in Scotland. I would suggest to your Lordships that the police in England and Wales can surely be relied upon to exercise the same

935
discretion in these matters—the same serious discretion, the same almost independent discretion—as the procurator fiscal in Scotland. So what we are really asking is that the police should have the same power to handle these Schedule 2 offences as the procurator fiscal has in Scotland. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I appreciate the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. In fact, I tried to suggest to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate that he might reply to this amendment, but he told me it was for England and Wales to get on with it. I get the impression from this amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is attempting to turn our chief officers of police into procurators fiscal. With all due respect to both callings, I am not sure that this can or should be done. As the House will be aware, Schedule 2, to which the amendment refers, lists the offences for which a fixed penalty may be issued only in Scotland, and then only by a procurator fiscal. As I understand it, this list was arrived at by considering for which offences a fixed penalty might appropriately be made available, but which nevertheless occurred under such varied circumstances that it was thought necessary for a procurator fiscal's judgment to take the decision.
This is not of course the case in England and Wales. From our point of view there is no merit whatsoever in splitting off from the main stream of fixed penalty offences some others which must not be dealt with at the roadside. Indeed, it would represent a quite unnecessary complication. The system already provides that an officer may issue a fixed penalty notice at the roadside, or at a police station if the driving licence is produced within five days. What the amendment proposes is a wholly separate category of offences where the officer at the scene must enter a report in the normal way, but another officer, on behalf of the chief officer, retains the right to issue a fixed penalty at that stage. As I have indicated, there is in England no reason of principle whatsoever to distinguish the capacity for judgment of the appropriateness of a fixed penalty between a constable at the roadside and another officer at headquarters.
Nor does the amendment make any attempt to consider what the consequences of such a system might be. Presumably it expects the Secretary of State's regulations to deal with this. If so, then our conclusion is that a chief officer could not simply issue a fixed penalty, as the wording of the amendment rather suggests; he would have to offer it upon the condition of seeing the licence, to ensure that the person was eligible in terms of points. If the offender did not reply it would not be open for the police to register the unpaid penalty as a fine; they would have to prosecute, thus rendering the exercise perhaps a net loss of time.
This will of course be the case in Scotland, where, when the procurator fiscal has offered a fixed penalty and there is no response, the matter will have to be dealt with by prosecution rather than the registration of an unpaid fixed penalty as a fine. In England and Wales, however, this system of registration is seen as the key to the future effectiveness of the fixed penalty, and this amendment would not be consistent with that.
936
In conclusion, therefore, we do not see any future in the attempt to graft the solutions which Scotland has arrived at as a consequence of the deliberations of the Stewart Committee on the Scottish criminal justice system and the scale of road traffic offending there, and the system which we have evolved to deal with the rather different situation in England and Wales. So far as the selection of offences for the fixed penalty system in England and Wales is concerned, this was based on excluding any offences which occurred only infrequently or involved an element of fraud which rendered a fixed penalty an inadequate sanction, or which were quite simply too serious for inclusion in the system. The offences included in the system have already been debated at some length in both Houses, and I hope that we have now perhaps settled that issue.
I would not wish to see this amendment in effect adding to the list; and, as I have already said, there is in England and Wales no basis for distinguishing some offences from others as to the manner in which a fixed penalty should be offered. The House will appreciate that the Secretary of State will be very loath indeed to accept the regulation-making powers that the amendment seeks to confer on him.
In the slight rush of the last amendment, I did not respond to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, nor to Lord Underhill's extra amendment, No. 31 F. What the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said was correct and, as I understand it, only Part I of this Bill refers to Northern Ireland. There was a lengthy explanation on an issue which I do not believe we debated before and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will be satisfied by it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the House will have been impressed by the reasoning of the noble Lord, which really was this: that a procurator fiscal in Scotland can obviously be given the task of differentiating between the serious and the minor offence in a way in which it would be quite impossible, or quite wrong, to give to the police constable at the roadside. Let me say at once that that is an impressive argument. Unfortunately, however, if one looks at Schedule 2 on page 80 of the Bill—and this I ask the noble Lord to consider—one comes across such trivial offences which are best judged on the spot that I think the case has been made for a transfer of those offences to Schedule 1.
I think that, from that point of view, the moving of this amendment has served a useful purpose, because the noble Lord might like to look at a couple of examples. I can give the House a couple of offences in Schedule 2 which could quite easily be judged by the constable on the roadside. The first one, which is listed under"Offences under the 1972 Act", is
"Unlawful carrying of passengers on bicycle".
The second one is,
"Failure by pedestrians to comply with direction of constable regulating vehicular traffic".
This is the very thing that a constable could judge at the roadside. The third is
"Holding or getting onto a moving vehicle to be carried".
The next is,
"Holding onto a moving vehicle to be towed".
I do not intend to bore your Lordships by going through this list except to read this one—and one

937
imagines a police constable to be quite capable of dealing with this. It is,
"Causing or permitting dog to be on designated road without lead".
These are matters that the procutator fiscal is being asked to consider—with great difficulty, as the noble Earl might say. He has to peruse reports in Scotland—which is their procedure, and it is right that he should—which come from the police officer concerned as to whether in regard to these heinous offences a notice should be issued or not. I think that the moving of this amendment has done this bit of good: that we have had our attention drawn to offences that can have a fixed-penalty notice in Scotland with the wisdom of the procurator fiscal and could equally be included in Schedule 1 as being within the proper province of the officer on the spot.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, obviously there is no more that I need add to the helpful contribution made by my noble friend. I am grateful for his comments and to the noble Earl for explaining the problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and in the meantime to study what the noble Earl has said and also the comments of my noble friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.3 p.m.
Clause 28 [Further provisions with respect to fixed penalty offences and notices]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 30, line 40, at end insert—
("(8) Not later than the coming into operation of this Part of this Act, the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Scotland shall issue general written guidelines of recommended practice to chief officers of police regarding the discharge of their functions thereunder with the objective of ensuring uniform police practice, and the Secretaries of State may from time to time revise the whole or any part of those guidelines.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in dealing with this amendment perhaps I may be allowed to speak to the Government Amendment No. 34A which deals with the same matter. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that motorists will have the same treatment no matter in what part of the country they may be; in other words, that the law should be applied everywhere. At the Committee stage I tabled an amendment, No. 47, which included the words,
"… operate the provisions on the same basis and in repect of the same fixed penalty offences in accordance with written advice".
I quoted then paragraph 50 of the Interdepartmental Working Party on Road Traffic Law which urged that there should be uniformity of practice in all police forces.
I quoted then figures taken from the Home Office booklet on Offences Relating to Motor Vehicles in England and Wales for 1979. I think I can say that these figures startled a number of noble Lords. All those details are set out in columns 1022 and 1023 of the Mansard of 9th July last. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, expressed sympathy and said that the Government were anxious to see consistent treatment of offences across the country. He said:
"It is of course axiomatic that chief officers have the operational discretion over the treatment of offences in their force areas, and this is not something with which we would wish lightly to interfere".—[Official Report, Col. 1024, 9/7/82.]
938
He said that the Association of Chief Police Officers shared this concern and that the Secretaries of State are willing to give some guidance. He also commented that differences in administrative systems and differing local priorities should be reflected in the operation of the fixed penalty system. But none of this answers the figures which I quoted from the 1979 booklet.
I should now like to quote some figures from the 1980 booklet which I have seen since the Committee stage. For the non-display of valid vehicle excise licences, 20 police forces in England and Wales gave no fixed penalty notices whatever. These include Avon, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Neighbouring Wiltshire gave 14,000; Derbyshire, nil: Staffordshire, next door, over 6,000; Leicestershire, also next door, over 8,000; Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, all nil. My own county of Esssex, 13,5000. Suffolk, nil; neighbouring Norfolk, 2,300: Lincolnshire, 3,400. These are rather startling differences. Thames Valley, Kent, Surrey and Sussex, all nil; but Hampshire, 6,000. The City of London 8,000; but the Metropolitan Police, nil. We have three metropolitan counties varying from 4,000 to 36,000, but I find that South Yorkshire metropolitan force were 13,000 while the West Yorkshire metropolitan force were 1. These are almost identical areas.
For disregarding a prescribed route, the total number of notices in England and Wales was nearly 15.000. But 14 police forces issued none at all, yet 10 gave over 500 notices and of these some four gave 1,000 notices. On lighting offences the total in England and Wales was nearly 73,000 issues. Nine forces gave none at all; Derbyshire, 8,000, neighbouring Nottinghamshire, none at all; Greater Manchester, nil; Merseyside, 1,800; Cheshire, also adjoining, 3,000. And one could go on.
My Lords, why is it also that Hertfordshire and Lancashire issued no fixed penalty notices whatever except for parking offences? Three of the four Welsh forces also issued none except for parking. Surely this cannot be justified. It cannot be argued that the differences of administration should be reflected in that type of flexibility.
When I looked to Scotland I had to look in their case to the criminal statistics for Scotland, and Table 28 summarises the offences for which fixed penalty notices are issued. There were 41,000 notices issued for non-display of a vehicle licence but two police forces. Dumfries and Galloway, and Northern, issued none at all. There are only eight police forces in Scotland, so a quarter issued no notices at all. Nearly 13,000 notices were issued for lighting offences, but none at all in four of the eight police forces.
I have also taken figures for Scotland for 1980 which are to be published next month. I am grateful that the good offices of the Scottish Office have enabled these to be obtained. The figure of 46,000 is given for non-display of vehicle licences in 1980; but again the two police forces to which I referred for 1979 are in the same category. For Dumfries and Galloway there were only two notices and for the northern force, again, none. There were 12,000 lighting offences but again none in four of the forces. It is hard for anyone to justify that type of flexibility. In fact, I say it is impossible for anyone to justify that form of flexibility.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, but he has found it helpful for his case to deal specifically with various parts of England. He will have remembered of course that in Clause 32(7) Wales and a justices' clerk are specifically mentioned. Can he now or later give me specific statistics of what has happened in the counties of Wales?
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thought that I mentioned Wales.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, the noble Lord did mention Wales but without that specific matter in relation to Wales which will no doubt help his case.
Lord Underhill: I have the various tables, but I shall not weary the House by reading them. I shall see the noble Lord privately. I have the figures for Wales and three of the four Welsh police forces also issued no fixed penalty notices except for parking.
In view of the criticism that was made—and valid criticism—of the drafting of the amendment which I presented at the Committee stage, this amendment has been re-worded. It meets the criticism that we were trying to instruct chief police officers, and the present amendment provides that the respective Secretaries of State shall issue written guidelines of recommended practice. I am sure it will be recognised by your Lordships that in a number of pieces of legislation which have been before your Lordships in the past two to three years there has been provision for guidelines to be given to various authorities.
There is considerable concern and it is not the spirit of the law that there should be such substantial variations in practice. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, said at the Committee stage that the Secretary of State would be willing to offer general guidance to the police with the objective of uniform practices in mind. He said that, if it was possible to produce something along these lines at the Report stage, the Government would do so. My amendment was put down very early—I believe before we adjourned for the Recess. I should like to know from the Minister what is unsatisfactory about the amendment which I am moving and why it was necessary for the Government to put their own amendment down in very simplistic terms.
In my view, the Government's amendment is not satisfactory. It refers to guidance; it does not refer to guidelines. There is no reference in the Government amendment to the objective of ensuring uniform police practice which the noble Earl said he appreciated should be done. Also there is reference to only a Secretary of State. Whether that is intended to apply to both the Secretary of State for the home department and the Secretary of State for Scotland, perhaps he could explain. But obviously, it must apply to both Secretaries of State. I believe that unless the Government can give satisfactory reasons why they consider their amendment preferable to the one which I have submitted—which meets the criticisms put forward last time—then they should take another look at this matter and accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: My Lords, if I may say a word about this amendment, I am in favour of it. Far be it for me to say anything against the police, which in my
940
opinion are one of the finest groups of people one can find anywhere, but they vary and some officers may be young and not very experienced as motorists. Certainly guidelines of this kind would be a help and would do no harm and would not give the Government a great deal of trouble. It would be advisable to accept this amendment and I hope therefore that the Government will do so.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as usual I was fascinated by Lord Underhill's exposé which at one stage I thought was sounding like the football results. I hesitate to say what I am about to say because the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has the book in front of him and I do not have it in front of me. By the time I sit down he may have checked my facts and proved me wrong. However, I am informed that in the less important offences the variations are much larger (this is normally because of administrative convenience), whereas for the more serious offence the more is the need for the police to see consistency of practice. I am sure that the House will agree with that as a general principle.
Before continuing, I should like to add that I hope equally that the chief officers of police will read Hansard so that they can see who is being good and who is being naughty. May we come back to what we are debating, which is fixed penalties. The Government are anxious to see consistent treatment of offences across the country and I sought to persuade the House that there is a general principle which allows chief officers to make their own decision on the way to deal with offences and we cannot lightly interfere with this operational discretion. The amendment I offer at Amendment No. 34A will provide that the Secretary of State shall issue guidance to chief officers in relation to the operation of a fixed penalty system but without binding chief officers to the effect that it must be operated on the same basis and for the same offences in each force. Such binding will present practical problems and we believe will be wrong in principle. In point of fact, it may even be found to be unworkable. The guidance to chief officers will be directed to drawing their attention to the need so far as possible to work towards uniformity. The House I know will be reassured to hear that once again the Association of Chief Officers in England and Wales share our concern and have said that they too would wish to see uniformity of practice.
Different police areas will have differing administrative systems and differing local priorities and it is reasonable that these differences should be reflected in small ways in the operation of a fixed penalty system. To bind chief officers by statute—which is what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would like to do—to the effect that the fixed penalty system must be operated on the same basis and for the same offences in each force would remove this flexibility, and as well as being thus wrong in principle would present practical problems. Forces will be ready to introduce a system, for instance, at varying times because of resource difficulties or other local reasons; and if introducing the system is required by statute to be operated uniformly and for the same offences, the result will be that it may only be introduced at the pace of the

941
slowest force and this, perhaps we can say, will not make sense.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me a specific point about the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State in the Bill refers to all Secretaries of State. The noble Lord has a later amendment about that point.
To conclude, I have explained the difficulties which would follow in providing for uniform application in different police areas and I repeat that we believe that the guidance given by the Secretary of State under the proposed amendment which I shall be moving will be directed to drawing their attention to the need so far as possible to work towards uniformity.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I feel it is necessary for me to rise if only for a brief moment. I say this with the greatest possible respect: I would not accept the interpretation that the Minister has put upon this very clearly worded amendment. Nowhere is there a directive to chief constables; nowhere is the phrase that chief constables must have a uniform system. The wording of the amendment is transparently clear. It asks for a general written guideline of recommended practice; so it is a practice that is to be recommended and not one that is to be insisted upon. It is not mandatory: it is a guideline. It does not express any orders to the chief constable, except to say that the objective—and that is the word which is used in the amendment—is to ensure uniformity of police practice. So, with the greatest possible respect to the Minister, the interpretation he has put upon this just does not stand up.
Is it desirable that there should be a guideline recommending as an objective uniformity, which quite obviously takes into account the variations that may occur between different areas? It has got that objective. I remember that your Lordships were very patient with me when I spoke in Committee on this very matter and dealt with the lack of uniformity which exists in other respects. "Other respects" related to motoring offences, and I linked that to this question of the fixed penalty notice. I remember the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, who was kind enough to assent to my view that it was so often a question between advocates in a magistrates' court of deciding hopefully with the clerk that they should go into Court No. 1 rather than Court No. 2 because Court No. I was a very lenient court and Court No. 2, in regard to motoring offences, was known to be quite the opposite. It is also correct—and I am sure your Lordships will know this from practical experience—that there are some chief superindents of police to whom you can write, begging, either on behalf of a client or doing it for yourself as an individual, that because of exceptional or mitigating circumstances there should be a caution issued, let alone a penalty notice, instead of a prosecution.
It would be invidious if I were to talk of my experience with certain chief superintendents, except to say this: there are some who make it a rule, either themselves or by delegated authority, to say in almost every conceivable case "no caution at all". There are other chief superintendents who have a very definite view as to the duty they have to the public in this respect. They consider the applications very carefully and in many cases they do issue cautions, It is therefore abundantly necessary that we should take
942
this opportunity to correct an injustice that does appear in the police courts and also, if I may say so, in the offices of certain superintendents of police. There ought to be uniformity and we ought to say in this House, now that we have the opportunity of dealing with fixed penalty notices in this Bill, that there should be guidelines in the Bill—no more than that: not instructions—that they should recommend but not order, and that the objective should be—again not mandatory—uniformity in practice. It is with that in mind that I think your Lordships should consider this amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I presumed to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, when he was speaking specifically on matters he considered to be of very considerable significance. I feel sure now, having listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would like to withdraw this amendment because I think it is quite clear that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has indicated that really the substance of this amendment is about the same as that of the Government's amendment, No. 34A. The Government amendment certainly has the great advantage that it is contained in two and a half lines, whereas this amendment occupies seven and a half lines in order to achieve the same objective. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Renton, were in his place, he would accept that as a very good reason for preferring Amendment No. 34A.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, would the noble Lord permit me to interrupt him, with the leave of the House, before he resumes the seat he occupies with such distinction?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Thank you.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord would want to concentrate upon this. Brevity is something to be admired—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mishcon: But where brevity does not say what one wants to say, it is something to be abhorred. The noble Lord does not say what is the objective or policy of this directive: it merely says that guidelines will be issued. One Minister could issue a guideline, if he wished, to say that he does not like the idea of uniformity. My noble friend's amendment actually states what the objective of the guidelines should be.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because it just assists me. As noble Lords will realise, in dealing with courts and matters which come before them, lack of uniformity of decision is a curse. There was even a very important gathering of judges in September, called by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, in order to try to deal with this question of uniformity. With great respect to the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Underhill, this amendment does not help in relation to that matter. At the moment I am not committing my party to what they will say eventually on 34A, but it seems to me there are very great advantages in that

943
amendment as compared with this longer amendment, No. 32, which we are debating.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, may I point out, irrespective of the legal boffins disagreeing with each other, that simple English says:
"… with the objective of ensuring uniform police practice,".
That is in my noble friend's amendment, and "uniform" means uniformity, so that each area can as nearly as possible come to the same conclusion. Consequently, I do not really know what the argument is about. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is always very careful, succinct and logical, and he has inserted the following:
"The Secretary of State shall issue guidance to chief officers of police for police areas in respect of the operation of this Part of this Act."
There is no word there of uniformity. Our side of the House is aiming at uniform practice and, if the Minister says so, I accept that they are aiming for that too and would like to see uniformity as far as it is actually practicable in dealing with human beings—such funny creatures as we are—looking particularly at the Benches opposite.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if the House will allow me to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and to speak for a second time. I have already explained that indeed we want uniformity and, not only that, the Association of Police Officers have been approached and have agreed the same thing.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment to say that in my experience it is common, when new legislation is introduced, to issue guidance; but I have heard local authorities and other authorities again and again complaining about pages and pages of guidelines which are often not very welcome and often not very closely regarded.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, any criticism of reference to guidelines frankly cannot be substantiated in the light of the fact that the Government's legislation has referred many times in the last two or three years to giving guidelines to local authorities and, in one case, giving guidelines to authorities, including police forces. I will not weary your lordships with the details, but this is something the Government have done and we from this side have supported the issue of guidelines. There is a substantial difference between the words "guidance" and "guidelines".
I am certain that the figures which have been quoted, which are from official statistics and are not from Lord Underhill's private book, must be alarming, because they mean that what happens depends upon the area in which the offence is committed. No one at all can justify that, and I am very pleased that the Minister has not attempted to do so. He said that less serious offences are treated differently, but I should have thought that not displaying a vehicle excise licence was quite a serious offence, particularly in view of the efforts which authorities are making to chase those who do not pay the fee, which amounts to a very substantial sum. I should also have thought that lighting offences were
944
very serious, particularly where cars are without rear lights, as often happens. As my noble friend Lord Mishcon said, nothing in this amendment is attempting to tie police officers down by statute, and to suggest that we are endeavouring to insert a directive means that the amendment has not been read seriously.
I must go back to the point that I made at the outset. I should have thought that the amendment was one of the first to be tabled following the Committee stage. I put it in as a safeguard in case the Government decided to do nothing. I am delighted that the Government have accepted the principle. However, they have not justified their preference for their own amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, suggested that it is a long amendment, but is seven lines and one word a long amendment? Heavens, my Lords, you should look at some of the others to which we shall be coming! The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will have a bit of a shock.
So I cannot understand why the Government have put down their own amendment. One hates to have suspicious feelings, but my amendment would have done exactly what the Minister said he wants to do and yet, for some reason, the Government have whittled down the wording so that it is very mild. It would be foolish of me to divide the House on a matter of this kind. But having said that, if the Government's amendment is approved we may come back on Third Reading to improve the Government's amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 [Registration of sums payable in default for enforcement as fines]:
5.33 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 32A:
Page 40, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this section, where the defaulter is a body corporate, the place where that body resides and the address of that body shall be either of the following—

(a) the registered or principal office of that body; and

(b) the address which, with respect to the vehicle concerned is the address recorded in the record kept under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 as being that body's address.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to simplify a rather technical, but nonetheless important aspect of the working of the fixed penalty system which will be introduced by Part III of the Bill. It is concerned with the procedure when a vehicle owned by a company is involved in the commission of a fixed penalty offence.
Subsections (6), (7) and (8) of Clause 48 will together have the effect of allowing a Notice to Owner in such a case to be served at the local office of the company where—as is normally the case—it is the local address which is shown on Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre records as that of the registered keeper. The consequence of a failure to respond to a Notice to Owner under the new arrangements will be the registration of the unpaid fixed penalty for enforcement, as if it were a fine. When a sum is registered in this way, the clerk of the court concerned has to give a notice of registration to the defaulter under Clause 35(8). As the Bill stands at present, the sum would

