Lords Sitting of 24 October 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.
Lord Clitheroe—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Sunday Observance: Licensing Legislation
Lord Monson: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that rigid licensing restrictions forced the cancellation of a charity ball in Suffolk arranged for Saturday 21st July, which had been expected to raise a substantial sum of money for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, they will forthwith introduce legislation to liberalise or repeal the licensing laws and the Sunday observance laws.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I understand that the difficulty in this case was that the proposed function was thought likely by the justices to run foul of the restrictions on public dancing in the Sunday Observance Act 1780. The view taken by successive Governments on proposals to amend this Act has been that this is a matter more suitable for Private Members' than for Government legislation. We therefore have no plans of our own for legislation in this field. As regards the law on liquor licensing, there is no immediate prospect of legislation.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Whatever the precise facts—and my information is that the organisers of the event did comply with all the correct procedures—may I put to the noble Baroness two questions arising from this unfortunate affair? Is it not time that the licensing laws in England and Wales were brought into line with the more liberal licensing laws which apply in Scotland and which have caused no difficulty over the last seven years or so? Secondly, is it not time that the Government plucked up their courage and decided to stand up to the Lord's Day Observance Society, which represents no more than one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the population?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I have said, successive Governments have taken the view that legislation relating to Sundays is a matter affecting the conscience of individual Members and is therefore more suitable for Private Members' than for Government legislation. With regard to Scotland, certain relaxations have been made, as the noble Lord indicated. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has announced that a survey is to be undertaken on the workings of the Scottish legislation. We shall want to see the results of that survey and
196
evaluate carefully the effects of extended opening hours in Scotland before deciding whether similar relaxation should be introduced in England and Wales. Actually, these changes would not have affected the particular ball to which the Question refers.
In reply to the second part of the noble Lord's question, I would say that really it is a question of balance. It is quite true that many people believe that our opening hours are too restrictive, and we receive many representations in favour of greater flexibility of hours from those involved in the catering, leisure, tourist and licensed trades. On the other hand, there are those deeply concerned about the problems of alcohol misuse who are worried about the possibility that longer permitted hours may lead to an increase in alcohol consumption. The Government clearly have to take both arguments into consideration.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is it not a fact that investigations all over the world, and over many years, have shown that the more restricted the licensing hours the more drunkenness in fact occurs?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, personally speaking (even though I should take the view of the Government) I do not know the answer to that.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that the noble Lord who has just spoken could not produce any evidence whatsoever in support of his statement?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is still a matter for a Private Member's Bill, and not a Government one.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, seeing that the noble Baroness was so kind when she brought forward her own Private Member's Bill for Sunday opening, may I ask her whether, now that she is on the Front Bench, she would be as diligent in promoting a Bill as she was on the Back-Benches?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I have already said, when one speaks from this particular position one speaks on behalf of the Government and not from a personal point of view.

The Manufacturing Industries: Employment Levels
2.41 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will list the number employed in the manufacturing industries on an annual basis since 1979.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the figures for Great Britain in June of each year fell from

197
7,133,000 in 1979 to 5,480,000 in 1984. I will, with your Lordships' permission, circulate the detailed figures for each year in the Official Report.
Following is the information referred to:

1979

7,113,000

1980

6,804,000

1981

6,100,000

1982

5,803,000

1983

5,539,000

1984

5,480,000

Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and I await with interest the figures that he is going to circulate. Would the noble Lord not agree that the figures he has just given indicate quite clearly the devastation and destruction that has happened to our manufacturing base, as a manufacturing nation, over that particular period? Would he not also agree that a far better use could have been made of the huge sums of money from our North Sea oil revenues? That money would have been better used for investment into our manufacturing base to retain jobs rather than being distributed, not needlessly but in a way that was no use whatsoever in an objective sense in the creation of jobs, in unemployment and related social benefit.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I would not draw the conclusion that the noble Lord has drawn from my Answer. The Government want to see an efficient and competitive manufacturing sector, and I believe that we are going a long way towards achieving that end. The fact of the matter is that manufacturing output is now rising whereas it fell between 1974 and 1979. The noble Lord mentioned investment. Investment in manufacturing rose by 9.5 per cent. in the first half of this year and was up 15 per cent. on the previous year. The difficulty about the figures is that there is of course a long-term trend towards services, which is to be found in many countries and that trend we have also made use of in the United Kingdom.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I regret coming back to the Dispatch Box so soon; but I think that it is accepted that in the search for more jobs the service sector will have to take a larger percentage of people into employment in order to have some effect on the dole queue. However, the main area for provision will once again be the manufacturing sector. The Minister would do well to look at the figures and say whether the Government have any ideas when they will increase the 9 per cent. investment into a more realistic figure.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, all I would say is that investment in manufacturing is increasing. I believe that if we stick to our guns it will continue to do so.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether or not productivity has risen during that period? Secondly, what is the position as regards vacancies?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, productivity has risen very considerably. I am glad that my noble friend has asked me about vacancies because it really does not seem very much
198
good our being worried, as we all are, about the level of unemployment if vacancies are not taken up. The fact of the matter is that vacancies in September were at their highest level for four and a half years.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, as compared with the peak reached in the first quarter of 1979, manufacturing output is still down about 13 to 15 per cent. and manufacturing investment—despite the 9 per cent. rise that has been mentioned, I believe, for the past year—is still more than 40 per cent. lower than it was before the present Government came in.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should like to look at those figures; I do not know that I agree with the noble Lord, but I do not have figures today to rebut them.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is it not inevitable that, in order to remain internationally competitive and to do this by continuing to improve productivity, there will continue for some time to come to be a decline in employment in manufacturing industry, particularly in large-scale organisations? But does not this accentuate the need to focus attention increasingly on measures designed to increase employment in such diverse units as co-operatives, enterprise trusts, community businesses and science parks?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think that the Government would disagree in the very least with what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has said, speaking as I know he does from long experience of these matters. However, let me add two other points. First, as the noble Lord will well know, there are certain sectors of manufacturing which are successful at the present time and which are showing encouraging increases in employment. Secondly, surely we also need to train for the future; and of course that is what the Manpower Services Commission is all about and that is what the debate in your Lordships' House two nights ago was all about.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that this is merely part of a very long-term trend and that the same thing has happened in agriculture over more than a century? Originally agriculture was the occupation of the great majority of the people of this country, but it is now the occupation of only a very small percentage. Is it not true that the same is clearly happening in the industrial sector and that it is probably irreversible? Moreover, is it not true that the only people who fail to recognise this are the dinosaurs on the Labour Party Benches?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount that the trend in the reduction in employment in manufacturing is something which has been going on since the 1960s. If I may just refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, said just now, the fact of the matter is that, despite that long-term trend in employment, we have today a situation where productivity is up, investment is up, employment in services is up, vacancies are up and the total numbers in employment compared with last year are up. I think that that is a reasonable outlook for the future.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, at the risk of being classified as one of the dinosaurs, may I ask the

