HL Deb 14 October 1982 vol 434 cc967-1019

Consideration on Report continued.

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—

  1. (a) a current disabled person's badge is displayed on the vehicle: or
  2. (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—

  1. (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
  2. (b) an initial charge was not duly paid at the time of parking; or
  3. (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
  4. (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—

  1. (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
  2. (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 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—

  1. (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
  2. (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—

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 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 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.

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 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 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—

  1. (a) any order under this section extending those sections to any area shall be an experimental order; and
  2. (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—

  1. (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
  2. (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—

  1. (a) in relation to any area in Greater London, the Greater London Council;
  2. (b) in relation to any area in England and Wales other than an area in Greater London, the council of the county; and
  3. (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 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 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 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", 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 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—

  1. (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
  2. (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—

  1. (a) references to helmets shall be read as references to appliances to which this section applies; and
  2. (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—

  1. (a) with any headgear; or
  2. (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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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) 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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.

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. 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 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 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

  1. (a) provide that radar measuring equipment shall conform to a performance standard prescribed by the British Standards Institution;
  2. (b) provide that radar speed measuring equipment shall be operated in accordance with an operating standard prescribed by the British Standards Institution;
  3. (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;
  4. (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 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 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 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 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:

  1. (a) the name and address of the contractor
  2. (b) the name and address of the site foreman
  3. (c) the telephone number of the contractor for daytime contact
  4. (d) the telephone number of the contractor for nighttime contact
  5. (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 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 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 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— 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 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 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 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 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—

  1. (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
  2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

  1. (a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament); but
  2. (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 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—

  1. (a) section 24; and
  2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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)—

  1. (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
  2. (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 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 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 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 recall, were spoken to in July. I beg to move Amendment No. 38.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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 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 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 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.