945
have to be registered in the court nearest to the registered office of the company and the notice of registration sent to that office. It clearly makes sense, however, for the sum to be registered in the court nearer to the company's local office and for the notice of registration to be sent, like the Notice to Owner, to that address. I commend this very simple amendment to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we have no objection whatever to this amendment. Far be it from me, ungrammatical man as I am, to query the grammar, but is the use of the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a) correct? I ask that because ahead of that we see
"shall be either of the following".
Surely, it should be "or", if it is "either of the following.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I think that the word "either" refers to the "or" that occurs in paragraph (a).
Lord Underhill: Therefore, it is badly worded, is it not?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am not sure I would agree with that. But I think that that is what it means.
"…the address of that body shall be either of the following:— (a) the registered or principal office of that body;"
and then the address in respect of the vehicle is a different matter. I suspect that some people might have phrased it differently, but I do not think that the word "and" should be replaced by "or".
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may I make the most strong contribution that I shall be making the whole of the day to your Lordships, by suggesting that the grammatical way of dealing with the matter, in case the Government wish to consider it, is to say:
"and the address of that body shall be—
(a) either the registered or principal office of that body: and".
That makes it absolutely clear and, I believe, grammatical. As I said, that weighty contribution is the best I shall be able to proffer to your Lordships this afternoon.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, while supporting this amendment, I do not want to indulge at all in grammatical. As I said, that weighty contribution is the best I shall be able to proffer to your Lordships this larly to the courts of this country, is how best to collect the fines which the courts impose upon persons who appear before them, and it seems to me that this is an amendment which assists in that direction.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that I may intervene to say I am informed that it is a misprint. So it will be all right in the end.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Registration and endorsement invalid in certain circumstances]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 32B to 32J en bloc.
Page 43, line 13, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1) above").
Page 43, line 28, at end insert—
("(15A) References in subsections (2) to (6) and (8) above to the relevant fixed penalty notice or the relevant notice to owner are references to the fixed penalty notice or notice to owner relating to the fixed penalty concerned.").
Page 43, line 41, at end insert ("and").
Page 43, line 45, leave out from ("sum") to end of line 4 on page 44.
Page 44, line 10, after ("in") insert ("the provisions or).
Page 44, line 11, leave out ("this section") and insert ("those provisions").
Page 44, line 15, leave out ("this section") and insert ("those provisions").
Divide clause 36 into two clauses, the first to consist of subsections (1) to (6) inclusive and (8) to (11) inclusive (Registration and endorsement invalid in certain circumstances): and the second to consist of subsections (7) and (12) to (17) inclusive (Provisions supplementary to section 36).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House. I should like to move Amendments Nos. 32B to 32J en bloc. They serve only to split the existing Clause 36 into two separate clauses. I am sure the House will agree that 17 subsections makes a fairly unwieldy clause. We have, therefore, carried out what is essentially an exercise to aid comprehension. The various amendments are necessary to tidy up loose ends caused by splitting the clause, but do not alter or affect its purpose in any way. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 38 [Court procedure infixed penalty cases in Scotland]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 46, line 28, after ("a") insert ("copy").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Amendment of Transport Act 1981]:
Earl Fortescue Earl Fortescue moved Amendment No. 33A:
Leave out Clause 42.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I move this amendment with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the Magistrates' Association. This amendment seeks to delete Clause 42 of the Bill. Clause 42 was added to the Bill at Committee stage, as a result of an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas and was carried with a majority of eight. I make no apology for the present amendment which, if it succeeds, will reverse your Lordships' earlier decision. I make no apology, because I sincerely believe that if your Lordships had realised the implications of Clause 42 the amendment would not have succeeded at Committee stage; indeed, it might not even have been moved. The amendment was debated only very briefly and it is not—I stress "not"—a party issue.
Your Lordships may well be confused by these annual Transport Bills, as I am. Only part, and a small

947
part, of the 1981 Act has yet come into force. Clause 42 seeks to amend the 1981 Act and only concerns the number of penalty points awarded for endorsement purposes in cases of speeding. The 1981 Act stipulated three penalty points if the offence was dealt with either by the fixed penalty procedure or by a court. Clause 42 of the Bill changes all this by awarding two penalty points if the offence is dealt with by the fixed penalty procedure but gives magistrates the discretion of a range of two to three points if the case goes to court.
The main object of Part III of the Bill, and also the relevant part of the 1981 Act, was to free magistrates' courts from having to hear so many of the less serious road traffic offences, including speeding. This was to be done by offering the offender the alternative of a fixed penalty and no court proceedings. Cases of speeding before the courts in 1980 numbered just under 385,000. At present, in the vast majority of cases the offender pleads guilty and offers a plea of mitigation in writing. The amount of court time taken up is not due to the length of time taken by each case but to the very' large number of cases coming before the courts.
One of the main objects of the 1981 Act and the present Bill was, and is, to reduce the amount of court time taken with minor road traffic offences. If Clause 42 is allowed to remain in the Bill, I suggest that it will defeat one of the main objects of both the 1981 Act and the present Bill. Many speeding offences which would otherwise have been dealt with by fixed penalty will go to court. The offender will plead guilty but much time will be spent by the defendant trying to persuade the court that for his particular offence the endorsement penalty should be two points rather than three points. Indeed, I think that if Clause 42 is allowed to remain the amount of court time taken in disposing of speeding offences will certainly be increased rather than decreased, as intended. If your Lordships will leave the 1981 Act as it stands by agreeing to this amendment, I suggest that justice will be better done and a lot of court time saved. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, not surprisingly I rise to object to this amendment and I do so on a number of grounds. First, it is surprising that my noble friend did not see fit to move this amendment when we debated this matter at some considerable length last summer across the Floor of the Committee. He now comes along with this amendment. To say the least, this is unusual in your Lordships' proceedings.
My noble friend bases his argument. I think, on the fact that the magistrates appear to be under the impression that they have the last word and do not want to have to do some work. My noble friend has quoted 385.000 speeding cases, the majority of which are dealt with by letter and there is just the question of mitigation. He suggests that were the Bill to stand as it does now; namely, with the magistrates' discretion of two to three points but with a fixed penalty of two points, this would not diminish the amount of work in the magistrates' courts. If my noble friend will look at the law of probability, he will see that that is nonsense.
948
Where an offender has a low option he will go for the low option. My noble friend has told us, and I do not disbelieve him, that the majority plead guilty but put forward a mitigating argument. So if the fixed penalty alone were two points, that would be the end of it. There would be no mitigating circumstances, no conviction. A lot of time would be saved. People would go for the fixed penalty because it is a real advantage. And saving the time of the courts is what we are after.
I do not want to rehearse all that was said during the earlier stages of the Bill, but may I just remind the House that however long the debate might have been there was agreement at that time to the amendment which I set down and which now appears in the Bill. This agreement came from noble Lords opposite, from noble Lords on the SDP Benches, from noble Lords on the Cross-Benches and from noble Lords on our own Benches. As the principle of the points system had already been established, it was generally felt that we could include this clause, because it was also agreed that there were circumstances in which speeding offences were serious and less serious and that there were even some which were purely technical. Both the Stewart Committee report and the interdepartmental working party's report record that this is so. Your Lordships may recall that it was my noble friend Lady Trumpington who described a technical offence which, happily, resulted in no conviction and no damage to anybody. We thought that that could happen elsewhere.
May I remind your Lordships that careless or inconsiderate driving has a penalty point range of two to five. It was the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, himself who in the summer of 1981 said, and I quote Hansard of 8th June at col. 51:
"Maybe it will take up a little more court time, but I do not think that the amount of this court time should be exaggerated and, surely, a little extra court time is more than offset by better justice".
We were talking then about careless driving. Another variable penalty is failing to stop after an accident: five to nine points. Another is failing to give particulars or to report an accident: four to nine points. Another is using, or ccausing, or permitting use of a motor vehicle uninsured and unsecured against third party risks: four to eight points. It was the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, who said in the same debate that he supported this variable consideration:
"In my submission, the types of cases to which I refer vary greatly in their degree of gravity and therefore if justice is to be done the same number of penalty points should not be applicable in each instance".
Only a few months ago the noble Earl did not disagree that speeding was one of those offences which had variable penalties.
Earl Fortescue: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to give way. The offences which he has mentioned, including careless driving and no insurance, are not offences which carry a fixed penalty.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not quite sure what relevance that has to the arguments. I am suggesting that the noble Earl has accepted the principle on variable points. That is all I said. This is one of them. It brings in an offence which all

949
authorities—all authorities—recognise as having a number of facets.
I cannot see any good reason for reversing that Committee decision. As my noble friend admits, it was a substantial majority in a reasonably representative House. There has been widespread acceptance by the motoring public generally and specifically recorded by both of the motoring organisations. I know that one of those organisations has written to a number of your Lordships supporting the original decision of a Committee of this House. I submit that there can be no justification for reversing that decision, and I trust that your Lordships will reject this amendment out of hand.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I should like to support very strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has just said, although I shall not be able to do so as ably as he has. One has only to think of the number of statutory speed limits which there are thoughout the country. Some are entirely justifiable. Those in built-up areas are absolutely justifiable. Those in semi-built-up areas are generally raised to 40 miles per hour, but they are still justifiable. But there are many which are entirely unjustifiable and are there simply because the local borough council has chosen to erect lamp posts along the road.
This clause as it stands does not make speeding a minor offence. Speeding, where it causes danger, is of course a very bad thing and should be dealt with as such. One could take the case, for example, of a man driving in a lot of traffic and swerving between two lanes at high speed. That man is really committing a crime because he is risking the lives and property of others. But take another example of a perfectly open road where there is no traffic at all but where, unfortunately, there is a statutory speed limit. There is no crime in exceeding the speed limit, which may be 40 miles per hour and one exceeds it by, say, five miles per hour; although, technically speaking, one is committing an offence. But it is entirely unreasonable, and surely one should take notice of the differences between speeding of a really dangerous kind which is risking other people's lives and that which is purely technical and causing no danger whatsoever. I certainly hope that the Government will not accept this amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty as to which way to turn in relation to this amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, said when moving this amendment that it had the support of the Magistrates' Association. In my submission, that adds great weight to his speech. He also said that his amendment had the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, whom I see in her place but who so far has been silent. The noble Baroness has great experience in relation to matters concerning the consumer. If I may add a personal note, for 25 years I was a county magistrate in the County of Surrey. I was put on the Bench because I knew nothing about criminal law and I learnt about all aspects of crime by sitting on the Bench in the County of Surrey and sometimes at Quarter Sessions, where I gave up acting as deputy chairman when they started to pay the people who presided over those august assemblies.
950
One of the important matters in relation to this amendment is that the noble Earl says, with the support of the Magistrates' Association, that this will save time in magistrates courts. I remember the hours and the days I have spent in dealing with petty crime of this kind. It seems to me that much of the jurisdiction could be simplified, and if the noble Earl says this and I can tempt the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, to support him in this, then I should think it is worthy of consideration. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for whom I have tremendous admiration, but your Lordships have to decide whether it is in the public interest that the time spent on this type of crime can be reduced by what the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, says or by what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, says.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I came to this debate with an entirely open mind and it is still pretty well open. On balance, I wish to support this amendment, for these reasons. It is vital to reduce the work load on magistrates courts. Secondly, the proposer of this amendment has vast practical experience and speaks on behalf of the association which has the pre-eminent right to be heard in these matters. The argument between two and three points would, in submission, constitute an increase in the burden of that workload, which on balance would not be justifiable. Agreed, fixed penalties are generally unacceptable, but there is a points system for these penalties and we are saddled with it.
I take the point of my noble friend Lord Fortescue when we were dealing with the variables between two and five points, or between five and nine, four and nine, or four and eight points. He intervened to say they were not related to fixed penalties—and that seemed to be a valid point. But there is an even more valid point. It is the extent of the differential. The differential between two and five points is not the same as the differential between two and three points. On balance, I would have supported the amendment on the simple ground that it is unreasonable to saddle magistrates' courts with an extra burden on their workload on such a narrow differential. I stress again, before I heard the speeches of your Lordships I had no opinions on this matter whatsoever.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who tempted me to rise, I have been trying to rise to speak for the past few minutes. Being a mere female, naturally I will not speak for as long as the males speak—although on this occasion I am happy to say that we have not had long speeches. Fortunately, I have not spoken before in this debate and so the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, cannot suggest that I am now saying something different. But I would take issue with him when he says that this was debated—or I thought that he said this—at some length. If it was, it was not recorded in Hansard. It seems to have been a remarkably short debate and everyone made a very few points, with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
I should also like to refute the idea that magistrates—unpaid as they are and serving the community as they do—are trying to avoid work.

951
They are trying to avoid unnecessary work, and taking up the time of the courts which is costly enough already. I think we know only too well that anybody given a choice would always opt for the lower, and therefore the whole system of the fixed penalty will be immediately the subject of long debate which will take up the time of the courts quite unnecessarily. I think that we in this House, as makers of law, have to take some note of the practitioners of the law. I remember when I was a Minister in the Government speaking to the then Lord Chancellor about the duties of the magistrate. I said that one thing about being a law maker and also those who administer the law is that it is like a consumer test; first you make the laws and then see that they do not work. I think we should listen to comments from magistrates, who do not speak with prejudice but from the point of view of the practitioner.
I would make one point that I do not think has been made; I could not see it in the earlier debate. A lot of this legislation has been based on the report of the interdepartmental working party on the road traffic law. There it was specifically considered whether there should be any variation in number of points in the fixed penalty and this was rejected. I think it is worth reading what they said:
"In the case of speeding offences it is a feature of various overseas systems to graduate the point values according to the amount by which the limit is exceeded, we were concerned that this would lead to an increase in the number of cases contested in court, for the purpose of reducing the amount of points, which at present would simply be disposed of as a guilty plea."
I am concerned that if we have an option we will have lots more work for counsel, no doubt, pleading various reasons, but I would suggest quite seriously that this Bill is seeking to tidy up the law and make things much more straightforward, and in the name of the practitioners of the law I would ask your Lordships to accept this amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps I might speak on behalf of the motorists who have been found guilty of speeding and had to pay fines. That is a view not expressed: all my very respectable noble colleagues who sit on the bench perhaps have a different view. I would suggest one particular point. It is assumed that if there is no variation of penalty the constable has made the right judgment in not offering the fixed penalty in the first place. Well, our police are jolly good but they are not always right. It could be that when the magistrates come to assess the situation they will say, "In this case it ought to have been a fixed penalty because it should have been a two points rather than a three point case. It would seem to me that is much fairer to the ordinary person than making it sure, if he is put before the magistrates, that it is three points or nothing.
There is another example in that kind of area which has been suggested to me. It may not always be possible for the driver to produce his licence; it may have been lost, or it may be buried in Swansea—and that can go on for weeks or months, as we all know—or anything else of that sort. It may be beyond his control that he cannot qualify for the fixed penalty although the constable in the ordinary circumstances would have no doubt about giving him that
952
opportunity. It seems to me there are enough variants to make this reasonable as an alternative.
To take up one point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, the suggestion that there is going to be an enormous amount of extra work for the magistrates: that would, I think, be modified by the fact that it is only two points or three points instead of a vast range. If it were, say, between two and seven, to exaggerate, or between four and nine, may be there would be room for argumentation as to where it falls, but if it is only the difference berween two and three there is not much room for argumentation.
In cases where the accused may be unfairly assessed in the first instance—not because of the constable, but because he has not got his licence—I would have thought that on balance it is right in the interests of the vast majority of us who almost daily risk being caught for speeding that we should be given that chance and the magistrates should risk it. If in the event the magistrates find that they really are overburdened with work—and they will not have so many cases because a lot of cases will be dealt with by fixed penalty—they can come back to Parliament and say so and it would not be difficult to make an amendment. So I hope that your Lordships will join with those of us who seek to reject this amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I also hope the House will reject this amendment to delete this clause. Of course we must take heed of what the Magistrates' Association says, but that does not necessarily mean that we have to accept it. Many of us quote the views of various other associations but these are just as a test of opinion. The noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, said that this is a saving of court time, but this surely must not be a saving of court time at the risk of some unfairness coming into the matter.
Let us have a look at the effect of the Bill as drafted. It would mean that four speeding offences at three points each would make the motorist liable for disqualification. With the amendment, if it were only two points, it would mean six offences before disqualification. Bearing in mind the point put so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, about technical offences, there could be a risk of disqualification for four technical offences; although they are technical offences they are still offences. The only time I have ever been pulled up for speeding was on an occasion when I could not have done damage to anybody except myself. It was half-an-hour past midnight on a dry road with the moon shining, a 40 m.p.h. limit, with a derestriction sign 300 yards further on: I was doing 46 and got caught.
The noble Earl also said that this is a saving of court time, and my noble friend Lady Phillips referred to the extra work. May I quote what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said at Committee stage in opposing the amendment which put this clause in. He said:
"On the one hand, it has the attraction of providing a further incentive to the motorist to accept a fixed penalty, and not take his case to court".—[Official Report. 14 7/82, col. 366.]
It is very nice to have an argument to use to put the case and then having the same argument to put against it. On the one hand we are told that keeping this clause in will put work on the courts, but on the other hand the Minister said that it will be an incentive not to take the case to court. I hope we can have some clear

953
indication of which is right. I prefer to accept what the noble Earl said at Committee, and I am sure he will stand by what he said.
What the amendment is trying to do is to be fair, to recognise that these are all offences and to decide that the more serious cases must go to court. The police constable has the first job of deciding whether it is a serious case or simply a technical case; if he decides it is a technical case he will, under this amendment, give two points. If it is a more serious case, he will not give a fixed penalty but say that it must go to the court. The amendment will enable the court to have a flexibility as to whether to award two or three points where, if the constable had treated this as a technical offence, it would have been two, but because the driver had not got his licence the case was sent to the court; this would give him the chance to have two and not three points. Surely, to take that away would be an injustice. I am certain that the Magistrates' Association would accept that position. I believe that logic, common sense and fairness is on the side of retaining this clause and I hope, therefore, that the House will reject the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, as a spokesman for the Labour Opposition in this House, he is, as it seems to me, denigrating the Magistrates' Association, comprising as it does—
Several noble Lords: No.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, let the noble Lord himself answer. In his opening speech he compared the Magistrates' Association with many other associations. The Magistrates' Association is comprised primarily of magistrates who are doing service to the community for nothing and in my view they are, therefore, in a different situation from many other associations. I am sure the noble Lord did not mean to denigrate the Magistrates' Association, but I ask your Lordships to attach far greater weight to the opinion of the Magistrates' Association than that of any other association that I can recall at the present time.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, anyone who knows me will know that I am not denigrating the Magistrates' Association. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest it. I shall take offence at any such suggestion. I am saying that even though we take heed of what the magistrates say, we who have to make the law should not automatically accept their views, otherwise, we might as well not be here at all. We could just ask the magistrates what they think and that would be the end of it. We are making laws here and we must ensure that what the Magistrates' Association asks us to do is correct. I believe that we have been given sufficient evidence to show that on this occasion they are not correct.
May I make another point clear? Although I speak from the Dispatch Box as the Opposition spokesman, I made it clear in Committee, and I make it clear today, that on all these matters of road safety and traffic law we do not apply the Whip. Every one of our Members will have a free vote if any of these matters
954
comes to a Division. I am putting this point forward as our spokesman and because I believe in this matter, but our Members will be free to exercise their own discretion.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, perhaps I may speak now while the quotation of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is fresh in your Lordships' minds. Like so many quotations, he started with "on the one hand" but did not go on to say what I had said "on the other hand". What I said "on the other hand" was that:
"it represents a further relaxation of the effect of endorsement for this particular group of offences."—[Official Report. 14/7/82: col. 366.]
I shall come back to that again in a moment.
I also underline what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said about Whipping. I noticed that on the last occasion the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, came into—if I may say it—this Lobby, and I am delighted that on this occasion we shall probably have the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, with us too. However, I cannot ask as there is no Whipping.
While treading this difficult tightrope, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, who introduced some fairly vivid examples, that one answer is that some of those offences he mentioned will be subject to two different offences. For instance, there will be speeding and dangerous driving if a man has been swerving around. In a way, therefore, he was exaggerating the case.
I shall be brief. Your Lordships will recall that, in Committee, I expressed serious reservations about this clause. The Government felt that it represented too great a relaxation of the effect of endorsement. I remind your Lordships that at the moment after three speeding offence endorsements one loses one's licence. It was wrong to start fine-tuning the penalty points system before it had even come into operation and experience of it had been gained. May I also remind your Lordships that the penalty point system was discussed in the House one year ago and it does not come into effect until next month, yet here we are fine-tuning our decisions of last year before we have any examples.
In a way that answers some of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I hope that when he reads Hansard tomorrow he may think that some of his criticisms of Swansea were a little too sweeping. I hope that if he does he will send the staff a nice letter.
To reiterate, there are two points that I do not think have been mentioned much today. Firstly, too great a relaxation and, secondly, it is wrong to start fine-tuning at this stage. The Government's view has not changed since July.
6.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 33A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 46.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Avon, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Aylestone, L.

Auckland, L.

Balogh, L.

955

Banks, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Beloff, L.

Belstead, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cathcart, E.

Phillips, B. [Teller]

Cottesloe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Daventry, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Denington, L.

Reigate, L.

Diamond, L.

Renton, L.

Eccles, V.

Romnev, L.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Faithfull, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sandford, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller]

Sandys, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Gladwyn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glanusk, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Glenarthur, L,

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Hale, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Kemsley, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Trenchard, V.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McFadzean, L.

Vivian, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Willis, L.

Mersey, V.

Winstanley, L.

Mishcon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bishopston, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Brockway, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Coleraine, L.

Monson, L.

Collison, L.

Morris, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mottistone, L.

Colwyn, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cross, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Rochdale, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Somers, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Spens, L.

Gainford, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Garner, L.

Stedman, B.

Gormanston, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swinfen, L.

Hornsby Smith, B.

Terrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Teviot, L.

Inglewood, L.

Teynham, L.

Irving of dartford, L.