199
Minister to confirm that, even in industries such as textiles where the trend downwards has been going on for a long time, there has been an increase in trade at the upper end of the industry where they are trading up market and have adjusted to new types of demand?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I believe that that is true. I should like to confirm that that is so, and if in any way it is wrong I shall write immediately to the noble Baroness, but I believe that what she says is indeed true.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord said that there were the increases in percentages; would he not agree that in each of those cases the reason why he can give an increase in the percentage is that he is talking now about such a low base compared with 1979? Secondly, the noble Lord says that there are many vacancies in manufacturing industry that are not being taken up. Would he be kind enough to tell us to which industries he is referring?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right; I invariably find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. It is indeed the case that we start off from a low base in so many things because when the present Government came into office we had just passed through one of the most ghastly winters that this country can ever remember which was presided over in the dying months of the Labour Government of that time. Therefore, the noble Lord is absolutely right on that point. So far as the increase in employment in certain sections of manufacturing is concerned, if the noble Lord would care to glance some time at the electrical and electrical engineering industries, metal goods of various kinds, instrument engineering, industrial plant and steel work and processing of plastics, he will find that there has been an increase in employment in those various occupations bordering on 30,000.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the horrendous figures which he has been kind enough to give in his Answer to the first part of the Question are, in the main, a reflection on the gross incompetence of the Government in pursuing policies which, outside the limited number of economic acolytes close to the Prime Minister, are elsewhere regarded as 100 years out of date?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is being less than fair. It is clear from the exchange that we have had that the reduction in employment in manufacturing has probably been taking place for about 20 years. It is also the case that employment in services in this country has gone up by 1⅓ million people in the past 10 years. Surely we need to recognise what is needed for the future: we need to put our investment where it will do most good. I am very glad to have been able to confirm at this Question Time that investment in this country is going up.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that Britain's share in world trade in manufactured goods, which showed a slowly rising trend in the 1970s, has fallen by 19 per cent. since 1979 and is now barely over 7 per cent.? Will he also confirm that
200
service industries could never provide the foreign exchange and the exports that this country essentially needs for both food and raw materials?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must say that I am astonished that the noble Lord, with all his experience, starts to talk to me about overseas trade from this country. I am no expert, but one thing I do know: if we go into the sort of siege economy that the Labour Party would want if they were in power, we would find that the figures for overseas trade from this county would be disastrous. I do not think that there is any more to be said on that particular subject.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, perhaps I may help my noble friend by asking him to confirm that the main loss in the share of the market for manufactured goods referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, took place between 1960 and 1978, when our share of world markets was halved, and that this was because we were completely uncompetitive with the rest of the world? Will my noble friend also confirm once more that the only reason this did not show in massive linemployment under administrations prior to 1979 was that the period between 1960 and 1979 was one of phenomenal growth, when the trade of the free world doubled, which has never happened before and which will probably never happen again?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out both those points with which I agree. Perhaps I could end this exchange by commenting on something of which I have personal knowledge. Today the exports of food and drink from this county, for which many people work very hard and for which the Ministry for which I work is ultimately responsible, are worth some £4,000 million a year, which represents an increase of some 10 per cent. a year in those exports over the past five years.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, as the noble Lord himself has raised the question of exports, is it not the case that this Question has to be seen against the very sad background of the fact that manufactured imports into this country have exceeded manufactured exports for the first time since the Industrial Revolution?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps we had better not go down this road too far. However, as the noble Lord will know, we have surpluses in oil and in invisibles, and it is neither necessary nor desirable to balance our trade in every commodity.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, on the matter of vacancies, to which the Minister referred, can he say how they are spread over the whole county? Will he also say whether they are vacancies appropriate to take in the young people who leave the youth training schemes?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not have that information for the noble Baroness. However, as the vacancies are now very numerous—as I say, they are now the highest that they have ever been for the past 4½ years—it can reasonably be taken that they have a good spread across different sorts of jobs and also a wide spread across geographical areas.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that two remarks he has made must be considered bothersome, even to him, when he reads them tomorrow? First, he said that employment in service industries has risen by I think 1.3 million; he also said that our investment in that had increased enormously. A little later, in answer to the noble Lord who is sitting below me, he said that exports of food and drink—and he was involved in drink—had increased enormously. I mean in the production of drink, my Lord Chancellor, not what you choose to think! Perhaps he knows his colleague better than I do! These two matters take—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that these two matters bother those of us concerned with manufacturing, either on the capitalist side (the provision of capital) or on the labour side (the provision of labour)? They bother us most. Of all the figures that the noble Lord has given, there is nothing that can possibly disprove that when our population is greater than ever, we are moving from a manufacturing country to a service industry country, which cannot possibly support the population. Would he please ask—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, I am sorry if I am talking too long, but it is worth it. Would the noble Lord please note that all these figures show that Great Britain, which built itself great as an industrial manufacturing country, is trying to become a Switzerland, when it cannot possibly be one?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I said that investment in manufacturing at the present time is increasing, but there is nonetheless in this country—as there is in other countries—a long-term trend towards services. When we looked at the services we found that in the past 10 years the increase in employment has been of the order of 1⅓ million people.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to tell your Lordships who the noble Lord was who made that long speech just now?
Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I think that that last comment, coming from the noble Lord whom we all so much admire, brings a very long exchange to a very proper conclusion.

US Strategic Defence Initiative
2.59 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what communications they have received from the United States Administration about the Strategic Defence Initiative, and whether they will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we are in close and continuous contact, through bilateral and other channels, with the United States Administration as research proceeds in the context of their Strategic Defence Initiative. The precise substance of these exchanges must, as usual, remain confidential.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in view of the fact that of all the many statements which have come out of Washington over the last 18 months, only one has remained unchanged in that time, can the Government give the House any indication of when they may be prepared to make a statement about this matter? The statement to which I refer was the original statement of the President himself, 18 months ago, which he repeated on television in his debate with Mr. Mondale two days ago. That statement referred to the maximum form of the Strategic Defence Initiative, which would be bound to have extremely severe effects one way or another on Western Europe. Is it not the case that such an initiative would require missiles for the boost stage intercept of Soviet ICBMs to be stationed in Western Europe? Do the Government face that with equanimity and, if not, can they tell us what they are doing to avert it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is too early for the Government to be able to reach a conclusion on this matter. We are carefully studying the situation. As the noble Lord will be well aware and as he has already indicated, the implications are far reaching. Indeed, the United States' programme is a long-term one and is limited to research. Decisions on whether or not to deploy defences against ballistic missiles are several years away.
Lord Gladwyne: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the Government do not accept the conception of the "Air Land Battle"?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, that is another matter, but speaking from memory, I recall that that is something which the United States has advanced outside the context of NATO.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Government are discussing this matter with the United States' Administration at the present time? In view of the admittedly serious implication of the initiative if it is carried out, can he give an indication as to whether any estimate has been made of its cost and what long-term effect that might have on America's commitment to NATO? Finally, what effect would it have on the future of the antiballistic missile treaty of 1972?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, so far as contacts go, they are continuing on an almost regular basis. A number of communications in both directions have taken place. With regard to cost, I am afraid that it is too early to make an estimate of what would be the cost, but I am certain that it would be very substantial. So far as the implications for the ABM treaty are concerned, neither side has signalled any intention of breaking the ABM treaty. The Government have

203
repeatedly made clear that we regard the ABM treaty as an important element in preserving international peace and security, requiring no amendment at present.
Lord Carver: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether the Government when they come to try to express some opinion on this subject, will take note of the views expressed publicly by Professor Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at King's College, London, who is perhaps one of the greatest experts in this country on this subject?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we shall certainly want to take notice of all the important views that have been expressed on these matters, including the ones referred to by the noble and gallant Lord, as well as indeed those of the noble and gallant Lord himself.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not time for the Government to make some representations to the United States' Government that their actions in these matters appear to be taken without full consultation? Since we are likely to be either the beneficiaries or sufferers from such actions, would it not be right that they should consult us more fully before making these changes in their policies?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is really not the case that the United States' Government have proceeded without consultation in this matter. As I said in the main reply, consultations are now continuing most fruitfully.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, while the Minister is obviously right to distinguish research from procurement, does he really imagine that once 28 billion dollars have been spent on research, any American President, whoever he is, will be able to face down the military industrial complex when they demand continuity of employment and the purchase of the weapons which would have been developed through the research?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there is no question of taking any decisions about procurement in this matter at this time. Indeed, the kind of sums of money which have so far been spent on ABM defence are nowhere near the sort of figures to which the noble Lord has referred.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it not the case that 28 billion dollars is scheduled to be spent on research by the United States' Administration over the next four to six years?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there is no question of arriving at a conclusion on these matters overnight, any more than there is of spending overnight the kind of sums of money to which the noble Lord has referred.

Race Relations in Employment
3.4 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what actions they have taken to promote good race relations in employment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government have firmly set themselves against all unlawful discrimination and are resolutely committed to promoting good race relations in employment by securing equal treatment and opportunity. The Commission for Racial Equality has a statutory duty to work towards these ends, and has produced a Code of Practice, which came into operation on 1st April.
The Department of Employment's Race Relations Employment Advisory Service gives help and guidance to employers and trade unions on issues which can arise in the management of a multiracial workforce. It is currently giving priority to advising on the Code of Practice.
The Manpower Services Commission seeks to ensure equal access for people of different races to all its public employment and training services and also supports language training to improve the employment prospects of members of ethnic minorities.
In addition, the Government have adopted, in agreement with the Council of Civil Service unions, a policy for race relations in the Civil Service. The Government are determined to ensure full equality of opportunity in the Civil Service for people from the ethnic minorities both at the recruitment stage and in their subsequent careers.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it will give considerable satisfaction in all parts of the House that the Government have taken an initiative in this field? Could he say whether not just manufacturing industries but service industries, recreation and sport, are all being encouraged? Has he any special areas where there is a good success story of achievement?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his welcome to the reply which I gave. In the difficult employment climate that we are in there are two hopeful signs so far as this question is concerned. Black people have undoubtedly made some advances in employment in the public health and transport services, and there has been a significant growth in self-employment and private businesses among Asian people.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the Government, as an employer themselves, say what evidence there is of the results of their own equal opportunities policy, which I think they produced in 1974? What evidence have they to show that this policy is achieving results? In particular have the Government at any time as an employer made use of those sections of the Race Relations Act which allow special training for members of ethnic minority groups for areas of occupation in which they are greatly under-represented?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there are no recent Government statistics available of unemployment