Underhill, L. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 48 [Supplementary provisions]:
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 33B:
Page 58, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) An order under section 81(3) of the 1967 Act may not authorise the employment of a traffic warden to discharge any function under this Part of this Act in respect of an offence if the offence appears to the traffic warden to be an offence involving obligatory endorsement.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that I have long sought to persuade the House that the safeguards implicit in the fact that the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order can only be amended by affirmative resolution procedure are adequate, and that there is no need therefore to deal with the issue in this Bill. Conscious that I have not succeeded in this endeavour, I offer your Lordships this amendment. As your Lordships will see, its effect is that Ministers of the future may seek to extend the functions of traffic wardens listed in the order, but they will be unable to extend them to include any functions in this Act in respect of an endorsable offence. I do hope that I have met most noble Lords' concerns on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 33C as an amendment to Amendment No. 33B:
At end insert ("nor shall any such order authorise a traffic warden who is in a moving vehicle to discharge any function under this Part of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 33C. Noble Lords will note that I also have down Amendment No. 34 to Clause 49, which I shall not move. I am delighted that the Government have realised the pressure that was exerted on all parts of the House regarding the position of traffic wardens and the fixed penalty section of this Bill. At the time we stressed, and I stress again, particularly in the light of what was said about the Magistrates' Association and myself, that we are in no way denigrating the valuable traffic warden service. But there are certain duties which it ought to undertake and duties to which it should not be extended. The effect of my amendment is to accept the Government's own amendment but to add to it,
"nor shall any such order"—
issued by the Secretary of State—
"authorise a traffic warden who is in a moving vehicle to discharge any function under this Part of this Act".
This seems such common sense that one need not argue it. I shall listen with great interest to why the Government cannot accept it. It was included in Amendment No. 34, which I have indicated I shall not move in the light of the fact that the Government have accepted part of the case in their own amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 33C.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this issue, of course, links with what I have just said on the general issue of the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order. A power to exercise functions from a moving car does not amount to a power to stop other vehicles, which may be the thought at the back of some Members' minds. The House may not be aware that at present, however, the order itself already prohibits wardens from carrying out their functions from a moving vehicle. What this amendment is doing, therefore, is preventing Ministers in the future from seeking to alter this position by the affirmative resolution procedure. The Government have no intention of amending the order to achieve this at the moment, and I would hope that the House would leave the issue as it is. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation and I readily accept his invitation.
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [Interpretation of Part III]:
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 34A:
After Clause 49 insert the following new clause:
"(Guidance on application of Part III)
The Secretary of State shall issue guidance to chief officers of police for police areas in respect of the operation of this Part of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I should just like to add that clearly there was some difference of views on the exact scope of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I shall take careful note of what was said and see whether anything can be done in the intervening stage. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, needless to say, I am most grateful for the very helpful and courteous comment made by the noble Earl and we shall look forward to Third Reading to see whether we can have something which amplifies the Government's amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendments of Transport Act 1968 relating to operators' licences]:
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 34B:
Page 87, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) Where a licensing authority is precluded by section 69B(5) of this Act from refusing an application for an operator's licence, the authority may not attach any condition to the licence under this section without first giving the applicant for the licence an opportunity to make representations to the authority with respect to the effect on his business of any condition the authority proposes to attach; and where the applicant makes any such representations the authority shall give special consideration to those representations in determining whether to attach the proposed condition on granting the licence.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment relates to some discussions that we had in Committee on the new provisions for strengthening the powers of the licensing authorities and enabling them to take adequate account of environmental matters when dealing with road haulage operators' licences. I should like to express appreciation for what my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Stanley put forward on that occasion.
The approach in the Bill is to redefine the operating centre as the place where the vehicle is normally kept and these operating centres will have to be specified in licences. The grounds on which statutory objectors, such as local authorities, may object are extended to include environmental matters and owners and occupiers of land in the vicinity are given a new right to make representations about the environmental aspects of licence applications. We have stressed
958
throughout the discussions on the Bill that in striking the right balance between the environment and business considerations, a licensing authority will have to form a balanced and reasonable judgment in each case if he attaches any conditions to a licence, and we shall also be prescribing the considerations to which the licensing authority shall have regard. But we recognise that there is genuine concern that the conditions attached to a licence could be so onerous as to prejudice the running of a business. This amendment to the Bill therefore provides that in cases where there is no material change in the operations to be covered, and therefore the licensing authority must grant a licence unless parking arrangements are unsatisfactory, he will not be able to attach any conditions to the licence without giving the applicant an opportunity to make representations about the effects on his business. He will have to give any such representations special consideration. The amendment makes clear on the face of the Bill our intention that the new provisions must be operated fairly and that full account must be taken of the rights to existing legitimate operators. With that short explanation, I commend this amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his explanation of this amendment, which goes such a very long way to meet some of the objections and criticisms that some of us made during the earlier stages of the Bill. The haulage industry generally is fairly happy now with this amendment, and while appreciating that a balance between the environmental necessities and the operation of a proper and legitimate business have to be weighed fairly finely, I am left with perhaps only one small niggling doubt in my mind. I wonder whether my noble friend could give an indication of how the Government would expect authorities to interpret the term:
"…and where the applicant makes any such representations the authority shall give special consideration to those representations,"
et cetera. The success of this amendment depends very largely on the interpretation of this special consideration. Other than that, I would very much welcome the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, this question concerning lorry operating centres has a considerable effect on farming and the rural scene. Therefore, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing it to your Lordships' attention and, moreover, to thank the Government for taking so much trouble and finally tabling this amendment which, I am glad to say, is proof that they too want to see villages as places where employment is encouraged and not just places for the retired to die.
This amendment is a small but positive step towards improving the chance of employment in the countryside, and I very much welcome it. I hope that my noble friend can say that those who will have to interpret the words "special consideration" will take into account the great importance of a virile working village.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends for their comments. In going some way

959
towards answering my noble friend Lord Lucas perhaps I can add that in order to provide some protection for existing operators, the Bill includes a provision preventing a licensing authority from refusing an operator a new licence on environmental grounds if there is no material change in his operations. The one exception to this rule will be parking.
The Bill also extends the existing power of licensing authorities to attach conditions to a licence, to include conditions aimed at minimising effects on the environment. My noble friend Lord Lucas and other noble Lords voiced anxiety in Committee about the possible use of this power to undermine the protection which the Bill gives to legitimate existing operators. My noble friend Lord Bellwin emphasised at the time that it was no part of our intention that responsible road haulage operators should have their existence threatened as a result of our new measures. We understand the words "special consideration" to mean "careful and sympathetic", and we shall take into account all matters that are put forward. I hope that that answers my noble friend Lord Stanley when he mentioned the state and the life of a village. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Immobilisation of vehicles illegally parked, etc.]:
6.36 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 34C:
Page 60, line 37, at beginning insert ("Subject to sections (Exemptions from section 51) and (Initial experimental period for immobilisation of vehicles) of this Act")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment, like one of the previous amendments, has the effect of making Clause 51 subject to two new clauses covering exemptions from the immobilisation powers and the provisions for an initial experimental period. The opportunity has been taken of splitting the clause, which was becoming overlong, into three. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, this is a very sensible division. I am grateful to the Government for doing it. At this stage may I say how grateful I am—and I am certain other noble Lords are—for the kind and courteous attention that the noble Earl has given to all the points raised on Clause 51 at the Committee stage. As we go through, we shall find that although some of us still have some amendments to make, basically the noble Earl has endeavoured to carry out the wishes of the House that were expressed in debates. I am grateful to him for that. I am also grateful to him for so kindly writing to me giving me some indication of the Government's intentions. I wanted to make that statement at this stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 34D:
Page 61, line 3, at end insert ("or authorise another person to take under his direction any action he could himself take by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) above")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move this amendment and to
960
speak as well to Amendments Nos. 34J, 34K and 34L. I believe that to some degree these will be covering amendments to be moved by other noble Lords, which are Amendments Nos. 34E and 34M. I shall deal first with Amendment No. 34D.
This group of amendments has been tabled in response to a pont raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in Committee. He asked whether the use of the words "only by a constable" in subsection (4) meant, when read in conjunction with subsection (6), that the authority to release an immobilised vehicle could not be delegated. These amendments are tabled to put it beyond doubt that a constable may be assisted by another person to immobilise vehicles, to reposition them before immobilization, to affix the required notice, and to release vehicles. The only action which may not be delegated is the selection of vehicles for immobilisation. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to the possible lack of clarity. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 34E, as an amendment to Amendment No. 34D:
Line I, leave out ("another person") and insert ("a traffic warden")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 34E seeks to leave out the words "another person" and to insert the words "a traffic warden". One can see that we are confirming my view that we express appreciation for the services of the traffic wardens. This is a job that ought to be placed under their jurisdiction. In the Notes on Clauses to Clause 51, it states:
"The original subseciton (5) allows a constable to authorise another person to take under his direction any action authorised by the section. This will include immobilisation, release, and the collection of charges."
I would put before your Lordships that those functions are not ones which should be given to any person. The words used here are "another person", and "another person" is not described at all. "Another person" could be any person. I therefore propose the amendment that "another person" should be deleted and instead we should put "a traffic warden" whom the constable can be authorised to ask to do jobs under this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as one who participated in the debates last time—and who does not intend to pursue this course today—in order to express his own personal condemnation, on grounds of relationships between the ordinary citizen and the police and on many other grounds, of any idea of applying these devices to a vehicle so as to immobilise it, may I say that I still hold that view but will not oppress your Lordships with the repetition of it this afternoon? We have now reached the stage where we are trying to improve, if we can, the wording of any clauses which deal with the immobilisation device.
I noticed with great care that the noble Earl the Minister, when he explained this amendment, said that it would enable somebody—another person—to assist the police constable. If those were the words used in his amendment, I would be happier. The words "to assist" mean that the police officer is there and he is getting the assistance of somebody to move the vehicle or to take off the device. However, the words that

961
appear in the amendment are, "under his"—the police officer's—"direction". Those words can be construed to mean that the police officer can go off somewhere else and say, "Look, I direct you to move this vehicle to another place, and I suggest it be over there", and then leave the site, and it would still be under his direction that it was done. This is dangerous and I think it is wrong. It must be implicit in the wording that is used that the police officer must be present at the time and therefore would be assisted by the other person. I therefore ask the noble Earl the Minister kindly to look at those words again, because the words used in his amendment do not appear to carry out the definition he gave in his helpful remarks.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his kind reference to me. I should like to support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who was saying what a worthwhile Committee stage we had had on this part of the Bill because the Government have taken great trouble to deal with the points we raised. On this question of confining "another person" to "a traffic warden" I should have thought that this was too narrow.
In Committee, the example that I took was of a busy surgeon who commits a parking or obstruction offence and finds that his vehicle is clamped. He hurries to the police station and pays his line, whatever it is, and says, "For Heaven's sake, come and unclamp it". The police say, "We are very busy. We cannot drop everything, but we will come and do it as soon as we can". What surely is desirable in a case like that is that the police should get a mechanic from a motor vehicle testing station, for instance, to go under their direction and unclamp the car and allow the police to get on with their other urgent duties, and the surgeon can get on with his urgent work. That is why I feel that this amendment, which confines the "other person" to a traffic warden, is taking it too narrowly.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in saying that I equally was rather surprised by the traffic warden being put in here as the other person. I believe I said at Committee stage that what was envisaged was vehicle removal officers aiding the police in this particular case. They of course are the people who go around in the towing vehicles at the moment. When I say "envisaged", it is not sure that they will be able to do it or available for it, which is why the Government want to leave this as broad as possible.
When I saw our reply to this, I inquired why we could not instead of the traffic warden put in a vehicle removal officer, upon which I was informed that that was not a statutory term, so I was caught on that one. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw "a traffic warden" anyway, but may I have a look at this again and see whether we can tighten it a bit, because I see the House's point in this particular case?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I may speak for a second time with the leave of the House, I wonder whether the noble Earl can deal with the question of the word "direction" instead of "assisted by"?
The Earl of Avon: I would happily agree.
Lord Mishcon: I understood the Minister to say that he agreed with what I had to say.
The Earl of Avon: I said I should also look at that.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for agreeing to have a look at this and I will readily withdraw. If there were a problem about getting a correct definition, maybe the Government could decide that they would ensure that there would be guidance given to whichever authorities have to administer this—whether it is going to be a narrow group or one extended later after an experimental period—on who "another person" should be. Something needs to be done either in the Bill or through clear guidance given. As the noble Earl says that he will look at this matter, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 34F:
Page 61, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) An immobilisation device may not be applied to a vehicle parked on an authorised meter bay unless that vehicle has remained there in contravention of any prohibition or restriction for longer than 2 hours more than that parking time for which payment has been made.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I at the outset echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in thanking my noble friend Lord Avon for the great trouble he and his officials took to answer a number of my questions with regard to this clause. So much so that a number of letters have been exchanged, and in the main I have come to feel that the amendments that the Government have set down meet fairly well all the criticisms and objections I had at the earlier stages. It is therefore not necessary for me to retable any of those. That this particular amendment is down is unfortunate in that it was tabled before the Government's own amendments had been set down. In these circumstances, I shall not move this amendment and will not be moving a number of subsequent amendments concerning this matter.
[Amendment No. 34F not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 34G:
Page 61, line 4, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 34N. These two amendments delete the orange badge exemption and definition from Clause 51. They reappear in our Amendment No. 34T in subsection (1). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 34H:
Page 61, line 6, at end insert—
("An immobilisation device may only he fixed to a vehicle under this section if there is a record of three or more fixed penalty notices having been issued in respect of that vehicle within the preceding twelve months").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this may seem a rather unusual amendment because it was not raised at

963
all in this form at the Committee stage. Noble Lords will recall that I referred at Committee stage to a seminar which I had attended arranged by the GLC and attended by various representative bodies, including the Metropolitan Police. Both the GLC representatives and the Metropolitan Police referred repeatedly to aiming—I use the words "wheel clamps" instead of talking about immobilisation devices—the wheel clamps at persistent offenders. At that seminar, I questioned that rather cynically and asked if I was to assume that there was a possibility of the constable on the beat being able to contact his station—I also mentioned Swansea—to check whether it was a persistent offender. Needless to say I received no reply as to whether I was right or wrong about that. However, I am now informed that the police have commuter records from which they can speedily identify the registered keeper of a vehicle. I am told that at Stanmore the police have vehicle and driving licence information on computer records and that all police stations have direct access to that data. If that is correct, it means the police constable on the beat can contact his station by his personal radio, who in turn can speedily ascertain from Stanmore the information required.
I have before me an article from The Times of 12th October, only two days ago, which spoke about "this vital tool for crime fighters" and confirmed what I said about police records and the vast amount of information at Stanmore which can produce information speedily about the persistent offender. I was rereading the Notes on Clauses because they refer to the aim of the clause being the persistent offender. However, there is nothing in the clause which identifies that as the aim, and therefore my amendment would say that no action should be taken to fix an immobilisation device—in other words, a wheel clamp—unless,
"there is a record of three or more fixed penalty notices having been issued in respect of that vehicle within the preceding twelve months—.
It may be argued that the vehicle could have changed hands, which would prevent this from being done. However, I understand that Stanmore can speedily check on the owner of the vehicle. As it is the desire of the Government, according to the Notes on Clauses, to aim at the persistent offender, as is the aim of the GLC, who first moved on this, and as the Metropolitan Police want the immobilisation device for that reason, the amendment would appear to be wise. I hope the Government will either accept it or examine the position with a view to inserting words on Third Reading to carry out the intention of aiming at the persistent offender. After all, it is the persistent offender to whom we must pay attention, the person who could not care less whether he impedes traffic, overstays on parking meters for long periods and so on.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the spirit behind the amendment should commend itself, though I do not think we should accept it because it is too specific in that it would hinder the police by, for example, referring to "three or more", which might prevent them from carrying out the job we all want them to do of keeping the roads clear. However, I hope the police can have their attention drawn to the need to use
964
sensible discretion. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, they have facilities now to enable them speedily to know who is a persistent offender. As I say, while we do not want to tie their hands, the spirit behind the amendment should be borne in mind by those who will have to administer the legislation.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls for that intervention and to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for proposing the amendment because in some respects the thought behind it is attractive. There are, however, a number of difficulties and I am not such an optimist to think that all the records which Lord Underhill thinks are available are in fact available. The amendment relates to the record of the vehicle, rather than to the record of the vehicle owner or driver, and as the noble Lord said, it does not take account of the possibility of changes of ownership, which would be on another computer. It would mean that a driver who bought a used car in respect of which a previous owner had accumulated a number of fixed penalties could run an increased risk of immobilisation. There is, incidentally, no way we know of finding out the fixed penalty record of a car when it is offered for sale.
Another fundamental problem with the amendment is that it would create operational difficulties for the police. They would need to be able to make roadside checks on the fixed penalty record of every illegally parked vehicle before taking the decision to clamp it. This could be done only by radio link to a central computerised record, and this is not at present available. There is no national record of fixed penalties, and I am informed that the police national computer does not contain comprehensive information about fixed penalties, nor does the computer record at the Driver Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea. The metropolitan Police Central Ticket Office maintains a computerised record of fixed penalties issued in London, but the policeman or traffic warden on the beat can communicate with the office only indirectly or by telephone.
I am not trying to pour scorn on the amendment. I am merely saying that at present we do not feel it is acceptable because of the difficulties involved. However, we agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that it is an attractive idea which we should consider, and I shall ensure that the police have it drawn to their attention, but I do not feel we are ready to write it into the Bill.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the House will recognise, I was hesitant about certain points in the amendment, although I believe it has been a valid matter to raise and I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying he will draw the attention of the police to it. Frankly, there is not much point the Metropolitan Police saying we are after the persistent offender—that is the justification for the clause, which I support—and then find that we cannot get at the persistent offender. The last thing we would want is to deal with the casual motorist, perhaps someone from the provinces who is visiting London, who suddenly finds his vehicle is clamped, or it might be a foreign tourist. It is one thing to deal with someone who is in this country on business for eight on nine months with his car from abroad, but none of us would like to find a wheel

965
clamp attached to our car when visiting, say, Paris for the weekend, and they have wheel clamps in Paris. I repeat, it is the persistent offender we are after. I recognise the difficulties and I am sure that airing the matter in the House has been helpful. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will raise the matter with the police, and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.57 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 34J, 34K and 34L:
Page 61, line 7, leave out from ("when") to ("shall") in line 8 and insert ("an immobilisation device is fixed to a vehicle in accordance with this section the constable or other person fixing the device")
Page 61, line 19, after ("by") insert ("or under the direction or)
Page 61, line 26, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with No. 34D. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart): My Lords, I should advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 34L is agreed to, I shall not be able to call 34M.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 34N:
Page 62, leave out lines 17 to 21.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 34G.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 34P:
Page 62, line 22, leave out from ("means") to end of line 24 and insert ("any device or appliance designed or adapted to be fixed to a vehicle for the purpose of preventing it from being driven or otherwise put in motion, being a device or appliance of a type approved by the Secretary of State for use for that purpose in accordance with this section")
The noble Earl said: My lords, with the leave of the House I will speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 35N and 35P. In July I accepted the feeling of the Committee that the devices used by the police to immobilise vehicles should be subject to ministerial approval, and the amendment will so require. Approval will be given by order, and not by statutory instrument. I am sure the police would in any case have been responsible in their choice of equipment, but I hope the House agrees that this amendment will provide a useful additional safeguard.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 34Q as an amendment to Amendment No. 34P:
Line 5, after ("approved") insert ("in regulations made").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like, with the leave of the House, to speak also to Amendment No. 35R. Amendment No. 34Q is a simple amendment. It refers to line 5 of the Government amendment, No. 34P. After the words "type approved" I wish to have inserted the words "in regulations made". In other words, the device or appliance should be,
"of a type approved in regulations made by the Secretary of State…".
This appears to me to be such commonsense that I am sure that I need not argue the point, and I hope that the
966
Government agree. I hope that the Government will not say that they have no intention of issuing regulations in regard to this matter. I think that there should be regulations that will be subject to the normal parliamentary procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I support this proposal. I hope that we shall be given an explanation. Surely we need regulations, so that people can discover which devices are approved. If regulations are not to be made by statutory instrument—which is what Amendment No. 35P proposes—how are people to discover whether or not a particular device is approved? I suppose that they could write to the Ministry to ask, or they may assume that a device is approved; but surely it would be better to have a statutory instrument which is readily available in order for people to check these matters.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I understand them, the noble Lord's amendments would require the ministerial approval of immobilisation devices to be set out in regulations, and would require the Secretary of State to consult interested organisations as he thought fit before issuing approvals. That goes a good deal further than the procedures for approval of other, perhaps very much more complicated, police equipment. For instance, the approval procedure as set out in Government Amendments Nos. 34P, 35N and 35P would allow the same approval procedures as for evidential breath testing equipment and radar guns. The approval order would be a formal document issued on the authority of the Secretary of State. It would not be subject to parliamentary proceedings. The Secretary of State would be free to consult interested organisations before giving approval, as I am sure he will. The Government see no case to adopt at this stage a more formal procedure for the less elaborate immobilisation devices.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I should like to look very carefully at what the noble Earl has said and consider the matter with a view possibly to returning to it on Third Reading, if I am not satisfied. It seems to me that we need to have something more here. We need to have a regulation of some kind that can be approved or annulled, as the case may be. I hope that there will be consultations. If I heard correctly, it seemed that the noble Earl implied that there might not be consultations on the matter. Surely there need to be the widest possible consultations before the device to be used is approved. However, I shall look at what the noble Earl has said, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 34Q.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 34R.
Page 62, leave out from beginning of line 27 to end of line 6 on page 63.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment deletes provisions that are replaced or reproduced in the new clause contained in Amendment No. 34U. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 34S not moved.]
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that this is probably a convenient moment to adjourn for the dinner break; but before I move the adjournment, my noble friend Lord Avon will, with the leave of the House, make a Personal Statement.

Personal Statement by the Earl of Avon
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to make a Personal Statement. I am doing so at the earliest possible opportunity. On Tuesday, 12th October, in answer to a supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, I inadvertently misled the House by saying that the White Paper on the lessons learnt from the Falklands conflict would be published towards the end of this month. I should have said, as indeed my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already announced, that it is the Government's intention to publish the White Paper towards the end of this year.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until ten minutes to eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Sitting was suspended from 7.6 until 7.50 p.m.

Transport Bill
Consideration on Report continued.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 34T:
After Clause 51 insert the following new clause:
("Exemptions from section 51
.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, section 51(1) of this Act shall not apply in relation to a vehicle found by a constable in the circumstances mentioned in that subsection if either—

(a) a current disabled person's badge is displayed on the vehicle: or

(b) the vehicle is in a meter bay within a parking place designated by an order made under section 35 of the 1967 Act (referred to below in this section as a designation order).

(2) The exemption under subsection (1)(b) above shall not apply in the case of any vehicle if—

(a) The meter bay in which it was found was not authorised for use as such at the time when it was left there (referred to below in this section as the time of parking); or

(b) an initial charge was not duly paid at the time of parking; or

(c) there has been since that time any contravention in relation to the relevant parking meter of any provision made by virtue of section 36(2)(c) of that Act (meter-feeding); or

(d) more than two hours have elapsed since the end of any period for which an initial charge was duly paid at the time of parking.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) above, a meter bay in a parking place designated by a designation order is not authorised for use as such at any time when—

(a) by virtue of section 37(1)(a) of the 1967 Act (times when vehicles may not be left in designated parking place) the parking place is treated for the purposes of sections 36 and 42 of that Act as if it were not designated by that order; or

(b) the use of the parking place or of any part of it that consists of or includes that particular meter bay is suspended under section 37(3) of that Act (order may confer power on certain authorities to suspend use of designated parking place or any part of it, etc.).

(4) In relation to any vehicle found in a meter bay within a parking place designated by a designation order, references in
968
subsection (2) above to an initial charge are references to an initial charge payable in respect of that vehicle under section 35 of the 1967 Act.
(5) In any case where section 51(1) of this Act would apply in relation to a vehicle but for subsection (1)(a) above, the person guilty of contravening the prohibition or restriction mentioned in section 51(1) is also guilty of an offence under this subsection if the conditions mentioned in subsection (6) below are met.
(6) Those conditions are that at the time when the contravention occurred—

(a) the vehicle was not being used either by the person to whom the disabled person's badge was issued or under subsection (4) (institutional use) of section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons); and

(b) he was not using the vehicle in circumstances falling within section 86A(2)(b) of the 1967 Act (circumstances where certain concessions are available to disabled persons' vehicles).

(7) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(8) In this section—

"disabled person's badge" means any badge issued, or having effect as if issued, under any regulations for the time being in force under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970;

"initial charge" and "parking meter" have the same meanings as in section 36 of the 1967 Act; and

"meter bay" means a parking space equipped with a parking meter;

and the reference in subsection (2)(c) above to the relevant parking meter is a reference to the parking meter relating to the meter bay in which the vehicle in question was found.)".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this new clause does three things: it provides a new home for the disabled person's exemption deleted from Clause 51; it creates a new exemption at meter bays; and it provides a sanction for abuse of the orange badge exemption. In describing these exemptions it may help the House if I describe first the meter bay exemption in subsection 1(b), as qualified by subsections (2), (3) and (4), and then turn to the disabled person's badge provisions.
In providing an exemption which will ensure that wheelclamps may not be used when a vehicle overstays for up to two hours on a meter, we are reproducing in alternative form the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas. To qualify for the exemption, the vehicle must be parked at a meter, and the initial charge must be paid. The exemption runs (as in my noble friend's amendment) for two hours from the time when the initial charge expires. Our exemption does not cover vehicles parked at suspended bays or bays which are not authorised for use. It does not apply when the police can establish that the meter has been "fed" since the initial payment. Your Lordships will recall that in Committee I reminded the House of the extent to which meter feeding in London appears to obstruct the turnover of short-stay parking places.
To turn now to the disabled person's badge exemption, this will ensure that any vehicle displaying a current orange badge will not be clamped, however badly parked and whether or not the badge-holder is using it. Of course, the police cannot determine from the unoccupied vehicle whether or not it is being used by the badge-holder. There are therefore no circumstances in which it would be right to clamp the vehicle simply on suspicion that it is being used by a fit person.
All this rightly protects disabled people, but it also creates yet greater temptation to abuse of the badge by fit people. Such abuse could probably be dealt with by prosecutions for the offence created by the Disabled

969
Persons Act 1981, were it not for the fact that the initial experiment with wheelclamps will be in central London, where the orange badge exemptions do not apply. We have therefore thought it necessary to provide a special offence in subsection (5). It will occur when a fit person displays an orange badge when parking illegally in an area in which the immobilisation powers have been brought into force. The sanction is not, as I have explained, the application of the wheelclamps to the offender's vehicle, but a fine of up to £200 on summary conviction. May I stress once again that this is not aimed at the disabled but at able-bodied people who misuse the badge.
My Lords, before we adjourned for dinner a number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Lucas, were kind enough to make appreciative remarks about the work done since Committee stage. I should like to thank them very much for that, and in turn say how much I owe to the people who have been working behind the scenes to prepare and draft all these measures. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as I have already intimated, I welcome this new clause, but I should like to say a few words on subsection (2)(d)—the two-hour period. I supported this general principle (there was no amendment to this effect, if I remember correctly) at the Committee stage. I supported the principle that we should not be finding the police fixing wheelclamps unless there was a reasonable period following the initial parking charge having been paid; but I must inform the House of a view which was expressed to me only yesterday by a representative of the GLC—which, as your Lordships know, was in effect the body which began the pressure for the institution of wheelclamps in Greater London. We readily understand the reason, but they did not see the amendment until it was too late to contact anyone to discuss the matter.
They have emphasised the point which the noble Earl has made: the problem of meter feeding, which is considerable in Greater London and which is almost ignored by way of prosecution. They tell me that in 1979 there was only one prosecution for meter feeding: that 60 per cent. of the time at meter bays is pre-empted by parkers committing breaches of the regulations, and that over 40 per cent. is pre-empted by the feeding of meters. This means that parking bays are not available for the short-time parkers—those engaged on essential business, visiting hospitals and so on—and I am told that the Greater London authority have said that if motorists all over central London were to adhere to the regulations it would mean an additional 72,000 parking acts could be accommodated—a very big number.
The GLC are concerned with the effect of the proposal that no action should be taken until a period of more than two hours after the period for which an initial charge has been paid. In effect, for most of their parking hays this would mean no action for a period of four hours. The view of the GLC—this is their transportation department—is that this could bring havoc to the whole matter of parking control in central London.
They have said that the GLC would be very happy to see a situation where there was no immobilisation device fixed until after a period of one hour. They believe that would be reasonable, and could be
970
enforced. I am not saying that I accept their argument, because I have not had time to study it; but I should like the noble Earl to let the House have his comments upon it. On the other hand, it may be that before Third Reading—I know there is not much time between now and next Wednesday—the GLC might be consulted upon this as a matter of urgency, because, as I say, it was the Greater London Council who first urged the institution of wheelclamps and were given support by the Metropolitan Police.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Avon for tabling this amendment, which, as he said, goes such a long way to meet the comments that I made at the earlier stage. So far as the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, are concerned, I can understand what he is saying but I think that what we are really trying to do in terms of immobilisation is, again, to get at the persistent offender rather than the one who offends by oversight. If in either of those two categories the meter-feeder is a miscreant, then I suggest that the authorities have adequate power, though perhaps not sufficient personnel, to deal with that matter in its own right. Meter feeding certainly is not a practice which any of your Lordships would condone.
So I think that on balance, perhaps, particularly as we have the immobilisation of vehicles as an experimental piece of legislation for two years, it might be better to settle for what we now have in the legislation, to see in two and a half years' time what the net results are, and then to deal with it in, perhaps, a different way. A number of my noble friends who fall, unhappily, into the category of those who would wish to use the orange badge scheme are not here, and I know that they would wish to express to my noble friend their appreciation of what the Government have done to tighten up the law with regard to the parking scheme for the disabled. I think that they should be encouraged by this, because there have been suggestions that, now that the Year of the Disabled is behind us, we care not. We do care and I think that this expresses the Government's continuing care of the needs of the disabled.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I, too, should like to express a personal word of gratitude for all the consideration the Government have given to this matter of the device. I have already made my own position clear, and my noble friend, with his usual tolerance, allows me still to sit by his side even though he and I have very differing views on the device and its admissibility in this legislation. Having had to concede the principle that this device is allowed to the authorities, I want to make only two comments on this amendment.
The first is that I hope that, by virtue of the fact that we are sparing a special clause dealing with parking on parking meters, that the police and traffic wardens when reporting these matters will not take the easy way out and concentrate on vehicles which are parked at parking meters instead of concentrating on the far worse offenders—those who have not even taken the trouble to find a parking meter, and therefore a fairly sate place for parking, but have left their cars in a way that obstructs traffic and interferes with the users of the roads in a serious way.

971
I trust that, in all the publicity that is given to this experiment, at least the police and the authorities will have it borne in on them with great emphasis that, merely because we have spent a lot of time discussing parking meters and have a special clause in this Bill, the real enemy of non-congestion—if I may use that negative phrase—and the real enemy of all those who want to see public transport and all our transport move properly is the careless, selfish motorist who leaves his vehicle not anywhere near a parking meter but in a place which truly obstructs.
The second observation that I have to make may be born out of ignorance, and I apologise to the noble Earl if that be so. I see the reference to an exemption under (2)(b) where an initial charge was not duly paid at the time of parking and I notice—but regret that I have been unable to look myself—at this definition of "initial charge", which has the same meaning as in Section 36 of the 1967 Act. I tried to get hold of the 1967 Act but I am afraid I have not succeeded. I hope that this does not mean that an immediate clamping device could be put on a vehicle where a motorist finds, as is so often the case, that some benevolent person has, prior to his arrival at the parking place, himself paid for the meter and therefore there is some spare time available.
In such a case, if the motorist feels that, quite legitimately from his point of view and, certainly, morally from his point of view, he is entitled to use up the rest of the time that is allocated, does so and removes his vehicle before that time has elapsed, he will, in fact, not himself have made an initial payment at all. If a device can be put on a vehicle in those circumstances it really will be terrible. But it may well be—and that is why I asked for the forgiveness of the noble Earl—that I speak on this point out of ignorance since I have not had an opportunity to look at the 1967 Act and the definition of "initial charge" to see whether my point is valid or not.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I should like to ask a technical question in which I have a declared interest as the manufacturer of electrically-driven vehicles for the disabled. As the noble Earl is well aware, for these, a driving licence is not required. For the record, can he clarify that no clamp will be put on such a vehicle used by disabled people and that the various regulations on motor vehicles contained in this Bill do not apply to those electrically-driven vehicles for disabled people who in certain circumstances are allowed to drive on the main highway? I am sure that it is not the intention of the Bill to cover this aspect, but I think it would be worthwhile, for the record, for the noble Earl to give some indication to reassure drivers of those vehicles in urban areas where the clamp is going to be in use.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I believe that to a certain extent I can set Lord Underhill's mind at rest. I said in my remarks that it does not apply when the police can establish that the meter has been fed since the initial payment. Therefore I do not think that we are doing anything basically different. Having, I hope, satisfied him on that point, I then have to be honest and say that I cannot see that we shall catch any more than we have caught before—which is a pity. I imagine that the reason is the difficulty of proof. At the same
972
time, when there was a comment about two hours after, this really means that wardens will have to note the car being there at, say, 11 a.m., then check it again at about 1 p.m. and again at 3 p.m. Only after that can they really operate. This comes back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that it is a difficult thing to prove and it is a time-consuming affair. This is why so many people get away with it.
I should like to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that it is not the intention to use the clamp in parking bays. I agree with him. The idea is to catch people who are parked in blatently wrong places off meter bays and causing obstruction. That is what we came to at Committee stage as the real purpose of this. Noble Lords will recall that at Committee stage I said that I had some examples of cars locally which sat in parking bays all day. It would be great fun to catch them, too. I am rather glad that we have come down more or less in the middle of this.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked about the initial charge. I am informed that such a motorist is not committing an offence. He is allowed to use the unexpired time. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asked about electrically-driven cars. Under Section 24 of the Transport Act, they will not be treated as motor vehicles and could not have a clamp fitted. My noble friend Lord Lucas was kind enough to say words about the orange badge which I endorse.
I feel that in this amendment we have done all that we have been asked. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was not here when I thanked those who earlier put their appreciation forward to the Government for what they have done. May I say how much that is appreciated? I think I have answered all the questions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.8 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 34A:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause:
("Initial experimental period for immobilisation of vehicles.
.—(1) Sections 5 I and (Exemptions from section 51) of this Act (referred to below in this section as the principal sections) shall extend only to such areas as the Secretary of State may by order specify; and the power of the Secretary of State to extend those sections to any area is subject to the following provisions of this section.
(2) During the experimental period for the purposes of the principal sections—

(a) any order under this section extending those sections to any area shall be an experimental order; and

(b) only one such order may be in force at any one time (without prejudice to the variation of that order from time to time by a further order under this section).

(3) An experimental order—

(a) shall relate to a single area only (without prejudice to the alteration of that area from time to time by a further order under this section varying the experimental order); and

(b) shall expire at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which it comes into force, unless it is previously revoked or continued in force by a further order under this section.

(4) The experimental period for the purposes of the principal sections is the period beginning with the date on which those sections come into force and ending with the date on which any order continuing in force an experimental order under this section comes into force.
(5) After the end of the experimental period for the purposes of the principal sections any order under this section extending those sections to any area may be made for a limited period or without limit of time (subject to variation or revocation by a further order under this section).
(6) An order under this section continuing in force an experimental order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(7) The Secretary of State shall not by order under this section (including any order varying an existing order) extend the principal sections to any area for the first time unless requested to do so by the authority responsible for traffic regulation in that area.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (7) above, the authority responsible for traffic regulation in any area is—

(a) in relation to any area in Greater London, the Greater London Council;

(b) in relation to any area in England and Wales other than an area in Greater London, the council of the county; and

(c) in relation to any area in Scotland, the regional or islands council.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this new clause with Clause 35S, spells out more clearly on the face of the Bill that these powers are experimental in the first instance. It provides for a two-year experimental order in a single area. The area under consideration includes part of Westminster and part the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: it is subject to consultation with the police, the GLC, and the London boroughs, and will be specified in due course in an order subject to negative resolution. The course of the experiment will be very carefully monitored by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. This monitoring period will end after 12 months or so, and a report will be written and considered by Ministers.
If the results justify it, and my right honourable friend thinks it right to ask Parliament to agree to the continuation of the experimental order, that would be subject of Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. On the coming into force of such an order, the experimental period would end, and the Secretary of State could then, if he thought fit and only on the request of the traffic regulation authority for the area concerned, make orders designating other areas. Such orders will be subject to negative resolution and could be time-limited or not. Any order under this clause can of course be revoked. I hope that the House will agree that this solution provides the right balance between the affirmative and negative resolution procedures. It underlines the intention of the Government that the value of wheel clamps must be proved in practice and to the satisfaction of both Houses before they are allowed to become a continuing part of the enforcement armoury of the Metropolitan Police. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, as an amendment to Amendment No. 34U, I call Amendments Nos. 34V, 34W and 34X.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendments Nos. 34V, 34W, and 34X as amendments to Amendment No. 34U:
In subsection (2)(b), line 1, after ("order") insert ("the first of which shall extend solely to part of the City of Westminster and part of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea").
In subsection (6), line 1, leave out ("continuing in force an experimental order under this section").
In subsection (7), at end insert (and unless satisfied that it is desirable to do so").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it has been suggested that I might speak to Amendments Nos. 34V, 34W, 34X and 35Q. I am happy to do so if that will assist the House. As I have said previously, I am delighted that the Government have so widely
974
accepted that this is an experiment. Some of us who believe that wheelclamps could be useful want to insist that it should be an experiment and then appropriate action taken after a period. I have quickly checked and under this new clause the word "experimental" appears in at least seven places. There is not the slightest doubt that the Government have accepted the wish of your Lordships that this should be an experiment.
If I may deal with all the amendments together, on Amendment No. 34V, the noble Earl has suggested that consultations are taking place with a view to doing precisely what I am asking in this amendment: that the first experiment shall be confined to part of the City of Westminster and part of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I gather from a letter which the noble Earl has kindly sent me that including this phrase in the Bill might make it a hybrid Bill. If so, naturally I shall not press the amendment.
I was pleased to note that he said that consultations are taking place with a view to this being the area to which it shall be confined. I would be quite happy if the noble Earl made it absolutely clear that this is where the Government intend to conduct the experiment. I would not wish—and I am certain many of my noble friends would not wish—the Government to extend this experiment all over the place. It is essential that we should see how the experiment works before we extend it all over the country.
Regarding Amendment No. 34W, the noble Earl referred to the position of negative and affirmative orders. In subsection (6), to which this amendment refers, it says that an order will not be made until it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. I want to delete the phrase saying that this shall be confined only to a requirement continuing in force an experimental order. I am suggesting that all the orders made which deal with the important aspects of this clause should be by the affirmative resolution. I ask the House to agree with that.
May I now refer to Amendment No. 34X. In subsection (7) of the new clause proposed by the Government it says that the Secretary of State shall not extend the area without a request by the appropriate local traffic regulation authority. That I am quite happy to see in the new clause. What I should also like is that it should state that the Secretary of State is not compelled to act when he gets a request. If he should receive such a request he should act only if he is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in that particular area. Therefore this amendment is proposing that those words be added to the end of subsection (7).
The appropriate subsection of Clause 61 to which Amendment No. 35Q refers, says that, before making an order or regulation, the Secretary of State shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit. What Amendment No. 35Q is seeking is to ensure that this matter of immobilisation devices must be one on which there shall be consultation with the appropriate organisations as the Secretary of State thinks fit before he proceeds to introduce an order. That would mean the motoring organisations as well as the police and the local traffic authority. The motoring organisations particularly should be consulted before an order is made. I beg to move those amendments.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, may I give a welcome to Amendment No. 34U. Subsection (6) totally met the amendment which I intimated earlier I would not be moving. May I ask the Minister whether it is proposed that the results of the first 12 months or so of the scheme monitored by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory will form part of a report? Will that report be made fully available to interested parties, including Members of your Lordships' House, or indeed Members of another House? Therefore, when the Minister considers the continuation or the extension about which he is bound to make an order—as I understood it then subject to the negative resolution—that report from the T and RRL will be available so that Members of either House may make representations.
It is necessary for us to have a look at the printed version of what my noble friend said regarding the various stages of the orders and transfers from affirmative to negative. On the face of it, they appear to me to be satisfactory; but we shall have to see that in cold print.
I have some sympathy with the amending Amendment No. 34X, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. This is the amendment dealing with the point that the Minister may make an order at the request of an authority. The noble Lord is asking to add that the request should be denied unless the Minister himself is satisfied. This seems a perfectly reasonable attitude to adopt because some local authorities may perhaps feel that an extension of the scheme would be a very good idea, but they may not be cognisant of some of the longer-term effects which can accrue from many orders of this kind. It would be for the Minister, as he is advised by the department, to take the overall view of the whole pattern of traffic and parking problems; so it is necessary that he should be satisfied with this matter. Other than that, I am sure that the Government amendments ought to prove totally acceptable to your Lordships.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, anticipated, the difficulty of Amendment No. 34V is not one of conflict with the Government's intention. It follows from what I said about current thinking on the initial experimental area that we are quite happy with the idea that the initial designation should extend only to part of Westminster, and part of Kensington and Chelsea. However, I am afraid that we cannot accept the insertion of references to these boroughs in the Bill because it is likely to render the whole Bill hybrid. The amendment would affect the interests of two boroughs in a way distinct from the effect it would have on all other local authorities in a similar category. This would threaten to make the Bill hybrid, although a formal decision would be for the House authorities. A hybrid Bill is subject to different procedures, as the House know, involving the service of notice under Standing Orders relating to other business. It is for this reason that we have felt that we cannot accept this as part of the Bill.
The effect of Amendment No. 34W would be to require the affirmative resolution procedure for any order under the new clause. Perhaps the noble Lord, when he speaks later, could confirm that that is the right interpretation. As I have explained with reference to Amendment No. 34S, we believe this would lead to
976
a potential waste of parliamentary time. After the experimental period is complete, the negative resolution procedure should provide adequate opportunities for debate on any further orders, some of which may consist of minor adjustments of the boundaries. My noble friend Lord Lucas talked about the affirmative order and I should like to say to him what I said in my opening remarks. If the results justify it, and my right honourable friend thinks it right of ask Parliament to agree to a continuation of the experimental order, this will be the subject of an affirmative resolution of both Houses. I think my noble friend said the opposite. I believe that is a safeguard for which Parliament has every right to ask, and the other, on further consideration, would be a waste of parliamentary time.
To move to Amendment No. 34X, of course I agree with what the amendment seeks to do, but I do not believe there is any need for it. It prevents the Secretary of State from making orders when he is not satisfied it is desirable to do so. But there is no question of any Secretary of State being obliged to make orders against his will. The only sense in which his descretion will be bound is a restriction upon his ability to make orders unless requested to do so by the traffic regulation authority. The traffic regulaiton authority can only request: it cannot require the Secretary of State to make an order for which he does not see any need.
Finally, if I may turn to Amendment No. 35Q, this would require the Secretary of State to consult such representative organisations as he sees fit before making an order under subsection (6) continuing in force an experimental order. No doubt consultation will be a necessary part of the assessment of the results of an experiment, and indeed I would expect that the views of all affected will be relevant. I would expect views to be volunteered from all sides without any need for a formal invitation. I leave it to the noble Lord, therefore, to weigh the need for a formal requirement to consult to be added to the Bill.
Perhaps if I answer one of the points made by my noble friend Lord Lucas it might also allay the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. It is the intention at present to publish a report which would be fully available. For all these various reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel he need not press any of these amendments.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the House will forgive me if I try to concentrate for a moment on Amendment No. 34X and the reply made to it by the noble Earl. It is not only a question always of a strict interpretation of an Act of Parliament. One tries if possible, without extending the wording, to express the spirit of an Act of Parliament, and subsection (7) deals with the Secretary of State's ability after conducting experiments by order to extend the principal sections to any area for the first time. That is a very important stage to reach—after an experiment—to decide to extend to another area for the first time.
It is perfectly true that on a strict interpretatiion the Secretary of State need not comply with the request of the authority responsible for traffic regulation in that area, but as a matter of courtesy—and courtesy can sometimes find its place in an Act of Parliament—the words that are deemed to be added,
"unless satisfied that it is desirable to do so",

977
point to the motoring organisations and others who are interested in this matter and make it quite clear that their representations will be considered by the Secretary of State, and it is not just a question of the omnipotence of the authority responsible for traffic regulation to make a request. That is about the only authority to whom the Minister will listen. I think it makes it abundantly clear that representations can be made by others if those words are added. They can do no possible harm and I ask that they be included.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, this is the sort of amendment which gives the Government a wonderful opportunity to give way and to accept an amendment which cannot possibly do any harm.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I was about to say that I agree entirely, I entirely take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. however, one can perhaps argue, as my noble friend Lord Renton would do if he were in his place, that extra words are not necessary, It is slightly difficult for the draftsman and everybody else to accept. May I say this: if the noble Lord will withdraw Amendment No. 34X I will see whether we cannot put these words back at the next stage in an amendment of our own. There is not much time to withdraw them otherwise.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for listening to the points made on Amendment No. 34X. I recognise that it is very difficult to consider four amendments collectively. In the light of what the noble Earl has said I will withdraw these amendments and study what he has said on W and Q. Certainly on Amendment No. 34V I accept the assurance he has given, that these are the areas to which the first order will be extended. I withdraw 34V without any hesitation. I beg leave to withdraw Amendments Nos. 34W and 34Q, on the understanding that I will read carefully what the noble Earl has said to see whether it satisfies my noble friends and myself. I readily withdraw Amendment No. 34X on the understanding that the noble Earl will look at this. There are many items of legislation which your Lordships have passed which contain the words: "if the Secretary of State is satisfied". Therefore we have added these words many times to make the point quite clear for the Secretary of State's benefit as will as for other people. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 34U agreed to.
8.28 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 34Y:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
("Authorisation of head-worn appliances for use on motor cycles.
.—.(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 33 of the 1972 Act (protective helmets for motor cyclists) immediately before section 33A of that Act (which was inserted by section 27 of the Transport Act 1982)—
"Authorisation of head-worn appliances for use on motor cycles.
33AA.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing (by reference to shape, construction or any other quality) types of appliance of any description to which this section applies as authorised for use by persons driving or riding (otherwise than in sidecars) on motor cycles of any class specified in the regulations.
(2) Regulations under this section—

(a) may impose restrictions or requirements with respect to the circumstances in which appliances of any type prescribed by the regulations may be used; and

(b) may make different provision in relation to different circumstances.