205
among the ethnic minorities. So far as concerns the second question that the noble Baroness asked, it is appropriate and helpful under Section 37 of the Race Relations Act for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment to designate other bodies to provide discriminatory training. I understand that some of the London boroughs and the industrial training boards have been so designated.
Lord Somers: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that on this question not really a great deal can be done by legislation and that it is much more a question of education generally? Would he also agree that it would be a good thing if those who came to this country from abroad were a little more prepared to adopt our way of life, and that all the effort cannot be made just on one side?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord mentions education. I think that the House will be glad to hear that the Manpower Services Commission language training for linemployed young people under the training opportunities scheme last year reached out to 1,750 people in the ethnic minorities who needed language training. The industrial training service, which is funded by the Manpower Services Commission and is administered by local education authorities in areas of high ethnic population, reached out to over 11,500 people last year. The third point which is interesting is that this year we are spending some £70 million on Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, which of course is money precisely for trying to reduce racial disadvantage, including support for salaries of training and career officers.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, while the House will welcome the statement of the noble Lord on the actions of the Government in the field of employment in regard to ethnic minorities, is it nevertheless not an unhappy fact that the percentage of linemployment among ethnic minorities, especially, alas, the young blacks, is far higher than in regard to the rest of the population?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that that is undoubtedly true. The remedy of course must lie in the success of the Government's policies to promote an economic climate conducive to competitiveness and growth, but at the same time we must not underestimate the importance of the employment and training special measures of the Manpower Services Commission on which £2¼ billion are being spent this year.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he did not really answer my question? Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was concerned to find out what the Government as a direct employer inside the Civil Service have done to promote the employment and promotion to appropriate levels of members of ethnic minorities and whether they have made use for their own internal purposes of the special training facilities?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I said in my. original Answer, a policy was worked out with the Council of
206
Civil Service Unions earlier so that we have a written document about non-discrimination with the Civil Service, but that indeed is not to say that the Government were not recognising and complying with the provisions of the 1976 Act since that Act came into force: indeed they were.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Foreign Affairs Council on 22nd and 23rd October.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I were to announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening.

Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1984
3.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th July be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be interested to know that this order deals with two aspects of the fire services in Northern Ireland. First it deals with the constitution, the powers and the duties of the fire authority for Northern Ireland, and then it goes on to deal with fire precautions. The order will re-enact, with two important amendments to which I shall return, the legislation which establishes the fire authority for Northern Ireland as the sole fire authority for the Province, and sets out its composition and functions. Part II of the order corresponds largely to the Fire Services Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 as modified by the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973.
The first amendment relates to the method of appointment of the chairman and vice-chairman of the authority. At present they are elected from among 17 members of the authority. It is now proposed that, while the authority will still consist of 17 members, the chairman and vice-chairman will be appointed for a four-year term with 15 other members. In adopting this new procedure no criticism is implied of the present or previous holders of these posts, for each has rendered service to the authority and to the community: rather the amendment seeks to bring the fire authority into line with other major public bodies in the Province. The housing executive, police authority and electricity service—those three important bodies—have their chairman and vice-chairman appointed rather than elected. The second amendment which I mentioned seeks to bring the position of the chief fire officer into line with that in Great Britain. At present the chief fire officer is responsible to the authority for the work of the brigade while the secretary reports to the authority on administrative matters. It is proposed now that the chief fire officer be responsible to the authority for both operational and administrative matters.
Part III of the order deals with fire precautions, and again the intention is to align the law in Northern Ireland with that in Great Britain. Some premises are of course already required to be provided with what we call means of escape and fire precautions under existing legislation, but under the designation order system which we propose and set out in Article 22 a much wider range of premises can be brought within the scope of the fire precautions system. Once designated, then all premises in that particular class will be required to obtain from the authority a fire certificate which will be issued only when the authority is satisfied that the premises are provided with adequate means of escape and, if appropriate, efficient alarms, fire fighting and other fire precautions equipment. Much of Part III is concerned with the detailed workings of the fire certification system, and I do not propose to describe it in detail, although I would mention that penalties for contravention of the order are being brought into line with those for similar offences in Great Britain.
The implementation of Part III will involve the authority in a considerable number of additional responsibilities, the importance of which was highlighted by the tragic fire earlier this year at the Maysfield Leisure Centre in Belfast. As has already been indicated, additional funds are being made available to the authority to provide for the creation of a further 10 fire precautions posts. In case noble Lords are in doubt, these posts are people, human beings, not stakes or things driven into the ground. I, too, was a little confused by this.
Finally, Part IV restates the functions of the Department of the Environment in relation to the department's power to appoint inspectors to report on the performance of the authority.
I have been fairly brief. I hope that I have not cut too many comers; and I beg to move that the draft order be approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th July be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
3.16 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for introducing this order. I regret that I cannot be as brief as the noble Lord has been, and I must apologise in advance. May I first say, as I have said on most of the Northern Ireland orders, that, although this is said to be mainly a consolidation measure, again we have an item of 53 articles and five schedules which we cannot amend; we can only endorse.
My particular interest in this order is not only because of my Front Bench responsibilities but because for some five years I served in our own National Fire Service and was chairman of quite a number of Fire Brigades Union committees. The Fire Brigades Union, in a letter to the Assembly in November 1983, stressed that it is the only recognised representative body for firemen in Northern Ireland, with nearly 100 per cent. of the full-time personnel in membership and a substantial proportion of retained members. On some of the matters to which I refer I am advised by the Fire Brigades Union.
At this stage I am certain that we ought to pay a tribute to the fire service personnel in Northern
208
Ireland, who are not only engaged in fire fighting work but, as we saw in the case of the fire services called to the recent tragic incident in Brighton, are also heavily involved in rescue work in addition to fighting fires.
There was a very helpful report from the Northern Ireland Assembly, which considered this order. No doubt as other noble Lords have done, I have read the proceedings and the evidence with great care. It was unfortunate that for some reason the Fire Brigades Union had not received any communication. I say it was unfortunate. In my experience the Northern Ireland Office is very efficient, and the last thing they will do is overlook a matter of this kind; but the union did not receive communication, did not receive the order, and the secretary concerned had to obtain a copy personally. Having now had an opportunity to consider the order, which they had not when they were before the committee, there are a number of points in addition to others that I shall raise, and the information will be helpful not only to the union but to the public in general.
I note that no evidence was given on behalf of the new fire authority, although they were invited twice so to do. The authority sent a letter after the committee had interviewed various bodies, and I shall refer to one or two of the points. I note that the noble Lord referred to the agreement of the Government to accept the recommendation of the Assembly that the position of the chief officer should be changed, and that he should act as the chief administrative officer, and not that the secretary, as previously, should undertake some of those duties. The Assembly and the fire authority wanted that, as did the unions.
The Minister also referred to the new decision to have the Secretary of State (or, as it says, the department) appoint the chairman and vice-chairman of the new authority. The Assembly has made it absolutely clear that it would wish that the members of the authority should be left to elect their own chairman and vice-chairman. I note from the annual report of the fire authority that the Minister (then Mr. David Mitchell, Parliamentary Under-Secretary) sought the authority's view on this particular proposal. The authority replied that in its view the practice that the members should appoint the officers should continue. It sent a letter to that effect to the Assembly.
Despite having asked for and received the authority's view, the Minister rejected it. I should like to know why it was rejected. The Assembly wants it, the fire authority wants it, and the Fire Brigades Union wants it. Although the noble Lord said that this brings the matter into line with other public bodies in Northern Ireland, it does not bring it into line with all other fire authorities in Great Britain, which act as committees of local authorities and elect their own chairmen.
Article 8 lists various sections of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) which are to apply to the fire authority as if it were to a district council, but there appear to be two glaring omissions. Sections 121 and 122 of the 1972 Act, which relate to the minutes of proceedings and public notices of meetings, are not included in the list under Article 8. I need hardly stress that the fire authority is a public body, which spends public money, but it would appear that the public are not informed of meetings of the