(3) If a person driving or riding on a motor cycle on a road uses an appliance of any description for which a type is prescribed under this section he shall be guilty of an offence if that appliance is not of a type so prescribed or is otherwise used in contravention of regulations under this section.
(4) If a person sells, or offers for sale, an appliance of any such description as authorised for use by persons on or in motor cycles, or motor cycles of any class, and that appliance is not of a type prescribed under this section as authorised for such use, he shall, subject to subsection
(5) below, be guilty of an offence.
(5) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of the sale or offer for sale of an appliance if he proves that it was sold or, as the case may be, offered for sale for export from Great Britain.
(6) In England or Wales the council of a county or of a London borough, the Greater London Council or the Common Council of the City of London may institute proceedings for an offence under this section.
(7) The provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect in relation to contraventions of subsection (4) of this section as they have effect in relation to contraventions of section 33 of this Act; and in that Schedule, as it has effect by virtue of this subsection—

(a) references to helmets shall be read as references to appliances to which this section applies; and

(b) the reference in paragraph 4(1)(a) to a type which under the principal section could be lawfully sold or offered for sale shall be read as a reference to a type which under this section could be lawfully sold or offered for sale as authorised for use in the manner in question.

(8) This section applies to appliances of any description designed or adapted for use—

(a) with any headgear; or

(b) by being attached to or placed upon the head;

(as, for example, eye protectors or earphones).
(9) References in this section to selling or offering for sale include respectively references to letting on hire and offering to let on hire."
(2) The following entries shall he inserted in Part I of Schedule 4 to the 1972 Act (prosecution and punishment of offences) immediately after the entry relating to section 33—

"33AA(3)

Contravention of regulations with respect to use of head-worn appliances on motor cycles.

Summarily.

£50.

—

—

—

33AA(4)

Selling, etc., appliance not of prescribed type as approved for use on motor cycles.

Summarily.

£200.

—

—

—.".")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, when considering the Bill at Committee stage my noble friend Lord Mottistone proposed an amendment which would have changed the meaning of "head gear" in section 33(6) of the 1972 Act to include "visor or other equipment intended for use in connection with a helmet". It will be recalled that I welcomed the intention behind my noble friend's proposal, as the Government were aware of the shortcomings in the primary legislation, in particular to control visor standards which when excessively tinted or scratched and used at night may have been a contributory factor in accidents. My noble friend Lord Mottistone agreed to withdraw his proposal on my promise that the Government would make its own at this stage. This clause is the Government's proposal.
I should explain how this differs from my noble friend's original proposal. As proposed, it would have meant that the Secretary of State could have made regulations requiring visors, or any other equipment, to meet specific minimum standards when intended to be used in connection with a helmet, and to ban the sale of those which did not. This proposal differs in three very important respects. It will enable the Secretary of State additionally, if he wishes, to ban the use of any head-worn appliance which does not comply with the prescribed standards. Further, it will enable him to restrict or impose conditions on the use of those appliances which he has prescribed. For example, he may be prepared to prescribe moderately tinted visors for daytime use, but ban their use for night time. Finally, the powers to prescribe appliances will not be restricted solely to those intended to be used in connection with a helmet. I hope that I have satisfied my noble friend on this amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to my noble friend the Minister for having so carefully and fully covered the points which we were trying to make. I was slightly concerned when he indicated that there might he within these regulations permission for a visor to be used by day, but not by night. May I warn him against that, because it will be frightfully difficult for somebody to be expected to change over visors at sunset. How are the police to know, and is it to be sunset, nautical twilight or some other time? So perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend that different daytime and night time use is something that he should steer clear of.
Still being very grateful, may I make another point? I trust that the order will be prepared as soon as practicable, and made available in draft for comment by interested parties, including, of course, the Consumers' Association who put this idea into my head in the first place. I do not know whether my noble friend heard that, but perhaps he could comment on whether the order will be prepared as soon as practicable, and whether it will be made available in draft to interested parties.
On a small point of detail, having looked at the amendment rather closely, we are slightly puzzled at the use of the word "appliance" throughout the proposed new Section 33AA of the 1972 Act. In every day use, currently—though I appreciate that the Oxford Dictionary makes the word "appliance" perfectly all right—this suggests something rather solid and cumbersome, though we are talking, on the whole, about lightweight headwear and other kinds of equipment which might be used. I should have thought that a better term would be "apparatus or equipment". Perhaps my noble friend could look at that when he considers what we have said today, and he may think of a better word than "appliance" with its current connotations. With that, may I say once again that I am most grateful and I hope very much that my noble friend will be able to tell me that we shall have an order nice and soon.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I welcome this amendment, but I feel that it may need some
980
clarification for another area in which I have to declare an interest and which concerns electrically assisted cycles. Do they come under the term "motorcycle", which I believe they do at the present time? I understand that the department concerned is looking at regulations for a cycle that can be both pedal powered and electrically assisted at the same time.
This amendment creates problems for disabled people. Some of these vehicles have already been modified and are on show in the national exhibition for disabled people in London at the moment, and electrically assisted tricycles, adapted for disabled persons, are on sale. There is considerable difficulty both for the salesmen and for the potential customers in knowing where they stand under the law. Do they need a licence? They do not in the case of electrically powered vehicles for disabled people, but it seems that they will have all the problems associated with a moped licence and will also have to wear helmets.
I do not expect a reply now, but I feel that this is an area of which the Department of Transport has been aware for some time. These vehicles are both imported and manufactured in this country and will be available for the public and for disabled people, but nobody quite knows where he stands. It is not for me, during the passage of this Bill, to offer any suggestions, but I hope that the Government will look carefully at this point. We are in a position of ignorance at the moment and I feel, in particular, that it is very awkward for disabled people, because there is a certain type of disability for which a vehicle such as this is particularly well suited.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I know that sidenotes are not part of the Bill, but I should have thought that the English for "head-worn appliances" was "headgear".
Lord Underhill: My Lords, it is pleasing to know that there is yet another noble Lord who appreciates the consideration given by the Government to his original amendment. I want only to raise a point on subsection (5) which reads:
"A person shall not be convicted of any offence under this section in respect of the sale or offer for sale of an appliance if he proves that it was sold or, as the case may be, offered for sale for export from Great Britain.".
If an appliance is considered unsuitable for use in great Britain, what is the situation if we are prepared to say that it can be sold for export puposes? Secondly, are there any EEC provisions which might restrict the sale of such an appliance to countries in the Community? It seems rather unethical, if we say that something should not be used in this country but are prepared to put into the Bill that it is all right for it to be sold for export purposes.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, while welcoming the amendment and not wishing to frustrate anything that my noble friend Lord Mottistone wanted to have included in the Bill, there is one other aspect to subsection (5). I understand that it is written in terms of the 1972 Act. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has drawn attention to European Community harmonisation and to the position of the rest of the world, but I should like to ask my noble friend what is the position with regard to appliances which may be offered for sale for export,

981
which are exported and are then re-imported, because we know that this kind of thing goes on, so that no true export takes place, alternatively, what happens with regard to the sale of goods which are manufactured for export, offered for export and accepted for export, but then become a frustrated export order? These kind of things usually appear on market stalls,
"Frustrated export order. X price, less 150 per cent."
or whatever it may be. One could slip around the intention of the amendment by virtue of events which have taken place since the 1972 Act was passed. I wonder whether the Government might feel it necessary to have a look at that and modify it.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful for all the various questions which have been put on this amendment. I was rather hoping that it would slip through with one or two congratulatory remarks, but perhaps it has something to do with the hour. I should like to start with one point which was not raised. The proposed amendment applies solely to Great Britain; that is. England, Wales and Scotland. But I understand that similar provisions may follow in Northern Ireland in due course. The police and local authorities can institute proceedings in England and Wales and similarly by the procurator fiscal in Scotland.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, if the amendment is accepted the Government would wish to make regulations referring to British Standards as soon as possible. At the moment, I am rather nervous about giving dates. The major problem of poor visibility through scratched visors will be a first priority. Consideration is also being given to imposing controls on the use of heavily tinted visors at night, which would be doing no more than what is already advised in the Highway Code. I fully accept my friend's strictures on what we should look at in this particular area. The proposed regulations will of course be put to representative organisations for comment in the usual way before they are finalised.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, also made a little play on the word "appliance". To find the right word on these occassions is always difficult, but "appliance" covers visors and such things as earphones and headphones, about both of which we feel it may be necessary to take action in due course. Again, I shall bear his point in mind, and also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on the side paragraph.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asked about electric cycles. I understand that electricity assisted pedal cycles only are covered by Section 24 of the Transport Act 1981. The rest will, for the safety of all concerned, be subject to many general regulations. I shall check up on the other points which he made and let him have an answer in writing, if I may.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, took us abroad. We cannot, nor do we wish, to impose restrictions on appliances sold here for distribution in overseas markets or for use abroad, which is the purpose of subsection (5). There are not as yet either European Community or Economic Commision for Europe standards for visors, and any sold or used abroad will need to satisfy the domestic requirements of the country they are intended for. Standards for adoption as an international regulation on visors are to be discussed in the United Nations' ECE and it is
982
expected that United Kingdom experience and expertise will play a leading part in the drafting of these standards.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth produced some interesting points. The answer to one of his questions is that, wherever they originate from, the sale of unapproved helmets and, when regulations are made, the sale of visors not approved will be illegal. If I have not covered all the various points raised, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me, I shall of course write to them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.42 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 34Z:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
("Penalty points for accessories to traffic offences.
. The following shall be substituted for Part I of Schedule 7 to the Transport Act 1981 (penalty points)—

"PART I

OFFENCES WHERE DISQUALIFICATION OBLIGATORY FOR PRINCIPAL OFFENDERS EXCEPT FOR SPECIAL REASONS

Description of offence

Number of penalty points

Any offence involving obligatory disqualification (within the meaning of Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1972>—

(a) in the case of an offence which is treated as an offence involving dis-creationary disqualification for the purposes of section 93 of that Act by virtue of subsection (6) of that section (offences com mined by aiding, etc., the commission of an offence involving obligatory disqualification)

10

(b) in any other case

4.".")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is purely to put right a small anomaly concerning aiders and abettors of road traffic offences under the existing provisions of the penalty points system which comes into operation on 1st November.
Aiders and abettors of any offence, road traffic or otherwise, are usually liable under the general rule of law to the same penalties as they could have received had they committed the offence themselves. For example, under Part III of Schedule 7 to the Transport Act 1981, a person who aids or abets someone to drive recklessly would be liable to discretionary disqualification or to 10 penalty points, just as the person who drove recklessly would be liable. However, by virtue of Section 93(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1972, aiders and abettors of the most serious road traffic offence—that is, offences involving obligatory disqualification (for example, driving while over the prescribed limit for alcohol), are not liable to obligatory disqualification, only to discretionary disqualification. They are, none the less, liable for penalty points.
At present, under Part I of Schedule 7, the number of penalty points which can be awarded for offences involving obligatory disqualification is four. Points can only be endorsed if the offender is not disqualified. For these offences, obligatory disqualification must be imposed on principal offenders unless the court finds special reasons for not doing so. This happens very rarely—about 2,000 cases a year—and only in

983
exceptional circumstances. They usually show that no moral guilt rests on the offender and that it was therefore inappropriate to allocate a high points value to the offences.
However, the circumstances are different for someone who aids or abets. He will not be liable for obligatory disqualification. If he is not disqualified it will be because the court has decided that his offence was not sufficiently serious, not because it found special reasons showing that he was morally guiltless. It would clearly be a nonsense if he only received four penalty points, especially when he could receive as many as 10 points for reckless driving and other offences.
This amendment corrects this anomaly by providing that anyone who aids or abets an offence involving obligatory disqualification is liable to 10 penalty points. The position of the principal offender remains unchanged. He will still get four penalty points if not disqualified for special reasons. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 34AA:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
("Specimens of breath for breath tests, etc.
. In section 12(3) of the 1972 Act as inserted by Schedule 8 to the Transport Act 1981 (circumstances in which a person fails to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test or for analysis), the following words shall be added at the end "and provided in such a way as to enable the objective of the test or analysis to be satisfactorily achiever".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is essentially a technical amendment designed to clarify a point of possible uncertainty in the law on drinking and driving. The point has come to light as the result of a recent court case in which a driver who apparently had a blood alcohol content well in excess of the legal limit none the less was not convicted on a procedural technicality relating to the way in which he had provided a breath sample in the initial roadside screening test. In this test the driver succeeded in producing what was probably a false negative result by inflating the bag with two separate shallow breaths rather than the one continuous breath required in order to get the proper test, in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions. The court, however, accepted the driver's contention that he had in fact supplied a breath specimen within the terms of the law and that his subsequent arrest by the police was therefore unlawful.
The judgment seems to go somewhat against the trend of previous decisions concerning the giving of breath samples and it is not easy to predict its consequences, if any, for the future operation of the drinking and driving law. It seems virtually certain that there will be no implications for the new evidential breath testing procedure which is due to come into effect shortly, since the machines used for these tests will fail to register any result unless used properly. However, the court decision creates a risk that suspects will in future be able quite legally to produce false negative results in screening breath tests at the roadside, and if this happens the effectiveness of the law will undoubtedly be impaired.
The wording that we propose to add to Section 12(3) of the 1972 Act is designed to prevent this. The
984
subsection already requires that a specimen of breath for either a screening or evidential analysis must be sufficient to enable the test or analysis to be carried out. The effect of the words inserted by the amendment will be to add a specific requirement that the breath specimen must be provided in such a way as to enable the objective of the test or analysis to be satisfactorily achieved. In the case of the roadside screening breath test, this is intended to be a reading that reflects the likely level of alcohol in the blood of the subject. In the case of the evidential test, it is intended to mean a specimen which has satisfied the sampling requirements of the testing equipment approved by the Secretary of State.
The need for effective measures against the drunken driver is, I think, fully accepted on all sides of your Lordships' House. I believe there is general agreement, too, that one of the main defects in the past has been the way in which persons who quite clearly had an excess of alcohol used loopholes in the procedure as a means of avoiding conviction. This amendment is designed to close such a possible loophole, and I hope your Lordships will therefore be pleased to support it. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, there is one caveat. I do not defend drunken driving, but I believe I am correct when I say that as a youngster I was taught in the laboratory only to use a blow pipe on bending glass over the bunsen burner. A professional glass blower or a professional chemist who can use the bunsen burner can get breath which is not necessarily breath that is coming from the lungs but breath that is coming from the nostrils instead of from the lungs. When the noble and learned Lord poses the question that the apparatus is used accurately, who can judge, if one meets a person like that?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, the wording which is proposed to be added would, I think, take care of that situation. The new words rely upon the objective of the test or analysis being satisfactorily achieved, and the objective of the particular test with which the roadside screening test was concerned was to get a reading which reflected the likely level of alcohol in the blood of the subject. I suppose that it does not require a great deal of imagination or scientific understanding to think that a gentleman who is able to get breath from his nostrils immediately into the apparatus will not produce a result that gives any reflection of the state of the alcohol in his blood; I believe that this wording would deal with that problem.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend a question? Did he say that new apparatus is being brought in, because I would like to know how many people in this Chamber have tried to blow up a balloon. It is practically impossible to do—certainly it is very difficult to do with one breath and one hopes that the new apparatus will make it easier.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness explain to a very interested House how she made this experiment and when, and in what circumstances?
Baroness Trumpington: Because, my Lords, I asked if I could—and I believe that every magistrate should be made to blow up one of these balloons, in order to prove how difficult it is to blow one up.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could tell us if the appliance of the type approved by Her Majesty's Government is British-made, or is it of foreign manufacture?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, there are a number of devices approved for the purposes of different tests, and I am not absolutely certain to which appliance the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, is referring. If he is thinking of the new apparatus which it is intended to bring into use shortly, my understanding is that it is a British machine, but I will certainly correct that if I am wrong. I am relying on my memory of the apparatus that was brought to your Lordships' House in order that your Lordships might see it when the main provisions were enacted in the Bill last year.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I asked that question of the noble and learned Lord because I was under the impression that the device which both he and I saw was of American manufacture. I may have misunderstood, but that is why I asked for some clarification.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble and learned friend. When I was at Aldermaston last summer I was shown a number of devices. The laboratory was concentrating on two devices; one was English and the other was an American appliance. It was a matter of some concern to me that when the Government made people aware that they were bringing out these new devices and invited manufacturers to offer machines for testing, many machines came from overseas—particularly from America—but only two machines came from English manufacturers. Since these machines are basically electronically operated there seem to me to be a very grave lack of enterprise on the part of the British electronics industry.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, with the leave of the House I am now able to rely on information other than my own recollections. There are two machines on issue and both of them are made in the United Kingdom. In that sense they are British although one of them is of American origin in the sense that the design and the know-how originated in America. However I understand that both machines are made in the United Kingdom, and I hope that answers the noble Lord's question satisfactorily.
On question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Speed limits]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 34BB:
Page 68, line 34, at end insert—
("() On any trunk or principal road where such a system of lighting as is mentioned in section 72(1) of the 1967 Act (street lighting system of specified density) is provided after 1st November 1982 the road shall not be a restrictive road for the purpose of section 1 of that Act unless an order to that effect is made by the Secretary of State.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may we now return to a matter which we discussed in Committee on the question of Clause 54 stand part. At that time I suggested to my noble friend that this particular provision was a little sneaky. He denied that and during the Recess he provided me and other noble Lords with a great mass of information as to the reasons for the inclusion of Clause 54. I am now quite happy to withdraw the remarks suggesting that the inclusion was sneaky because it is not sneaky and, in the light of everything I have been told, it is really quite desirable. It certainly clarifies the situation relating to speed limits on trunk and classified roads where time and other incidence of local government have made it difficult and perhaps impossible to establish whether the relevant lighting was installed before or after July 1957. It appears to me that this is what the matter hinges upon; whether a restriced trunk or classified road should have s speed limit imposed by virtue of changes in lighting.
I refer now to a letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mrs. Chalker, to the Royal Automobile Club. It would be fair for me to declare an interest at this stage particularly in relation to this amendment, because I am advised by the Royal Automobile Club, who I am also advised have the support of the Automobile Association. In her letter, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State suggested that this provision in the Bill provided a clear basis for establishing speed limits which would stand the passage of time. In her letter, Mrs. Chalker did concede that there were some disadvantages to Clause 54. The major disadvantage which I put before your Lordships is that it results in the automatic imposition of a 30-mile per hour speed limit on trunk and classified roads when street lighting is installed in the future. It may be argued that this is unlikely or will occur in only a few instances because most trunk and classified roads are already lit. I suggest that that is not a good basis, because it means going through the whole paraphernalia of trying to get the law altered after the lights have been installed.
In an article in the Daily Telegraph on 11th November last year the motoring correspondent quotes Mr. Anthony Arman, who is head of the road safety branch of the Department of Transport, as saying:
"Virtually every proposal that comes to us from local pressure groups with regard to lowering speed limits has that effect."
Even if one accepts what the Under-Secretary of State has already said, there could be certain roads where lighting has been installed to which the old provisions do not apply—that is, they would be covered now by Clause 54 but without the opportunity for investigation into the correctness or otherwise of the limitation. Mrs. Chalker suggests that there really is not too much to worry about because local authorities are pretty good about setting realistic limits. I am not so worried about local authorities wishing to set realistic limits but I am very worried about their ability so to do.
Again, quoting from the department's own officer:
"it is extremely difficult to get people to appreciate that lower speed limits necessarily make a major contribution towards safety. The reverse in fact could happen."
So that if the local authority even wished to revert to the position which obtained before the street lights

987
were installed, they might not be able to do so because of the lobby against increased speeds. One might suggest that accepting the necessity to clear up anomalies in the old Act, there is a very grave danger of producing a new set of anomalies which could be—I suggest are—more disadvantageous than the old. I am suggesting in this amendment that, were the Government to accept what is suggested here, that on any trunk or principal road where a system of lighting as mentioned in Section 72(1) of the 1967 Act is provided after November 1982 the road shall not be restricted for the purpose of Section 1—in other words, it retains its old limit, which would probably be 60 miles an hour—it does not automatically come down to 30 miles per hour unless a specific order to that effect is made by the Secretary of State.
I do recognise that it is perhaps a little unfair to put upon the House as complex a matter as this, because this is not quite as simple and straightforward as I hope I have managed to make it sound. If I go into any more debate on the matter, I shall confuse myself and probably other noble Lords as well. I wonder whether, with that explanation—I have given notice of some points—I may ask my noble friend to give us an answer. I hope he will not give the answer that all will be well on the day. I do not think it will. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, when the Question that the Clause stand part was before your Lordships at Committee stage, a number of noble Lords expressed concern about Clause 54, to which the noble Lord proposes this amendment. I would like to express sympathy with the amendment which has been put forward by Lord Lucas. I am certain that none of us want derestriction ad lib; we recognise that there must be restriction where required. On the other hand, we do not want unnecessary restriction. I would draw attention to the fact that the amendment only refers to trunk or principal roads, whereas the Government's Clause 54 really is a blanket coverage, which I am certain is undesirable.
Clause 54 removes the distinction between trunk and unclassified roads; in fact, the notes on clauses stress that that is the purpose of Clause 54. It changes the 1967 Act, which made that clear distinction between classified and unclassified roads. I would still take the view in supporting Lord Lucas's amendment that what we want to avoid is roads which are at present unclassified being automatically covered by this clause with speed limits which are not necessary. I want to make it absolutely clear that I believe that, where a speed limit is essential, it should be imposed, and although some of us from time to time are tempted to break it we should try to keep within the law. But this clause which the Government have put before us could mean automatic coverage of all roads where there is lighting. I do hope the Government, if they cannot accept the wording of the amendment will be prepared to have a careful look at it, because what the Government are proposing is undesirable blanket coverage.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether, while we are dealing with the wording and the meaning of Clause 54, I should be in order in reminding the noble Earl the Minister of something that I ventured to say
988
at column 532 of the Official Report on 14th July. If I may quickly read it, I think it will make the point in a more summarised way:
"May I give [the Minister] just one example of really dreadful draftmanship 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.".
I then did, and I repeat:
"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 said then that, I. as a humble pupil of English at school, was taught to avoid a double negative if I possibly could. I went on to say that I pleaded with the Minister to have a look at it before Report stage. The noble Earl, with his usual courtesy, said
"I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says.".
When the noble Earl replies to this amendment I wonder if he will say whether he took another look, whether he found subsection (4) any more intelligible than I had and whether any consideration is being given at a later stage of the Bill to correct this horrible wording.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this amendment which my noble friend is proposing would restore many of the problems we are trying to resolve through Clause 54. Clause 54 seeks to amend Section 72(2) and (4) of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1967 by removing the distinction currently made between unclassified roads and trunk or classified roads in attaching restricted road status—which attracts a 30 mph speed limit—to a road where a system of street lighting is installed unless and until a direction otherwise is made. Despite its complex appearance, it will actually simplify the law on speed limits.
The object of Clause 54 is to remove, in such a way that they will not recur, uncertainties about the speed limit status of lit trunk or classified roads. Currently this depends on whether lighting was or was not installed before 1st July 1957. But proof of the date of lighting installations is not always available; the road may indeed have been classified when lighting has long been installed; and the public generally may not know whether a road is or is not classified, still less that classification has anything to do as with speed limit status. We believe that the clause as drafted will eliminate these problems while preserving the existing speed limit status, as indicated by the signing arrangements on the ground, of such roads as would otherwise have their status changed as a result of this clause.
It was the distinction introduced in the Road Traffic Act 1956, now re-enacted in Section 72(2) of the 1976 Act, between trunk or classified roads and unclassified roads for the purpose of defining restricted road status, and the introduction of a date—1st July 1957—as the cut-off point for the installation of lighting on trunk or classified roads to determine whether or not they were restricted, which gave rise to the need to amend Section 72. In the 25 years which have elapsed since the 1956 Act provision was introduced there have been major changes in local authority orgnisation. Some once classified roads have been declassified, and vice versa, and the availability of records of lighting

989
installations made decades ago cannot always be relied upon if they are needed in order to prove the restricted status of a trunk or classified road.
My noble friends' amendment would reintroduce the provision of a distinction between different categories of road—in this case distinguishing between trunk and principal roads—and all other roads and a cut-off date of 1st November 1982, related to the installation of a system street lighting. It would, therefore, undermine the long-term simplification pupose of Clause 54 and could only too easily prove to have bequeathed to our successors a problem similar to that which we are now seeking to resolve.
I fully appreciate my noble friend's concern that one of the effects of Clause 54 will be that the 30 miles per hour restricted road speed limit will be imposed automatically on all roads when street lighting is installed. I know he fears that that limit will often be inappropriately low, particularly on many trunk and principal roads. However, speed limits on trunk roads are the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and I can assure the House that the principles of setting speed limits at realistic levels, which he recommends to local highway authorities in the form of criteria for use on their roads, are and certainly will continue to be applied to trunk roads. Responsibility for speed limits on other roads rests primarily with the individual local highway authority concerned, and although their attitudes and local public opinion are still sometimes biased against phrasing any speed limits there is nevertheless a growing awareness of the importance of setting speed limits at the right—that is, the realistic—level.
Much of the trunk and principal road network where street lighting is needed already has lighting systems installed and also appropriate above 30 miles per hour limits in operation. These will be unaffected by Clause 54. We shall be reminding local authorities of the importance of setting speed limits at realistic levels and of the need to take particular care to review the limits on any road where new lighting is to be installed. I cannot offer the House any guarantee that in all cases local highway authorities will take action here necessary to raise speed limits from the imposed 30 miles per hour limit when new street lighting is installed, but I see no reason to suppose that they will not do so in the vast majority of cases.
The understanding on the part of local authorities about the way in which speed limits function is appreciably better than it was when the Road Traffic Act 1956 was brought into force, and certainly in relation to principal roads I have every confidence that they will take such steps as are necessary to raise speed limits when new lighting systems are installed. We shall be sending out a circular and are optimistic that our advice will be followed.
Here I should point out that the number of roads that will have new street lighting installed each year will inevitably be small. This means that the size of the task of adjusting speed limits where necessary as a consequence of this clause will be well within the capacity of all authorities. The far larger task of reviewing generally all existing speed limits which, as I have said, is not yet proceeding in all cases quite as fast as we would like to see it, is a different matter entirely. That requires a major effort by local authorities whereas speed limit changes in the context
990
of a steady programme, of manageable size, for new street lighting should present nothing like the problems of a general review of speed limits on all roads.
To sum up, and I am conscious that I have been long, Clause 54 provides for the elimination of current uncertainties about the speed limit status of certain roads. Further, despite its highly complex appearance—which is transitional and derives from the need to establish the legal status of limits currently signed on these roads—it will actually bring about a considerable simplification of speed limit law, rendering it more comprehensive to drivers, and easing the task of the courts in applying it. My noble friend's amendment would undo the second effect, and I am afraid it could lay the ground for recurrence of the first problem. As he rightly says, we are in correspondence at present with one of the associations that he mentioned—in fact, one letter went out only two days ago. I hope that he will be prepared to look at my explanation to see whether we can get any closer to what we both require.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, amusingly reminded me of what he said at, I think, the Committe stage. I did write to him about it. I am sorry if the noble Lord has not received the letter. It was almost as complicated as the clause itself and so I was even hesitant to sign it. However, I shall see that for the moment my noble friend may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that very full and comprehensive explanation. I do not think that any of us would argue now about the need for Clause 54. Some of us were particulary worried that for the sake of putting right a part, we were going to lose all. In other words, I wonder whether Clause 54 with all its advantages is not outweighed by some of the disavantages.
As I am advised by the Royal Automobile Club and, indeed, as my noble friend has said that he and that association are currently in consultation, I think that the best thing that I can do is leave the matter standing, so that if either side happens to get just a little nearer and a suitable amendment can be inserted at Third Reading, we could do that with total agreement. I am quite sure that my noble friend will be happy to learn that it is not my intention to pursue the matter any further tonight, because I would not like to lose all the advantages that can be gained from Clause 54.
I do not share his optimism with regard to highway authorities. I take the view of the department's own safety officer, that there is a dreadful ignorance about the element of speed with regard to accidents. Speed on its own outside of other conditions is not the criterion, and should a local authority wish to increase a limit from say 40 to 50, as has been done on the Chandler's Ford By-pass, it should be able to be done without the hue and cry that certain anti-speed lobbies make and which invariably win the day because local authorities are not sufficiently strong to withstand it.
I do not think that I can let the opportunity go by without reminding those who happen to read Hansard that motor vehicles are very much safer than they were in 1957, which is the time of the Act to which this

991
clause refers. We must take due regard of that. They have to be more liberal. As road construction, road signing and road lighting improve and as motor vehicles improve, so it is reasonable to take advantage of all those things. Having said that, I shall take advice on what my noble friend has said and I hope that perhaps we can draw a little closer before we come to the last stage of this Bill next week. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton) moved Amendment No. 34CC:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Approval of radar speed measuring devices.
. In section 78A of the 196 7 Act (speeding offences generally) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) On the prosecution of a person for such an offence as aforesaid, evidence of the measurement of any speed by a device designed or adapted for measuring by radar the speed of motor vehicles shall not be admissible unless the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 34CC. In speaking to our Amendment No. 34CC I think that it would be useful, if your Lordships agree, if I might also speak to Amendments Nos. 35A, 35D and 35T in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
As I see it, the Government amendments and those of the noble Lords who have subscribed the other amendments, are aimed in their different ways at the same objective—creating some form of Government control over the radar equipment used to detect speeding offences. I said when the House last discussed this matter that I would look carefully to see whether the Government could move towards satisfying the anxieties expressed in the House and I recall, if I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that, in his concluding contribution to that debate, he said;
"I want something in the Bill to the effect that the Secretary of State approves the equipment".—[Official Report, 15/7/82; col. 544.]
and he said that he hoped for movement from the Government but that it might be necessary to table an amendment for Report as what he described as a "precautionary measure".
If your Lordships accept the Government's amendment your Lordships will have in the Bill something to the effect that the Secretary of State approves the equipment. The amendment down in my name represents the results of my consideration of this matter and our efforts to meet the wishes expressed in the House. Despite the resource difficulties which the decision represents, it would be right to provide for Home Office examination and approval of this equipment. I should make it clear that, in moving this amendment, I am in no sense departing from the position that I held before, that I am satisfied that the equipment currently used by the police is adequate to the task provided that it is used properly. The purpose of agreeing to approval of this equipment by the Secretary of State is not to cast doubt on the equipment in use, but, as the House asked, to provide that the public should be assured as to the accuracy of the equipment.
The two amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend Lord Lucas tackle this problem in different ways, but both wish to do so by way of regulations. As I understand it my noble friend would like to give the Secretatry of State power to prescribe operating instructions. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would like to tie the approval to regulations, and in turn to British Standards for design and operating. If I may, I will rehearse our misgivings about tackling this issue by way of regulations. I can see the attraction of the proposition to the House, but we have to bear in mind a number of things. First, the example that has been urged on us since these debates began is that of the approval system that is used for breath-testing equipment. This is not done by regulations and the reason is that for this kind of purpose regulations are unwieldly and inflexible. It would mean that every time the design of the equipment was changed there would have to be a statutory process, and, on the operating side, every time a new procedure was approved, there would have to be more regulations. It takes a long time to make regulations. This is a slow and time wasting process. Furthermore, it would mean that the operation of radar—speed checks could become as vulnerable to unmeritorious technical defences as the drink and driving legislation has been in the past. In the end, as I have said before, one has to rely on the operator of a piece of equipment to do his job properly; you cannot hedge him about with statutory procedures. You can give him good equipment, adequate training and guidance and thereafter it is for the courts to assess whether or not the evidence he obtained was good evidence. As the case of Mr. Hughes, which was quoted before, shows, the courts are quite capable of deciding where the evidence is not satisfactory; so there is no need to surround the issue with regulations.
I would now like to turn to the question of a British Standard which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has included in his amendment. As your Lordships know, the British Standards Institute very kindly gave advice to the police and the Home Office as to what would be involved in setting a standard for this equipment, since at that time we felt unable to take on this task ourselves. Now that we propose to do so in our amendment, I hope it would be agreed that the standards that will be achieved in the Home Office Scientific Research and Development Branch will be satisfactory. This after all, is what we were asked to do by the campaigners on this issue. What we propse is that the branch will examine all the radar devices currently in use and advise the Secretary of State as to the appropriateness of approving the equipment; the need to issue guidance on operating procedures and training will also be considered.
Finally, I would like to mention the clause on radio interference in Lord Underhill's amendment, and the amendment in his and Lord Mishcon's names. These would both have the same result,—whether intentionally or not I am not entirely certain—of outlawing the current generation of equipment for the time being. I should make it clear that, as I understand it, the equipment cannot be rendered wholly free of the effects of radio interference at the present state of the art; what it can do is incorporate design features that will make it clear to the operator that interference is

993
occurring. That was the advice I was given by officials as I was preparing for this debate.
Knowing your Lordshops' anxieties, I thought that I had better test it in the field in order to see for myself both the likelihood of a false signal being received and also to see how easy it would be to detect it. I had already used the equipment before our Committee stage debate in quite heavy traffic and found it simple to use and to understand. However, before this stage of the debate I had a standard current model of the equipment, such as has featured prominently in this controversy, sent to our laboratory so that they could advise the police how the generate a false signal under field conditions so that I could actually see one, which I had failed to do before in among true readings, in the same way that a policemen would see it when using the equipment on duty.
The result of this request was as interesting to me as I hope it will be to your Lordships. I was told that the scientists in question operated radio transmitters in very close proximity to the device, over a wide frequency range including CB radio on legal and illegal bands, AM and FM bands, but were unable to cause the device to malfunction. At no time did the radio transmission interfere with the readings from target vehicles. Therfore, I did not stand in the rain trying to do the same thing myself.
I am advised furthermore by those experienced in this field—and I mean very experienced—that it is an exceedingly rare occurrence, and that the reading then shown has a distinctive "flutter" effect and canot be confused with a normal Doppler signal, as it is called. That test was applied only to the equipment principally under discussion, which I understand to account for about 60 per cent. of the instruments in use. Similar doubts may be held about other types which together account for the remaining 40 per cent. I believe that fewer people have reservations about them, and to them I would say that I am assured by those familiar with the full range of equipment that they are of at least the reliability of that which I have described.
So much for my own inquiries, I think they prove that though misleading signals may be generated they are very difficult to generate, do not often happen and are easily detected. I revert now to what I said a moment ago. One cannot absolutely guarantee an instrument to be free from interference. One can guarantee that it is made known to the operator. Clearly, in considering any guidance, my right honourable friend will approve only those which do make interference signals known to the operator. I would have thought that this would be adequate to meet the needs of justice.
If we turn to the wording of Lord Underhill's amendment, however, we find that even this would not be sufficient and that no currently used equipment could be approved under its terms, even if it is of the reliability I have just described. The joint amendment also complements this by providing that these provisions would come into force immediately the Bill receives Royal Assent. Even if there were time to meet the other conditions of the main amendments on achieving a British standard for design and operation and making regulations based on them before this date, the prospect of achieving a design breakthrough banning interference altogether is remote.
The amendment would thus remove the equipment altogether from the police. I do not believe that noble Lords want this. Speeding is a serious offence. It is not just serious, my Lords. Under certain circumstances it actually kills people—motorists and non-motorists alike. Deaths and injuries on the roads are a major problem. We ought not to be reducing the capacity of the police to enforce the law. We have already made it clear that we think that the equipment in use does a satisfactory job, and there are no grounds for withdrawing it in advance of approval by the Secretary of State. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will accept the amendment I put before you as a constructive and practical attempt to meet the anxieties expressed by the public on this matter and in your Lordships' House. My right honourable friend will provide for the evaluation and approval of the equipment, and we will also issue guidance to chief officers both on the proper use and on the proper maintenance of the equipment. I commend this amendment to your Lordships.
9.29 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, may I, in dealing with the Government amendment, also speak to my own Amendment No. 35A. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for the attention he has given to this matter since our last discussion at the Committee stage. Having said that, I have looked carefully at what I said at various stages in the discussion on this matter in an amendment I moved at the Committee stage, and I am still prepared to say that what the Government are proposing is not fully what I wanted. Perhaps I can elaborate upon that. The important thing is the approval of a standard. In all the references I made in our last debate I asked whether it would be a certificate of the British Standards Institution or, in any event, a proper British standard. It was that which I wanted to have approved by the Secretary of State.
The Government amendment is a great step forward. I readily acknowledge that. The reference is to a type approved, whereas I wanted to make it quite clear that the equipment must be of an approved standard. It would be most unfortunate if a Government amendment were passed and approval given to all equipment at present in use. I am not an expert—I do not think many in the House are—but there is not the slightest doubt (this was stressed in Committee) that a large number of prosecutions have failed because of evidence about the equipment used or because the prosecutions have been withdrawn as a result of points made on the evidence used. It would be unfortunate therefore if approving a Government amendment meant that approval was given to all equipment now being used in the various police offices.
I readily agree with the Minister that we must give the police every possible assistance. I agree of course that speeding can be terribly dangerous. We all know that. Equally, we must ensure that people are prosecuted on sound evidence, and it was that with which I was concerned when I moved my amendment in Committee and it is what I am seeking to achieve in my amendment today. If my facts are correct, the construction and use regulations which we now have

995
are changed at very regular intervals because of new construction and use aspects of motor vehicles. Therefore, there should be no problem in dealing with the matter. In my view, it is essential that there are regulations, and I hope the standards will be prescribed by the BSI and approved by the Secretary of State. The BSI has a high reputation and is held in general esteem.
I note that it is proposed that the TRRL shall carry out the tests. Can the Minister say whether they will meet the criteria set out in my amendment? It is essential that we know the facts and that we may be assured that the equipment will be up to a performance, not just a test, standard. It should be up to an operating standard, and I agree with the Minister, on the question of operation, that it is as important as the actual equipment; both aspects are important. The BSI has kindly sent me documents setting out the various types of standard that can be determined. I hope the Government will recognise that a performance standard is essential. Equally, an operating standard is essential. The amendment refers to both and to the need for proper maintenance of the equipment. That is another essential.
The Association of Chief Police Officers stated their minimum requirements for any equipment way back in 1980, and even previous to then. It is clear from the various court actions throughout the country, of which the Minister will be better aware than I, that the requirements are not fully met by the equipment now in use. Of a recent case in which a defendant withdrew an appeal, solicitors have said it is clear from a memorandum of the Association of Chief Police Officers that there exist documents on the accuracy of the present equipment and that the Home Office wants to bring pressure on ACPO to adopt a British standard. I hope that is correct because it is a British standard that I want, as is mentioned in my amendment.
It is known that a national conference to discuss the police use of hand-held radar equipment was held at Derbyshire police headquarters on 6th July this year. I was delighted to learn that such a conference was held. Can the Minister confirm that at the conference reference was made to the views of solicitors that I have already mentioned concerning the attitude of the Home Office to a British standard? Will the Minister also confirm that the Home Office has expressed to ACPO a wish that there should be a British standard? I understand that that was stated in a document presented to the national conference, but I have no firm information on that.
The amendment makes it quite clear that we want a British standard. I believe that the Government amendment goes part of the way, but it does not fully meet the requirements that we have in mind, bearing in mind the important considerations involved. There are two important considerations. One is that the police should have the best possible equipment with which to do the job. The other is that the persons who are being prosecuted, and the public, should have full confidence in the equipment that is being used. It is clear that at the moment the public do not have full confidence in the equipment being used, and I believe
996
that we shall achieve that only if we have a British standard as laid down in my amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, since my noble friend the Minister has spoken to his own amendment, No. 34CC, as well as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, No. 35A, and my own amendment, No. 35D, I think that it would be most helpful if I, too, were, so to speak. I welcome what my noble friend has said and I welcome his amendment, so far as it goes, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I do not think that it goes far enough. At the outset the Government did not accept the principle of governmental responsibility with regard to appliances used by the police forces. That was said in 1981. Due I believe to the general pressure that has been brought to bear on them during the last 12 to 18 months, the Government have now accepted some element of responsibility with regard to the instruments that are to be used.
When the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, speaks of performance standards and operating standards I think back to my technical college days and suggest that that is in fact the wrong way in which to deal with the matter. What I believe has happened with regard to a number of the appliances is that the makers have claimed that they can do a certain job, whereas I believe that the Government should start right at the other end and say, "This is the job that has to be done; now design to meet that criteria". Instead of that, however, I believe that manufacturers are claiming performance criteria and we are fixing the law around that.
When I was abroad during the Recess I spoke with chief police officers in a number of states in two countries, and they told me that they had virtually abandoned this particular method of detecting a speeding offence because it was so unreliable. It was unreliable in the hands of the operator, who at certain times, under certain conditions, became excited. My noble friend the Minister said that he observed certain tests and that scientists were unable to detect the kind of defects in the machinery which some people had claimed existed. It always fascinates me to see in television advertising of motor cars, refrigerators and so on how the products are taken to the Arctic and are subjected to all kinds and manner of tests to prove their worthiness for the purpose for which they are being sold. But put them in the hands of Mr. Joe Bloggins, Mr. Average Motorist, Mr. Average Householder, and Mr. Average Policeman, and the complaints come up, the failures arise. So, with the very greatest respect to my noble friend, I cannot place too much reliance on that argument.
My noble friend spoke about the danger of reducing the power of the police. Of course, he certainly would not accuse myself or my noble friends of wishing to do that; but if the public at large, particularly the motoring public, are to have faith and confidence in the police they must have faith and confidence in the methods and in the machinery that the police use. There is now, because of developments which have been made with regard to breath-testing appliances used in relation to drinking and driving offences, a generally accepted view. That does not pertain where radar measuring devices are concerned, and it would