209
authority. Yet I understand that if a member of the public got to know that there was a meeting and attended, he could claim a public seat under Section 23 of the 1972 Act, which is embodied in this particular article. It would appear that the fire authority should be in the same position as the fire committee of other councils in Great Britain.
Minutes should also be available. I understand that even the regional secretary of the Fire Brigades Union of Northern Ireland does not have this information about meetings and does not have copies of the minutes. May I say in passing that I showed the secretary of the Fire Brigades Union a copy of the annual report of the previous fire authority, and the union had never seen that either.
Under Articles 6 and 7 are the requirements involving the fire authority for the provision and maintenance of hydrants and water supplies. These are at present embodied in various sections (Sections 5, 6 and 7) of the Fire Services Act 1969. These requirements are to be withdrawn from the fire authority and handed over to the DoE's water division. I need hardly stress that hydrants and open water supplies are vital to any fire service, and this provision in the new order will mean that the fire authority's expertise will be lost and the authority's own direct labour force will be jeopardised in this matter.
The sections of the 1969 Act are compatible with Sections 13 to 16 of the Fire Service Act 1947, which applies to Great Britain, and I note that this particular question was raised not only by the unions but in the consideration given to the matter by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I note that views were expressed on behalf of the department that a lesser body—namely, the fire authority—cannot give directions to a higher authority, the department or the Government.
Nevertheless, I see in the annual report, on page 20, under the heading, "Provision of Water for Fire Fighting", an extract from Section 5 of the Fire Services Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. I quote:
"It shall be the duty of a fire authority to provide and maintain … such fire hydrants as are necessary for securing … water in case of fire".
If a lesser authority cannot instruct a higher authority, how did that happen in the case of the two fire authorities which existed before the completely new Northern Ireland Fire Authority was established? I should like to ask the Minister why they could not accept the Northern Ireland recommendation 2.3 in Chapter II. Perhaps I may quote it:
"The Committee notes the Department's contention that a Government cannot be required to do something by a subordinate authority. It recommends, therefore, that Article 6 be amended to require the Department to provide a constant supply at an adequate pressure to hydrants located on the advice of the authority within 28 days of being notified of the need to do so, and that such other consequential amendments of Article 6 as may be required are also made".
I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept that particular recommendation.
While on the subject of hydrants and water supplies, I note that the annual report of the previous fire authority states that no provision is made for formal recording or maintenance of open water supplies apart from the preparation of particular cards. Naturally, it
210
is common sense that cards of open water supply should be available for the personnel on fire appliances. It seems incredible to me that there is not available at the central headquarters a general record of open water supplies. The whole general question was raised by the Assembly, and I have asked about that particular point.
Article 9 deals with the preparation and submission of an establishment scheme. There is some concern at the reluctance of the Government to provide some sort of safety valve on this question similar to that which is in the Great Britain Act. That provides for a public inquiry at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Article 9 contains no such provision for Northern Ireland. I cannot see any just reason for not doing so.
In that connection it is convenient to move on to Article 50 because that retains a previous provision for the appointment of an inspector or inspectors. But the new order omits any reference to special practical experience required of a person or persons appointed to such posts. I am advised that there has been no actual appointment since 1969, even though the provision has been there. Instead, on occasions as required the Home Office inspectorate has been requested by the Department of the Environment to carry out inspections of the Northern Ireland fire brigade and to make recommendations. As this provision for the appointment of an inspector or inspectors is included in the new order, may I ask this question? Is it intended to continue with arrangements to make an appointment, or is it intended to use the Home Office inspectorate for this purpose? If an appointment is to be made, what specialist knowledge and expertise will such an appointee be required to possess; and why is that point not included in the article?
I referred to the absence of provision for a public inquiry on matters relating to the establishment scheme. I note that Article 51 refers to inquiries, but there is a difference from Section 33 of the Fire Service Act 1947 as it applies to Great Britain. That provides for public inquiries. Article 51 refers to "local or other inquiries". It does not include the word "public". Clarification is needed here. What is the Government's intention with regard to the possibility of holding public inquiries where they seem to be appropriate; and could Article 51 be used for an inquiry or investigation into a particular incident or a particular outbreak of fire?
The 1969 Northern Ireland Act included provisions for the establishment of a fire service advisory council similar to the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council in Great Britain. But by referring to Schedule 5 of the new order we see that these provisions—that is, Section 32 and Schedule 4—are repealed. This will leave the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland without a specific advisory body to deal with standards of appliances, equipment, procedures and similar matters.
I understand that the advisory council was never actually appointed. There was mutual agreement that the work of such an advisory council would be repetitive of that established in Great Britain. However, can the House be assured—this is the important point—that in the absence of provision for an advisory council within this order, the department