997
be wrong, I suggest, to pursue this matter while such doubt lingers.
There is another aspect. Suppose the police decide to conduct a campaign (and why not?) to apprehend speeding motorists and employ a hand-held device, and suppose the policeman were to step from behind a parked motor car or a police box, a bollard or a street sign, holding an appliance at arm's length. I believe that in this horrible day, this wretched day of hooliganism and guns and suchlike, there are many people who at that particular moment of time may think, "Good heavens—what is this? Is this an offensive weapon?", and who may put their foot on the accelerator and go like hell out of it. My noble friend Lord Mottistone laughs, and I see a smile from the noble Lord across the other side of the House, but that is a real fear because people are now thinking this way.
So, again, we have to ensure that there is proper training instruction, and it is in fact my amendment with which I am particularly concerned. While accepting what my noble friend's amendment says, I am particularly concerned with my own. It is one which I in fact put down a couple of years ago, and it is one which is certainly not provided for in any other part of the Bill. It is that which says:
"The Secretary of State…may prescribe by regulations the procedures to be undertaken when using radar meters or other technical devices to obtain evidence",
and so on.
I appreciate that, as my noble friend says, where the device is to undergo changes it would be onerous to keep coming back to Parliament to alter the regulations, but you do not have to alter the regulations when you set down the procedures for training and usage. That is what I am asking, and that is what I believe should be incorporated in the Government's amendment. I very much hope that my noble friend can take on board and have regard to the factors I have mentioned, and try to broaden this thing out a hit so that we have a little more confidence and a little more control.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a similar question to that which I asked in the debate on a previous amendment concerning the type approval by the Secretary of State. Is the noble Lord able to say what percentage of the existing apparatus or instruments used by the police are of British manufacture and what percentage are foreign-made, and what percentage of the devices which will be type approved by the Secretary of State will be of British manufacture? I ask this of all the devices referred to in the Bill (I forgot, I regret to say, on the clamp) because I feel that British manufacturers should have a chance at least to participate in the various devices which are recommended and, indeed, made law under this Bill.
The other thing is that, quite honestly, with electronics, if they are made in a nice dry climate like that in California I am not entirely convinced that they are designed to suit the British climate, and often they do not work very well. Electronics are particularly susceptible to bad weather, to being dropped and jumped on, and, indeed, to the torrential rain that we get from time to time in this country. I must admit that I am slightly surprised to find contained in this Bill,
998
and in the noble Lord's presentation of the amendment (excellently done, and I can see the thinking behind it) his undying faith in the reliability of these instruments or any instruments using electronics and the Doppler effect today. I just wonder whether he wanted to be the devil's advocate when he took the trouble personally to supervise the testing of this in the Home Office laboratories. If he wanted to see what was happening and threw in the air a handful of silver paper or tinfoil instead of squirting CB radio transmissions at it, then I would be very surprised if this device worked as well. But this is just a minor point. It is not infallible.
I think it may well be worth reminding the House (and I believe it is true) that the term "unidentified flying object" first arose out of defence radar recording objects travelling far faster than any aeroplane known or built at that time, and gave credence to the feeling that there were alien people about. This was a scientific proof and at that stage they were using exactly the same principles as are incorporated in these devices which the police are going to use. I appreciate that they must be used, and used effectively, but let us be quite sensible about this. Because they are used by policemen on the road, because the Home Office has done its utmost to make them as dependable as possible and because hopefully they are British made, it does not mean to say that they are going to work all the time at 100 per cent. efficiency.
They are going to go wrong. I should like to feel that the officers using these devices will also use all their other senses as well before making prosecutions and that the law is not going to go this way, relying completely on electronics in order to get prosecutions for breathalising or for speeding or for any other matter. Those of us who have any experience of these devices know that they can go wrong, in which case justice will go wrong on many occasions simply because the man has not read the hook properly or is not operating it correctly or, as the noble Lord, Lord Underwood, has said, the device itself is faulty or has become so for one reason or another.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for going some way towards what I asked for when we discussed this point at the Committee stage. I think, as do many noble Lords, that he has not gone far enough. It is one thing to get type approval; but it is spelled out (perhaps rather too lengthily) in Lord Underhill's amendment and it is not good enough. We must have operating standards, training, maintenance and calibration particularly in this area. The Secretary of State must go further than just to approve the type because the type takes us only a short part of the way. It has been spelled out much more fully by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and by my noble friend Lord Lucas. I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister will pay due attention to this and perhaps come back to us at a later stage filling in the gaps on the staff point and what is going in the right direction.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, we all want to use every legitimate means to stop speeding, but when the Minister shows such reluctance to do this by regulations, I think he is making rather heavy weather of it; because how else is a person to know whether a

999
device is an approved device? If you are about to be prosecuted on the evidence of a device and you suspect that it has not been approved or that it is rather an old model which may have been withdrawn from approval, how are you to know? How is the Home Secretary's approval conveyed? Is it by circular to chief constables?
If so, is the accused person entitled to have from the chief constable the circular letter to check for himself that the device is approved? I should have thought that the only satisfactory way of doing this was to enable him to go to the public library and consult the relative statutory instrument, to look at the list and to satisfy himself that the device used in his case was an approved device.
The Minister said that it is very inconvenient doing this by regulation because you have to make frequent additions, and so on. And so you do; but it can be done. In the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments about once a month we have yet another statutory instrument adding some brand of anthracite to the list of fuels that can be used in built-up areas. No doubt this is very inconvenient, but it can be done. There has to be some way in which the person who is going to be prosecuted can be satisfied that the device used was indeed approved at that time by the Minister. I suppose he can write to the Ministry and ask about it. He may or may not get a reply before his case comes before the magistrates. I should have thought that the regulation is the only proper means of conveying to the people the up-to-date list of approved devices.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the debate can be completed—subject obviously to any noble Lord wanting to say anything after I have sat down—by covering another aspect to which the Minister referred. That is the inference from Amendment No. 35T. There is a misprint in the Marshalled List, incidentally. It should read:
"page 73, line 29, …"
and not
"line 9".
The inference is a rather serious one; namely, that we would want the regulations for which we are asking to be there on the passing of the Act, which may mean that in an interim period the device could not be used for evidentiary purposes.
May I make it perfectly clear that, as I understand it, this amendment requires that regulations should set out the standard and thereafter every instrument would have to comply with that standard, and so there would be no great need for the consultation of libraries or anything else regarding this matter. Indeed, it would be very much more simple. May I refer your Lordships back to the point that was made so emphatically from the Front Bench opposite when we were dealing with penalty notices, regarding the necessity to keep as many cases as possible from the magistrates' courts, and the need, too, to try to see that those proceedings were speeded up when they did come to court.
I can tell your Lordships this with I think fair certainty: if you have in this Bill the Government clause as it is passed tonight but you do not have
1000
anything else at all, I can assure you that every time the existing device is used and there is a prosecution in respect of it, those who belong to my profession and who have to argue a defence to such a speeding case will point to this new clause and will say that of itself it shows that there is doubt about the validity of the present device and therefore the court cannot possibly act in regard to it.
I say that because it is a very relevant argument to use, that it is not going to incur any very great hardship in regard to prosecutions if indeed one makes it essential that the regulations to which my noble friend's amendment refers are effective on the passing of this Act and are so prepared. Also, we ought to take into account the very words that the Minister used in regard to the function of this instrument. At col. 542 of the Official Report of 15th July, on Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said:
"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."
Therefore that means, obviously, that prosecutions for speeding can take place without the necessity for this corroboration by an instrument which has been held in many cases to be defective and which, in the case that was quoted at Committee stage, was in fact a bar to a conviction of the motorist concerned. So I think what we are trying to do by this amendment of my noble friend is to make it perfectly clear that there should be a standard. We are not interested, if I may say so with respect, in vague words such as "an approved type" by a Secretary of State.
We are doing absolutely no harm but only good to the administration of justice if what we do is to say, "until that is done this instrument is not deemed by us to be an effective corroborative bit of evidence in speeding cases". That means that we are taking hold of the problem and we are solving it. We are not doing what the Government amendment at present does, which is to go halfway down the road on a most unsatisfactory journey, because, as I say, it will form the basis of argument in court from now until kingdom come, until we do our job properly. Therefore I do hope that this amendment will be supported. It would quite obviously he very much better if the noble Lord the Minister could find it within him to say encouraging words which would enable the amendment to proceed or to be withdrawn, as the case may be.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we have had what has been for me a fascinating debate in two respects. It has revealed to me a little more about the nature of the radar speed test and a great deal more about the nature of this House, because your Lordships have not been as reassured as I had hoped by what I have said; nor have they recognised quite the extent, in present circumstances, of the success represented by a Minister leaving this House with a request to spend more money and then actually coming back with modest but necessary resources in order to pursue a policy which he and the department had been persuaded by your Lordships' eloquence at an earlier stage to accept.

1001
Perhaps I can help to reassure your Lordships a little further by reference to several points made during the debate. A good deal has been made of the complexity of the court procedure which might result from the use of the instruments we are discussing. In fact it would always be open to the defence to challenge the prosecution, and the police would then have to produce the approval order which would have been published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. As to the testing of the instruments, I am advised that this could be done on an individual basis, and so it is not a question of saying: "We like the design: go ahead and make it." It is a case of saying: "Here is something that works: you may use it."
If that authority is given, that is an indication to the court that appropriate equipment is being used. If it is used by a man who leaps out from behind a double-decker bus, as my noble friend suggested, then I would have thought the effect would not be to cause the driver to accelerate towards the instrument if he really thought it was a gun, but to stand on the brakes and reverse; because the normal procedure is to stand out in the road a very considerable distance in front of the vehicle, make sure there is nothing else in the field of effect travelling in the same direction at a comparable distance, press the button and take the reading. All that takes time, and, as it is not normal for gangsters who are about to execute an innocent, if rapidly travelling, Peer, to stand at the edge of the road in such a prominent manner, usually in police uniform, waving something which does not look very much like a gun, one would not then expect him to shoot by at accelerated speed.
I accept that every instrument devised by man can be misused in some way, as can a stop-watch or the most rudimentary pieces of equipment. When the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, says that when PC Bloggs gets it in his hand it is likely to malfunction, I can only say that a lot of close associates of PC Bloggs have been trying to do this for some time and without success. But I repeat that it would be the intention of my right honourable friend to see that the instruments were evaluated and to bring this into effect thereafter.
At an earlier stage, my noble friend was concerned about how long all this was going to take and I was teased quite a hit about being unwilling to say anything. It would take some months, but we believe that the process could be completed in less than 12 months. That being so, I think that the Government have changed not only their policy but their pace and they deserve credit therefor. I think that proper credit should be given to the quality of the scientists involved. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, inferred that this was the TRRL. I am talking about the Home Office scientists who work on the breath testing equipment and who have an international reputation, and I should have thought that your Lordships could count on the work being properly done at that end.
I did, indeed, say at an earlier stage that the function of the instrument is to corroborate the opinion of a policeman or to disabuse him. If he finds that the vehicle is recorded on the machine as going much less fast than he thought, it is an indication to him not to stop it as it goes by, but to get his own eye in a bit better. It is also worth saying that the corroborative evidence given by the instrument accelerates the court process. It provides valuable assistance to the courts.
1002
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to cases where evidence from the machine which has been subject to the criticism and questioning of your Lordships and many others through the media, has been rejected by some courts. I have made inquiries about this and there is no large or sustained body of courts refusing this evidence. If there were, I should know of it.
I do not want to detain your Lordships long. I was told that I might expect to move this amendment as six this evening; we are now creaking past ten. I have said—and I will stand by this—that we think that the police should have an instrument that not only they, but the courts and the public, can trust. We have, therefore, undertaken to produce a validating scheme, which we were asked to do at the last stage. I have said that we will also circularise—I think my noble friend would like to do it by regulation; I should have thought that your Lordships could trust my right honourable friend in this—with guidance to all chief constables, the way in which each sort of machine should be used, the way it should be looked after and the frequency, which I believe at present is annual, at which it should be sent in for checking the calibrations. I do not want to go into detail, which is why I want to stay out of regulations. But one way of doing this would be to ensure, when you authorise the use of an instrument, that that instrument not only performs as it should, but also carries the correct instructions with it as to how it should be used and looked after.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, suggested that we ought to start with terms of reference and a design requirement and then work to that. Our requirement is very simple. We wish to have an instrument which will bear out, or contradict, the judgment of a police officer as to the speed at which a vehicle is approaching him or departing. And, if it is departing, I concede to my noble friend that if the chap saw in the mirror something which he thought looked like a pistol he might go a little faster. But it would be rather late for that.
That is all we want. We wish to ensure that the things manufacturers put to us are capable of doing the job. Some are made abroad; some of them are not. I cannot be more precise to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. I share his interest and I shall write to him when I have the answer, because I am particularly interested that we should support British industry, where that can be done in the public interest.
If I go on longer, all I shall do is to convince noble Lords of my patience and their impatience. I have said all I can. The Government have moved a long way. We have committed resources and we have changed a principle. I believe that what we offer will give justice in the courts, confidence to the public and a useful instrument to the police, and will speed the judicial process. I earnestly beg your Lordships to support the amendment.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, can he help me over one matter? He rejects regulations and says that, instead, approval orders will be published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Will these approval orders be available in places like public libraries where members of the public can consult them, in the same way as they can

1003
consult regulations? If so, I shall be very much consoled, because I want the public to know about these devices being approved.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can think of no more agreeable occupation than consoling the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. Resources may be involved. Will the noble Lord forgive me if I answer him somewhat slowly in order that I can be absolutely confident that what I am about to say to him will be not only relevant but accurate and useful? It may be that what eventually I have to say will take longer than I thought it was going to take.
As I said earlier, it is open to the defence to ask the police to prove that the equipment they are using is approved equipment. The duty, then, rests with the police. It would be quite reasonable to have a modest publicity campaign to make it known to all concerned (this need cost very little, because your Lordships will doubtless be doing it naturally through the columns of the press in due course) that this is a procedure which is advised. They can then obtain this information. If I am later advised that this can go to public libraries, I shall not only send copies there; I shall also send two spare copies to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.8 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 35A:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Speed measuring equipment.
. There shall be inserted after section 78A of the 1967 Act the following section—
Speed measuring equipment
.—(1) Where proceedings for any speeding offence are commenced after the coming into operation of this section, evidence of the speed of a motor vehicle ascertained by means of a reading from a radar speed measuring equipment shall not be admissible in evidence against the person so charged unless the equipment 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.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) shall

(a) provide that radar measuring equipment shall conform to a performance standard prescribed by the British Standards Institution;

(b) provide that radar speed measuring equipment shall be operated in accordance with an operating standard prescribed by the British Standards Institution;

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

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

(3) without prejudice to subsection (2) 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 equipment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Government amendment has been agreed to, I imagine that I am not entitled to press my
1004
amendment. However, we shall look carefully at what the noble Lord has said. It may be possible at the next stage of the Bill to improve the Government amendment which has just been carried.
[Amendment No. 35A not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 35B:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Dazzling lights.
. It shall be an offence punishable summarily by a fine not exceeding £100 so to position a floodlight or other light or sign adjacent to the highway so as to dazzle or otherwise to endanger motorists or other road users and a local authority shall be empowered to require the removal or repositioning of such light or sign at its entire discretion.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first may I apologise to the House for the fact that an amendment of this kind was not brought forward at the Committee stage. Those who have advised me on this matter did so when it was too late to put down an amendment. It is quite a simple matter. We are asking for Amendment No. 35B to be inserted after Clause 54 so that it shall be a punishable offence to position a floodlight or any other light or sign adjacent to the highway so as to dazzle or interfere with road users.
If this is already provided for, then I shall naturally be only too happy to withdraw the amendment. However, many noble Lords will have had the same experience as I have had when driving particularly when I was on holiday recently. One finds a very strong red light appearing to come from a house. One cannot ascertain whether it is a traffic light. Sometimes it is just appearing above a traffic light. That is, of course, a very dangerous thing. This is something for which I believe we need some provision and I hope that the Government either will feel that they can accept this amendment or will indicate that they will bring something of their own forward on Third Reading.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, while I agree with the spirit of this new clause, because clearly we do not want motorists to be blinded by bright lights, at the moment the Government do not feel that a general enactment of such is warranted. Two local authorities—South Yorkshire and West Midlands County Councils—already have powers, similar to those proposed by this clause, in their rationalisation Acts, and I understand that Lancashire is seeking them in their present Bill. However, we have not discovered sufficiently widespread demand for such powers to warrant their inclusion in a general highways law.
In many respects, too, the clause is unnecessary because the positioning of permanent lights and signs is already covered by planning and advertisement controls, which also apply to flood-lighting. Therefore, its scope would be limited to temporary lighting and signs. Perhaps I should also point out that the clause does have defects in its drafting. It does not say, for instance, who should be liable for the offence—the contractor, landowner or person who put up the light; nor is the local authority given guidance on how to require the removal or relocation of the offending light; and, there is an absence of information on how the clause is to be enforced.
Incidently, I am informed that the correct term for dazzle is "glare"; it is possible to suffer from the disability "glare"—which is an optically known

1005
fact—or from the discomfort of glare, which can simply cause annoyance. However, I am not trying to pick holes of this nature in the clause. Obviously, we are sympathetic to it but we feel that it is to a large extent already covered. Bearing in mind what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that at the moment such a requirement is not necessary.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. The fact that two local authorities already have this provision and that another local authority is possibly considering seeking this provision does indicate that there is some concern about it. Even though the noble Earl says there is not sufficient evidence of widespread demand, at least certain local authorities feel the problem is sufficient to justify seeking these powers. Maybe the noble Earl will keep in mind that at the appropriate time the local authority associations should be consulted about this, as to whether the town and country planning powers to which he referred are sufficient.
If I interpreted the noble Earl's remarks correctly, he was referring to advertisement controls. But there can be dazzle or glare from sources other than advertisements. I readily accept what the noble Earl has said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I should like to emphasise again that the fact that some authorities consider this is something which require attention and that the Government should at the appropriate time seek consultation with local authorities as to whether this is something about which there should be national legislation—and not wait for local authorities themselves to seek local powers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.14 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 35C:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment to Highways Act 1980
The following section shall be inserted after section 174 of the Highways Act 1980—
Duty to ensure adequate traffic signs placed at the site of roadworks. 1980 c. 66.
"174A.—(1) A local authority shall ensure that in respect of any roadworks of any road under their jurisdiction, there are, at the site of those works, signs place to warn and guide traffic sufficient to meet the requirements of Chapter 8 of the Department of Transport's Traffic Signs Manual.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the requirement to place road signs shall include a requirement to provide at the site of the roadworks, a sign, clearly visible to road users giving the following information:

(a) the name and address of the contractor

(b) the name and address of the site foreman

(c) the telephone number of the contractor for daytime contact

(d) the telephone number of the contractor for nighttime contact

(e) where applicable, the name of the local authority or statutory undertaker for whom the contractor is working.

(3) Failure to discharge the duty imposed by subsection (1) or to meet the requirement specified in subsection (2) shall be an offence punishable on summary conviction with a fine not exceeding £500.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to that which was proposed in another place—not to the Transport Bill but to the Local
1006
Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill—as recently as 3rd February this year. Mr. Bob Cryer MP, who introduced the amendment, referred to a survey carried out by the Automobile Association as recently as April and May 1981, when representatives of that association visited some 433 sites where road works were in progress and reported that 49 per cent. of these were inadequately signed. At that time, the Minister pointed out that the purpose of the amendment was not apposite to local legislation; in other words, he was thinking more that it should be national legislation. The Minister agreed on the importance of having roadworks adequately signed and protected, but he put the view that adequate safeguards are already there in present legislation. He criticised the amendment, that it would require contractors to give much detailed information. I shall be very happy if the noble Earl would say that there are too many details required in my amendment and the Government propose to put forward something of their own. I shall he happy to accept that position.
But then the Minister said that anything of this kind could prove dangerously distracting to drivers. That indicates that the Minister never properly comprehended what was being proposed. What was made quite clear by the Member of the other place who proposed the amendment was that these details should be contained in a notice in cellophane or other waterproof materials, in the same way that one sees small notices on temporary scaffolding when works are being performed. We are not proposing that all these details should be on a massive sign that motorists should look at as they go along. That seems to suggest that the Minister in the other place had not comprehended what was being proposed.
The Minister concluded that Mr. Cryer had highlighted a number of features which he said he would draw to the attention of the Secretary of State. But he reiterated that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was not the appropriate place for this to be dealt with. I am certain it will be agreed that a Transport Bill is the appropriate place for this to be dealt with. I do not know what the attitude of the Secretary of State was when the Minister drew his attention to the points raised, but it seems to me to be a necessary amendment. If there is any problem concerning road works the information is readily available to emergency services and the police by the simple notice proposed in the amendment. I would like to hear the Government's attitude. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I will try to satisfy the noble Lord that the new clause is unnecessary. In subsection (1) I believe that the requirements he proposes are already met.
It is proposed that Section 174 of the Highways Act 1980 he amended to require Chapter 8 of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport's traffic signs manual—which is at the moment advisory—to be made mandatory. We are all agreed on the importance of' having road works adequately signed and protected. Chapter 8, along with additional technical advice notes which the department issues to local authorities from time to time, explains how this should be done. The chapter does not lay down requirements; it is not possible to specify these with legal precision for all the varying

1007
circumstances that may be met at road works sites. Section 174(1) of the Highways Act 1980 and Section 8 of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 require any person executing works in a street (not just a local authority) to sign, guard and light roadworks properly. Failure to do so is an offence punishable by a fine. Observance or failure to observe Chapter 8 can be brought in evidence before a court in respect of an alleged offence of this kind.
Now we turn to subsection (2), this would require contractors to install not necessarily on signs clearly visible, but on some piece of information, what is going on on the site. The purpose is to enable those responsible for the works to be contacted speedily in an emergency, or if the works are seen to be inadequately protected they could equally well be contacted. Any such emergency can and should be referred to the police. They have power themselves to remedy any defects of signing or protection. They also have power to prosecute for failure to provide adequate protection, and their direct involvement in this way provides them with an opportunity to decide whether the reported deficiency is serious enough to warrant them taking proceedings against the offender. Indeed, Section 21 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1982 now enables them to do so without having first to seek the Attorney General's written consent.
I hope once again that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, may feel in the first part that there is adequate protection and, in the second, that the requirement is perhaps of doubtful value as the police now have the power to prosecute. Having said that, he did produce a reason that I had not thought of—whether the police actually do normally know who the contractor is. I should like to check on that as it is a point I have not met previously. However, I hope that I have said enough to enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the noble Earl and I readily accept, my Lords, that there are powers to ensure that such roadworks are properly signed, lit and guarded. However, the main point of the amendment concerns the giving of information and as to who is the contractor, where he can be contacted and so on. That is essential information in an emergency. I am grateful to the noble Lord for agreeing to check whether that information is actually required at the moment. That is the important point, that there should be information readily available. There could be a gas leak, a gas explosion, or anything. It could be a dangerous road subsidence on road works and the police need information as to where the contractors can be contacted. On the Minister's assurance, which I readily accept, that he will check that point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35D not moved.]
Lord Strathcarron Lord Strathcarron moved Amendment No. 35DA:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of s. 107 of 1972 Act.
There shall be inserted into section 107(2)(b) of the 1972 Act, after "regulations", the following words—
1008
"including exemption in special circumstances from any restriction of the right to ride a motor-cycle because a test has not been passed within a period of two years following the issue of a provisional licence";").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to protect the interests of motor-cyclists who, through no fault of their own, are unable to take their test within the two year period and, as matters stand at present, if they do not pass the test they lose their licence for a year. Examples which come to mind are a motor-cyclist posted abroad on military service, a prolonged illness and even extremely bad weather for a period of two or three months in winter. All these might be genuine reasons why a motor-cyclist could not take his test. I should like my noble friend's assurance that each case will be considered on its merits and that it is the Government's intention to treat kindly such cases.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, may I give my noble friend Lord Strathcarron some support. My noble friend said that it could be a question of the motor-cyclist losing his licence, but it is more than that. If he does not pass the test at the end of two years he is deprived from riding. Since there are very few circuits in which a motor-cyclist can train or practice that do not come under the Road Traffic Acts he would be extremely seriously disadvantaged. The lazy and the idle man we are not worried about. The amendment covers the chap who is accidentally disadvantaged or prejudiced by events outside his control.
We are also particularly concerned that, while there might well be adequate provision, or provisions which might adequately be used, I should not like to think that the Government will say, "This is not likely to occur for some time because of so-and-so." but should a motor-cyclist bring a case forward after that time we would not have done our job if the answer to the motor-cyclist is, "We are sorry for you, but Parliament has made no provision for this particular circumstance—goodbye." So my noble friend is looking quite a long way ahead. I would hope that my noble friend the Minister would also look far ahead and give us the assurance for which my noble friend Lord Strathcarron is looking.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, my noble friend has reminded us of the arguments put forward by the representatives of the motor cycling fraternity and the trade about the limitation of provisional motor-cycle riding entitlement to two years, followed by an interval of one year during which the provisional licence cannot be used for this purpose. My noble friend wishes to provide the Secretary of State with power to exercise a discretion in favour of those learners who for some good reason are not able to pass a test within two years. But I hope to persuade your Lordships that he has the power already.
Section 23 of the Transport Act 1981 states that he may make regulations which authorise or require the refusal of a licence during the off-period. Under the general regulation-making powers in the 1972 Act he may thus, if the need arises, make regulations of the kind which is envisaged by my noble friend. The Motor Vehicles Driving Licence (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 1982, made under Section 88 (1) of the

1009
Road Traffic Act 1972 as amended by the Transport Act 1981 Section 23, do not envisage any exceptions to the two years on, one year off rule, other than the case where the provisional licence is surrendered during a medical disability.
There are sound reasons for making the regulations in this way. Past experience has shown that once exceptions are made, administration of the licences becomes excessively difficult and expensive. One ends up by granting all requests for exceptions and the incentive to get training loses much of its force. This is a new scheme and I think that we should give it a fair chance. Nevertheless, I can assure my noble friend that if, with experience, the Secretary of State should wish to meet a genuine and widespread problem by granting provisional licences at the end of a two-year period, now being allowed, he already has the power in the 1981 Act to do it. I hope that in the light of this explanation of the existing powers, my noble friend may be ready to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply and I am pleased to hear that provision is being made for cases such as I have described. This will be welcomed by the many hundreds of thousands of learner motor-cyclists on the road and I think that they will feel happier as a result of my noble friend's statement. Therefore, with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved amendment No. 35E:
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
("Marking of builders' skips 1980 c. 66.
.In section 139 of the Highways Act 1980 (control of builders' skips), at the end of subsection (4)(a) (duty of owner of skip deposited on highway to secure that it is properly lighted) there shall be inserted the following words "and, where regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section require it to be marked in accordance with the regulations (whether with reflecting or fluorescent material or otherwise), that it is so marked.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Bellwin explained why the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was over-specific for main legislation, and undertook to table a Government amendment for consideration on report. The department already offers comprehensive advice to local authorities and others responsible for carrying out roadworks, on the way in which skips should be marked as well as lit during the hours of darkness. This advice is given in Chapter 8 of the traffic signs manual of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport and it recommends that these containers be painted yellow and carry along the upper edge of each end markings in accordance with the Motor Vehicles (Rear Markings) Regulations 1982.
We agree that these markings should be mandatory and not merely advisory. This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to make separate regulations requiring skips to be marked in the way advised in Chapter 8. It differs from the noble Lord's amendment in that it would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe conspicuity markings in whatever material is deemed likely to be most suitable and effective. The advantage of this wording is that, permitting the prescription now of such markings as the
1010
noble Lord advocates, it would also leave the way open for amending the regulations to prescribe improved conspicuity markings should future developments in marking methods and materials produce these.
We are at one with the noble Lord in wishing to see the conspicuity of builders' skips improved, and I hope he is satisfied with the provision now offered for the purpose. My Lords, I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, it would be churlish of me if I did not thank the noble Earl once again for bringing forward an amendment in line with the undertaking he gave at the Committee stage. I am delighted to see the amendment and the only point is when it is liable to come into effect, because it is left entirely to the Secretary of State as to when he may make the regulations. Otherwise I welcome this.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I do not want to disrupt this harmony, but the words used in the clause are "builders' skips", and no doubt until very recently the only skips were those used by builders for their refuse. But with the movement to recycle waste products, skips are increasingly being used for the recovery of non-returnable bottles and other classes of waste product. This is very much on the increase.
Admittedly, the definition of "builders' skip" in the Highways Act 1980 includes the disposal of household rubbish, but that only makes the phrase "builders' skip" misleading and this will be increasingly so as time goes on. All I am asking is that we should take the opportunity to give up using the expression "builders' skip" before it becomes so enshrined in legislation that we find ourselves unable to escape from it.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord was very modest and did not propose what he would like to see. Would he like to see "a skip" or something else?
Lord Airedale: My Lords, "a skip".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord in his general thesis and he is quite right in saying that the term "builders' skip" is already employed in Section 139 of the Highways Act 1980, which of course this clause would amend. Therefore, we feel that in this case we should not depart from it. Equally, I must add that we have no evidence to suggest that its application to skips other than those used literally by builders has ever been questioned. But we shall, of course, bear what the noble Lord has said in mind and if an opportunity arises to change it or the need becomes very apparent, we shall, of course, do so. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his comments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 35F:
After Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
("Refusal or withdrawal of disabled persons badges.
In section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons) after subsection (7) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(7A) Where the prescribed conditions are met in the case of any person, then—

1011

(a) if he applies to a local authority for the issue of a badge under this section, the authority may by notice refuse the application; and

(b) if he holds a badge issued under this section by the authority, the authority may by notice require him to return the badge to them.

The conditions that may be prescribed for the purposes of this subsection are conditions relating to the misuse of badges issued under this section.
(7B) A notice under subsection (7A) above may be given by post.
(7C) A person whose application is refused under subsection (7A) above or who is required to return his badge under that subsection may, within the prescribed time, appeal to the Secretary of State who may confirm or reverse the decision of the local authority; and, if he reverses it, the authority shall issue a badge accordingly or, as the case may be, the requirement to return the badge shall cease to have effect.
(7D) A badge which is required to be returned to the issuing authority by virtue of subsection (6) above may not be displayed on any vehicle; and a badge which is required to be so returned by virtue of a notice under subsection (7A) above shall be returned within the prescribed time and may not be displayed on any vehicle after that time.
(7E) Regulations under this section may provide for the procedure to be followed in connection with appeals under subsection (7C) above; but the Secretary of State shall consult with the Council on Tribunals before making regulations that so provide.".")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to allow disabled people who are being denied an orange badge on the grounds of misuse, to appeal to the Secretary of State. As the House will be aware, these badges are issued to people with severe mobility problems, and the blind, who are entitled to park for up to two hours on yellow lines, without charge or time limit at meter bays, and without time limit where only limited waiting is otherwise allowed. These valuable concessions are intended to allow disabled people to park close to their destination.
The amendment before your Lordships will allow disabled people who are refused a new badge or asked to return their existing one because of persistent misuse, to appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision of the local authority. If the Secretary of State considers that they have been harshly treated, he can require a badge to be issued or revoke the requirement to return a badge, The provision is in no way intended as a criticism of local authorities since we believe they will act fairly and humanely, but the provision of this long-stop will allay the fears of disabled people. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Payments in respect of applicants for exemption from wearing seat belts]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 35G, 35H and 35J:
page 72, line 6, leave out from ("1975") to end of line 7.
page 72, line 16, leave out from ("allowance)") to end of line 17.
page 72, line 22, after ("dependants") insert—
("(bb) those provided with invalid carriages or other vehicles under subsection (1) of section 46 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 or in receipt of grants under subsection (3) of that section in respect of invalid carriages or other vehicles which belong to them.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 35G I should also like to move Amendments Nos. 35H and 35J, and speak to Amendments Nos. 35L and 35V. First, I shall take Amendments Nos. 35G and 35H. These have the effect of extending the list of
1012
those eligible for free examinations for medical exemption from compulsory seat belt wearing. Originally we had proposed that only recipients of attendance allowance or constant attendance allowance at the higher rate should be eligible. That is, those people who unfortunately need constant attendance allowance for 24 hours. However as my noble friend Lord Bellwin said during Committee stage, we have looked again at the list of those eligible. We have decided that we can extend the list to those who receive an allowance for either day or night attendance.
Amendment No. 35J is necessary to reflect the organisational differences of the artificial limb and appliance centres in Scotland and in England. The next amendment, No. 35L, will allow a subsequent Order in Council to be made for Northern Ireland subject to the negative resolution procedure. Amendment 35V, which is the final one in this package, is necessary to ensure that the new clause is included in those parts of the Act which will apply to Northern Ireland by virtue of Clause 64(6). With the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 35G, 35H, and 35J.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 35K:
Page 72, line 25, at end insert—
("(d) those in receipt of a retirement pension under the Social Security Act 1975.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this deals with a point I raised when we were discussing the Government clause making provision for these exemptions at the Committe stage. The primary purpose of the amendment is to look at the position of a retirement pensioner who wishes to ride as a passenger, maybe in his son's or anybody else's car, but is in such a condition perhaps through a stomach complaint whereby he gets a medical exemption that he should not wear a seat belt. He could be charged the figure of £19 which is being recommended as the medical fee. I am grateful to the BMA who, as a result of my comments at Committee stage, have sent me full details why the £19 may have to be charged. But it is not a question of why it should be charged; the fact is that pensioners could be charged.
I know it will be said that any pensioner on supplementary benefit will be covered by the Government's own proposals, but that does not deal with an ordinary retirement pensioner who is not on supplementary benefit and his only income is that pension and he wants to ride as a passenger. He has not got a car of his own, he cannot wear a seat belt, and he wants to ride in the front and to get exemption he will have to pay £19. The purpose of this amendment is that such a person receiving a retirement pension should be added to the exemption list.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am sorry that this amendment has come so late in our proceedings, as I am sure it is one which the whole House would like to have taken part in. I can sympathise with the noble Lord's reasons for moving his amendment, but I am sorry to have tell him that I do not think we can accept his proposal. It is always difficult when providing a new service for people in need to settle the line dividing those who are to be eligible and those who are not to

1013
be so. I can assure the House that the Government have thought long and hard about this particular scheme and we now feel that, with the amendment I have just moved, we have included those most in need.
Let me remind the House of the background to Clause 60. Last year Parliament voted in favour of the principle of compulsory seat belt wearing and this summer the necessary regulations were approved. Compulsion will come into effect on 31st January next year. But from the start Parliament recognised the need for some exemptions and the most important of these is medical exemption. That is for those people holding valid certificates signed by a doctor to the effect that it is inadvisable on medical grounds for them to wear a seat belt.
There will not be many people who need exemption. Indeed the advice of the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention which we have sent to all doctors is that few if any medical conditions in themselves justify exemption. This is more likely to result from a combination of conditions. However, since doctors will be able to charge a fee for this service and the BMA has recommended a fee of £ 19, the Government decided to provide free medical examinations for those most in need; that is those on low incomes and certain of the disabled.
Unfortunately, we cannot help everyone. As my noble friend Lord Bellwin said when moving this clause in Committee, we have had to bear in mind several logistical factors including the possible number of applicants involved and the time available to process a reasonable proportion of them before compulsion comes into effect. The number of people already eligible is over 7 million. Clearly not all of them will have medical conditions which will justify exemption. However, many more of them may want to ask for an exemption, if only to be reassured that their particular medical condition will not be aggravated by wearing a seat belt. This will be particularly true of the disabled and we and the BMA expect that most of them will receive this reassurance from their own doctor without a fee. But, nonetheless, we will be faced with a considerable demand for free examinations. We think that Lord Underhill's amendment would boost this potential demand by over 50 per cent. as there are 8·8 million state pensioners resident in Great Britain.
Quite simply we and the DHSS Medical Boarding Centres could not cope with this. It has been said that there would not be many applicants and that the amendment is designed to cover those pensioners who cannot afford the fee or who do not receive mobility allowance. However, 1·6 million pensioners also receive supplementary benefit, and they are people on low incomes who are already eligible for a free examination under the existing scheme. Moreover, I would remind the House that the reason why people over 65 cannot obtain mobility allowance is that it would cost £450 million a year. Similarly, we could not cope if all the potential applicants came forward for a free examination. It would mean that others already on the list and more in need would have less chance of being examined before 31st January, and this could be very serious for anybody relying on transport for employment.
There is another practical reason why the Government could not accept this proposal. Parliament has
1014
been anxious to see the introduction of compulsory seat belt wearing, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has been foremost among those who are so anxious. When the regulations were debated in July, there was criticism of the time the Government had taken to produce the regulations, unjustified criticism, in my opinion, as it was clearly more important to get the regulations right than to rush them. However, 31st January is the start date and we have had to issue publicity so that people have adequate time to prepare themselves. One aspect of preparation is obviously to apply for medical examination if necessary. Our publicity therefore lists those who are eligible for our free examination scheme and our leaflets contain on the back an application form. At this stage we cannot add this proposal to the list.
I can add a word of encouragement to the noble Lord, Clause 60(3) enables the Secretary of State to amend by order the list of those eligible, and I can assure the House that we shall watch the progress of the scheme very closely and consider very carefully any requests for inclusion in the list. I hope for the reasons I have outlined, and with that final assurance, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Earl said about Clause 63, and that will be helpful. I agree with him in desiring the minimum number of exemptions and, as he rightly said, I am heartily in favour of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. At the same time, I want to be fair to those who need exemption. It is rather far-fetched, I should have thought, to imagine that all retirement pensioners will claim exemption. While it sounds impressive to throw large figures into an argument, I think the noble Earl will agree that the number who will wish to have medical exemption will be very limited.
I hope the BMA will take note of our debates on this issue because I understand that the figure of f 19 is not compulsory on doctors but is an optional, figure, and that where a comprehensive consultation is not required—as may be the case for many of the old-age pensioners to whom I am referring—the BMA will advise doctors not to press for the £19. That will go some way to alleviate the position of the pensioners in question. But in the light of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
On Question, amendment withdrawn.
10.43 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 35L:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause:
("Northern Ireland.
An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule I to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the interim period) which states that it is made only for purposes corresponding to those of section 60 of this Act—

(a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament); but

(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 35G. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 35M:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause:
("Application to Crown.
. The following provisions of this Act, that is to say—

(a) section 24; and

(b) section 51 and (Exemptions from section 51); apply to vehicles and persons in the public service of the Crown.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 37D, 37E and 41. These are more appropriate amendments to be discussing at this time of night. This series of amendments apply various provisions of the Bill to Crown vehicles and put right an anomaly in the application of the penalty points system to persons and vehicles in the service of the Crown, as I shall explain. Clause 24 is already applied to Crown vehicles by virtue of paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 5, but I hope noble Lords will agree that it is tidier to incorporate this with the application of the wheelclamps provisions in one clause, namely, Amendment No. 35M. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I have only one point to raise with the Minister on this amendment, my Lords, and I do not think anyone will wish to comment on the application of the immobilisation procedure to servants of the Crown. But there is great public feeling about the way in which many members of the Diplomatic Corps have treated the question of obstruction with vehicles and notices of fines that have been placed on their car windscreens; and there is an exemption. I wonder if the noble Earl the Minister can tell the House whether or not members of the Diplomatic Corps are exempt from the immobilisation clause, Clause 51, and if not, why not.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, my understanding of the matter is that clamps can be put on their cars, but with diplomatic immunity they would not have to pay the fines. Whether or not the people who will be doing this work will be advised to put on the clamps in such cases, I do not at the moment know.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl the Minister, if I may say this by leave of the House—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Mishcon: With the leave of the House—
Lord Denham: My Lords, the noble Lord may ask for the leave of the House, but under its standing orders the House is not entitled to give it. But he may use the formula, "Before the noble Earl sits down".
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful. The Chief Whip is always so helpful and so kind. I wanted to say to the noble Earl, before he sits down, that I hope that the feeling that has been expressed publicly, and in another place, will enable guidance to be given to the police that in had cases this exemption should not be given.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 [Regulations and orders]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 35N and 35P:
Page 72, line 31, at beginning insert ("Subject to submission (1A) below").
Page line 33, at end insert—
("(1A) An order approving a type of device or appliance for use as an immobilisation device for the purposes of section 51 of this Act shall not be made by statutory instrument.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to these two amendments with Amendment No. 34P. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 35N and 35P.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 35Q:
Page 72, line 35, after ("Act") insert ("or an order to which section (Initial experimental period for immobilisation of vehicles) (6) of this Act applies").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I earlier referred briefly to this amendment, but I do not think that I spoke on it; I said merely that I would include it in my observations. The point of Amendment No. 35Q—perhaps I may refer to Amendment No. 35R as well—is that Clause 61 provides that before making an order or regulations:
"the Secretary of State shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit".
The point of Amendments Nos. 35Q and 35R is that in dealing with immobilisation of vehicles the Secretary of State shall consult representative organisations. I hope that the Government will accept this as being commonsense. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I rather thought that I spoke to these amendments when we spoke to Amendments Nos. 34V, 34W and 34X. Did we not then speak to them?
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I said that I was going to refer to Amendments Nos. 35Q and 35R, but I said nothing about them.
The Earl of Avon: In point of fact I think that I did take in this question. I replied to it when dealing with an earlier amendment. I said that I did not think that the amendment was necessary in the sense that some form of consultation would be inevitable. Perhaps the noble Lord will very kindly read what I said at the earlier stages. He will recall that I referred to the remark of my noble friend Lord Lucas about having a report, which would be fully available. I said that the amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult such representative organisations as he sees fit before making an order under subsection (6) of the new clause, continuing in force an experimental order. I added that I have no doubt that consultation will be a necessary part of the assessment of the results of an experiment, and that the views of all those affected by the experiment will be relevant. Indeed, I would expect views to be volunteered from all sides, without any need for a formal invitation. I added that, therefore, I did not believe that a formal requirement to consult would be necessary.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35R not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 35S:
Page 72, line 41, after ("Act") insert ("or an order to which section (Initial experimental period for immobilisation of vehicles)(6) of this Act applies.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 34U. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 64 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, for good order, the alphabet must now be amended. I call Amendment No. 35U.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 35U:
Page 73, line 29, after ("51") insert ("(Exemptions from section 51) (Initial experimental period for immobilisation of vehicles)")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment arising from the insertion of two new clauses under Clause 51. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 35T not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 35V:
Page 74, line 9, leave out ("and 58") and insert ("58 and [Northern Ireland]")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 35G. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 35W not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 35X:
Page 94, line 4, at end insert—
(" . In section 33(2) of the 1972 Act (offence of selling crash helmet not of type prescribed under section 33), for the words from "neither" to "authorisation" there shall be substituted the words "not of a type prescribed under this section".")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this proposal repeals subsection (2)(b) of Section 33, which is now unnecessary. It adds nothing to the powers in subsection (2); that it is an offence to sell or offer for sale a helmet not prescribed in regulations as recommended as affording protection from injury in the event of an accident. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 94, line 23, at end insert ("and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 94, line 25, leave out from (""cancellation"") to end of line 29.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment goes with Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 37A, 37B and 37C:
Page 94, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 36.
Page 94, line 37, leave out ("that section") and insert ("section 82 of the 1972 Act (Interpretation of Part II)")
Page 95, line 21, at end insert—
(" . In section 182(1) of the 1972 Act (admissibility of records as evidence)—

(a) after the word "vehicles" there shall be inserted the words "or of any records maintained with respect to vehicles by an approved testing authority in connection with the exercise by that authority of any functions conferred on such authorities, or on that authority as such an authority, by or under any enactment"; and

(b) after the words "the Secretary of State" (in the last place where they occur) there shall be inserted the words "or (as the case may be) by the approved testing authority".")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 37A, 37B, 37C and 37F, and, if I may, I will move Nos. 37A, 37B and 37C en bloc. These amendments are about the admissibility of certain records as evidence in proceedings in court. The aim is to ensure that the transfer of vehicle-testing work to the private sector, and with it the keeping of the associated records about vehicles, does not reduce the effectiveness of the work of the Department of Transport and of the police in enforcing the law. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 37D and 37E:
Page 95, leave out lines 22 to 25.
Page 95, line 26, leave out ("subsection (4) of that section") and insert ("section 188(4) of the 1972 Act").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 37D and 37E with Amendment No. 35M. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 37F:
Page 95, line 31, at end insert—
" . In section 196(1) of the 1972 Act (general interpretation provisions), the following definition shall be inserted immediately before the definition of "bridleway"—
""approved testing authority" means a person authorised by the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Transport Act 1982 to carry on a vehicle testing business within the meaning of Part II of that Act;".".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 37A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 97, line 38, at end insert—
("(a) in subsection (1), after the definition of "prescribed" there shall be inserted the following definition—
""prescribed testing authority" means such person authorised by the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Transport Act 1982 to carry on a vehicle testing business within the meaning of Part II of that Act as may be prescribed"; and
(b)")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 38 and Amendment No. 40, as the House will vividly

1019
recall, were spoken to in July. I beg to move Amendment No. 38.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 97, line 43, leave out ("or prescribed under").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is in a similar position, and was spoken to with Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 97, line 46, at end insert—
(" . The power conferred by section 87 of tha Act to repeal section 10 of that Act and certain connected provisions by order includes power to make such other amendments in that Act and such amendments in this Act as are required in consequence of the repeal.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 98, line 1, at end insert—
(" . In section 30(2) of the Transport Act 1981 (construction of sections 19 to 21) the following words shall be added at the end "and (without prejudice to the effect of the preceding provision) those sections shall apply to vehicles and persons in the public service of the Crown".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 35M. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 42:
In the Title, line 14, after ("licences;") insert ("to provide for the marking of builders' skips;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 35E. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.