211
and the fire authority, together with its brigade, will continue to accept and maintain Great Britain's Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council standards and recommendations? We note also that Schedule 5 repeals Article 6 of the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, especially the addendum to paragraph (b)of Section 16 of the main Act of 1969. That protected the standards of terms and conditions of employment of personnel. If we give praise to the Northern Ireland fire personnel, we ought to ensure that their standards of employment and conditions are properly observed.
In the light of the repeals I have mentioned, we need a definitive statement from the Minister. I am certain he will agree that the firemen of Northern Ireland must be treated no less favourably than their colleagues in Great Britain. Can the House be assured that the department, the fire authority and the brigade will accept standards and recommendations of the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades and will continue the Northern Ireland Fire Authority's membership of that body?
Reference is also made to Article 10, where the Assembly has urged that the word "may" should be changed to "shall". This is on the question of a pension scheme. I note also that the Assembly urged that retained personnel shall be included in a pension scheme. The DoE and the Fire Brigades Union are in complete agreement that matters such as this should be considered on a Great Britain basis, applicable also to Northern Ireland. There is also at present a pension scheme for whole-time personnel, so that particular question is somewhat academic. However, the Fire Brigades Union points out that it tabled a proposal for a pension scheme for retained personnel. That matter was involved in a court action and therefore has been sub judice; but I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could say what is the present situation.
The last point I have to raise concerns Part III of the order, which deals with fire precautions. As the noble Lord has done, we welcome the fact that these points are included. My advisers on this issue have studied this order and the provisions for fire precautions along with the Great Britain legislation. I am told that there are a number of omissions and differences; and there is one example in particular. Article 27 is identical, word for word, with Section 6 of the Great Britain legislation, but with one important exception. Subparagraph (f) of the Great Britain legislation is left out of the Northern Ireland article. I quote:
"In the case of factory premises, particulars as to any explosive or highly flammable materials which may be stored or used in the premises".
I am assured that this is a very important matter in relation to the contents of the fire certificate, the issue of which was referred to by the noble Lord in his opening statement. Can the Minister explain why this important point is left out of Article 27?
In conclusion, can the Minister also say whether or not there are any provisions in the Great Britain legislation on fire precautions which are not included in this order, which may mean that the provisions for Northern Ireland are less favourable than those for Great Britain? When the Assembly considered the issue of fire certificates, they raised the question of
212
occasional entertainment letting of premises which are used for worship. While the Assembly recognised that the fire risk concerning premises used mainly for worship is rather low, there is a possible danger where the question of occasional entertainment activities is concerned. The DoE's view is that this is a matter which ought to be considered as being applicable to the whole of Great Britain; and it is a point that I can accept. However, in addition to considering this matter in particular, the Assembly recommended that the Government should examine the adequacy of legislation regarding the granting of entertainment licences, particularly occasional licences. I therefore ask the Minister whether this is to be done.
I apologise for having taken up time, but as we cannot amend this order, and as the personnel represented through the Fire Brigades Union are agitated about some of those points, any information that the Minister can give in reply and any assurances that he can give in answer to those requested will be important.

Foreign Affairs Council: Luxembourg
3.35 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I intervene now to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the Foreign Affairs Council which I attended in Luxembourg on 22nd–23rd October, as well as on the main developments in the Community during the Recess.
"I am arranging for a note on the other issues discussed at this and other Councils during the Recess to be published in the Official Report.
"Considerable progress was made in the negotiations on the accession of Spain and Portugal. Community positions were agreed and communicated to the Spanish and Portugese Foreign Ministers on a number of matters including olive oil, where a position designed to prevent the development of a surplus was adopted; and to the Spanish Foreign Minister on industrial tariffs, where the Community's position provides for the more rapid reduction of high Spanish tariffs and an extended reduced duty quota for cars. The Council adopted a declaration noting that agreement had been reached on most of the main issues in the negotiations with Portugal and looking forward to the accession of both countries to the Community on 1st January 1986.
"In addition to the Ministerial meetings held with Spain and Portugal there was also a meeting of the EC/Jordan Co-operation Council.
"In the Council, I made clear our concern at the Commission's latest scheme for sales of intervention butter and whether in particular this was compatible with the Community's obligations under the GATT.
"More generally, considerable progress has been made in the Council towards implementing the

213
Fountainebleau agreement and resolving the outstanding budget issues. The Foreign Affairs Council on 2nd–3rd October adopted the 1985 provisional draft budget within the one per cent. VAT ceiling and sent it forward to the European Parliament. Agreement was also reached to provide 1,000 mecu of supplementary finance through an inter-governmental agreement to cover the Community's inescapable financial obligations for 1984. The Council noted that our willingness to participate in that agreement would depend on release by the European Parliament of the United Kingdom's refunds for 1983 and agreement on the measures necessary to guarantee the effective implementation of the principles of budget discipline agreed at the European Council. The Council reaffirmed the commitment of the European Council that the 1,000 mecus abatement of our contribution in respect of 1984 will be made on the revenue side of the budget in 1985.
"Substantial agreement on a satisfactory text on budget discipline was reached at the ECOFIN Council on 1st October. The Irish presidency is now conducting further consultations with a view to reaching final agreement at an early meeting of the council.
"On 10th October the European Parliament voted to release the United Kingdom's refunds, amounting to about £440 million net. Ninety per cent. of gross refund, i.e. £538 million, is due to be paid to the United Kingdom in the course of the next few days."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Following is the note referred to in the Statement:

WRITTEN REPORT ON OTHER FAC ISSUES
There were three meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council during the summer recess. That on 2nd and 3rd September, at which my honourable friend the Minister of State represented the United Kingdom, dealt exclusively with the negotiations for Portuguese and Spanish accession which I covered in my Statement to the House earlier today. At the other two Councils, on 17th and 18th September and 2nd and 3rd October, I represented the United Kingdom accompanied by my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development. My right honourable friend the Minister for Trade was present at the 17th and 18th September meeting. My right honourable friend the Minister of State attended the 2nd and 3rd October meeting.
At both councils Ministers discussed the negotiations on a successor to the second Lomé Convention, in preparation for the EC/ACP Ministerial Negotiating Conference which was subsequently held in Brussels from 9th to 12th October. Negotiations between the Community and the ACP countries are continuing.
The 17th and 18th September Council adopted the regulation on the strengthening of the common commercial policy. This improves the Community's ability to respond to illicit trading practices by third countries, in a manner consistent with the Community's existing international obligations. The council also adopted the long-delayed package of 15 directives laying down common standards for a range of industrial products. Her Majesty's Government welcome this useful step in opening up the internal market.
At the September meeting we drew attention to the need for a further supplement to the 1984 duty-free newsprint quota sufficient to meet the requirements of Community users to the end of the year. This has now been agreed. There was also discussion of Portuguese demands for greater access this year for her textile exports. The Commission stressed the urgency of a new agreement with Portugal.
214
The Council considered the problem of the famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially Ethiopia. The Commission reported on what the Community has already done to help and undertook to assess what further action was required. As my honourable friend the Minister of State (Mr. Rifkind) told the House on 22nd October, the Community subsequently agreed to ship a further 35,000 tonnes of wheat to Ethiopia.
The 2nd and 3rd October Foreign Affairs Council agreed a strongly worded declaration, emphasising the Community's concern at the protectionist provisions in the Omnibus Trade Bill before the US Congress and the potentially serious consequences were they to be adopted. Many of the more objectionable provisions were eliminated or modified in the final version of the Bill.
On 22nd and 23rd October the Council approved the transfer of £37.8 million from the general budget of the communities to the European Coal and Steel Community in order to finance social measures to accompany restructuring of the steel industry. This follows previous allocations for this purpose in 1981–83 amounting to £127 million. The United Kingdom is a net beneficiary from the programme of social measures in the steel industry. The council confirmed the Commission's negotiating mandate for the 1985 voluntary restraint arrangements with major third country suppliers under the external steel regime. Ministers also agreed that accelerated Tokyo Round tariff cuts should be implemented on 1st January 1985 for a number of products of interest to developing countries.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement, and I am of course very pleased that the negotiations on the entry of Spain and Portugal into the European Community appear now to be making some progress after the protracted meetings held during the summer. Earlier this month, we learnt about the agreement with Portugal regarding the level of permissible imported sugar cane, and today's press reports tell us that the Community are virtually prepared to receive Portugal.
Spain however appears to be a more complex problem. Will the noble Lord comment on this and say whether progress is being made on lifting restrictions over Gibraltar, because that, throughout the period, has seemed to be one of the main obstacles—an obstacle which we wish could be removed if the settlement was a fair one from the Gibraltese point of view. Does the noble Lord agree that the problems of the EEC budget have been only temporarily allayed? Even now they seem to be looming large, because we know that the agreed 1985 budget is too little and that demands for budgetary discipline, while giving rise to a good deal of debate, have not materialised into effective proposals as yet.
The Statement goes into some detail about Spain, and can the noble Lord say what will be the effect of Spanish membership on Community finances? I read in the press today that the Community already has a wine surplus of 3 billion litres, which is costing in the region of £600 million a year either to distil or to store, and £600 million is also the amount agreed for the 1984 supplementary budget. Will the noble Lord agree that we cannot afford to enlarge this burden, even in the good cause of assisting Spain and Portugal, and will he be able to assure the House that this will not in the event be permitted?
The Statement refers to progress on fisheries policy. We have read a great deal about fisheries recently and about the incident in the Irish Sea. Spain has a fishing fleet of around 17,000 vessels—I think about 70 per cent. of the Community total. Does the noble Lord agree that we could not possibly contemplate the continuation of such a large figure by comparison with the fleets of all the rest of the Community put together, including our own?

215
It is an unhappy task to have to reiterate and emphasise our concern about the Community budget and the direction in which it is tending, especially when at the same time we wish to welcome Spain and Portugal into the Community. We look forward to trading more freely with Spain and Portugal as tariffs are lowered and trade restrictions removed. Can the noble Lord predict whether the cutting of the present 34 per cent. tariff on British cars into Spain will have ramifications for the linemployment in this country, high enough as it is, and the car industry generally in Britain?
However, the budget question remains a sensitive and serious issue which could still threaten the harmony between member states. Will the noble Lord assure the House that all efforts will be made at the Brussels enlargement meeting on 12th and 13th November to secure firm expenditure control, which seems to us to be absolutely essential? Is the Minister optimistic about the success of that meeting, and is he now confident that enlargement will occur as planned on 1st January 1986?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, while associating myself with the very pertinent questions of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I must say that, on the face of it, this Statement is very welcome if rather surprising in the circumstances. I had not thought it would be so forward-looking as it is. I have only two questions. One is that, like the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I imagine that most people have thought that the most difficult of all the problems under discussion will be that of fisheries, for obvious reasons. The difficulties were emphasised by the recent happenings off the coast of Ireland. But happily, as it seems, if we take the Statement as gospel, it says that
"Progress has also been made towards a common position on fisheries".
Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether this represents substantial progress and whether there is, on the face of it, reason to suppose that even on this most difficult of all questions agreement will be reached fairly soon, thereby permitting the entry of Spain into the Community.
I have only one other small question. I note that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made clear our concern at the Commission's latest scheme for sales of intervention butter and wondered whether, in particular, this was compatible with the Community's obligations under the GATT. If it is incompatible under the GATT, perhaps the Minister can say how it is now proposed that the butter mountain, which has reached very considerable proportions, should be reduced.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords—
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me first to answer the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. On the question of Gibraltar, I do not think I have very much more to add on that matter than the answers that I gave in the House the other day on a similar question. We certainly continue to regard it as inconceivable that the restrictions presently in force, particularly on the land border, can remain in place after Spain joins the Community. The Spaniards are
216
well aware of our views on that matter, and indeed have subscribed to the Lisbon agreement which provides for the removal of those restrictions and for other matters. We ourselves stand ready to implement, of course, and now look to the Spaniards to do likewise.
Many of the other matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will, I think, be covered in the reports that I shall be circulating in the Official Report and the noble Lord may like to study those in due course. Certainly I agree with the noble Lord that the problems of the budget, particularly the common agricultural policy, which really is at the core of the budget problems of the Community, need very careful attention between now and the time when Spain joins the Community. She is, of course, a substantial agricultural producer. Indeed, she is a rather efficient agricultural producer and the other members of the Community will need to have regard to that.
We certainly look for an early and significant reduction in the duty on cars entering Spain, which is at a very high level compared with the duty charged on Spanish cars entering the United Kingdom. This is a problem which is not peculiar to the United Kingdom but is certainly one which we feel very keenly, and indeed some progress was made on that matter at the recent Council to which I have referred. Certainly we believe that we are on course for Spanish accession to the European Community in January 1986, but I have to agree that there are a number of difficulties still to be resolved.
On the question of fisheries, I cannot say that that matter has been solved. It certainly has not. A little progress was I believe made at the Council recently, but there are still many difficulties to be overcome in that particular regard and further discussions will certainly be necessary. On the question of butter, I do not think I have anything in particular to add to what was in the Statement. In fact, the Commission's proposals fall into two parts. There is the prospect of butter being sold within the Community generally at concessionary rates at Christmas time and there is now an additional aspect to the same proposal, which is a disposal of considerable quantities of older butter, which no doubt will find its way to the Soviet Union. The Government have made their views plain on that matter and we have, as the Statement said, raised the question of whether or not such disposals strictly fall within the GATT agreements. Those, I think, were all, or at least the main, points raised by noble Lords. As I said, I will circulate additional reports in Hansard which I hope will be of assistance to noble Lords.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can there be a distribution of wine at Christmas?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is a happy thought, but the matter to which Foreign Affairs Ministers addressed their attention at the recent Council was the distribution of butter.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, on behalf of your Select Committee on the European Communities, which, as your Lordships will be aware, recently reported on these matters which the Council of Ministers have now been considering, may I ask the

217
Minister whether in the note which he is going to provide to the House there will be details of agreements reached about the effective containing of expenditure under the budget, and particularly the containing of expenditure under the common agricultural policy, which is an essential prelude to any agreement by this House and the other place to the increasing of the VAT contribution to the European Community?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has put his finger upon one of the most important issues at present facing the European Community. The views of the British Government on this matter have never been in any doubt. Nevertheless, we wish to be constructive, and I shall ascertain what additional information I can make available to the noble Lord.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, could my noble friend say in what areas agreement was not reached, to what extent this will delay progress in the negotiations and whether this could affect Spain's accession to the Community on 1st January 1986? Would my noble friend agree that in effect the Lisbon agreement is a dead duck?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not agree for a moment that the Lisbon agreement is a dead duck. As my noble friend may recall, the Lisbon agreement was signed in 1980. The British Government have stood ready to implement that agreement ever since. The Spaniards have from time to time asked for clarification of certain aspects of the agreement, which we have endeavoured to provide. They have confirmed that they hope to be able to implement the agreement in due course. But the Government's view on the matter is very clear, and I hope that it will be in the mind of my noble friend.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, could my noble friend answer the first part of my question?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend asked me to tell him the areas upon which agreement has not yet been reached. I have to say that on the matters to which I have referred final agreement has not yet been reached. I have reported progress to your Lordships, but not final agreement.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, those who were at the meetings which took place so recently and which Ministers attended must have been aware to some extent of the dreadful situation in Ethiopia. I am wondering whether that situation featured at all on the agenda, and, if not, whether any initiatives are likely to be taken by the Minister through his connections with the European Community over the distribution of surpluses in order to assist Ethiopia.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, although this matter was not specifically discussed at the Council of Foreign Ministers to which I referred, I understand that my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has decided that we should make a further major contribution by directing that the balance of our national food aid allocated for this
218
year—over 6,000 tonnes—should be made available to Ethiopia. In addition, we shall provide £5 million in drought-related assistance to Ethiopia and to other African countries which are in need. I am told that £5 million will buy about 20,000 tonnes of grain. If the other members of the Community contributed proportionately, that would mean an extra 100,000 tonnes.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, could my noble friend clear up a point on Gibraltar, which he dealt with the other day with less than his usual high standard of clarity? Do my noble friend and the Government accept that it would be inconsistent with membership of the European Community for Spain to continue to obstruct the use of her airspace to aircraft seeking to use Gibraltar airport?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have to tell my noble friend that this is not a matter for the European Community. Spain is not preventing access to Gibraltar airport although, as the noble Lord is well aware, difficulties arise over the Spanish prohibited area which lies adjacent to it. As I have already said, this is not a matter which lies within the competence of the European Community, but it is one upon which the Spanish Government are in no doubt as to our views. My noble friend wrote to me immediately following our exchange the other day. I have it in mind to reply at some length to my noble friend as soon as I can.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, while welcoming the statement made by the Minister with regard to the assistance given by the United Kingdom Government to Ethiopia, could he answer the question as to whether Her Majesty's Government propose to take initiatives through the Community in order to encourage the Community to respond to this situation by the distribution of some of their vast surpluses?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is for the Commission to initiate action. Nevertheless, I do not believe we can do better than to create an example which we hope others will follow.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could end this exchange on a cheerful note by agreeing that one important blockage has at last been removed, and that life can begin again at Brussels, with all its difficulties and complications?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not quite sure to which great new dawn the noble Lord is referring. I recall quite a number of those during the course of the life of the European Community. Progress has certainly been made on this matter, and we hope for a successful conclusion in due course.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, could the noble Lord help the House over the position on enlargement? We very much welcome the statement from the Commission that they look forward to the accession of Portugal and Spain in January 1986. We note also from the statement that the Community positions were agreed and communicated to the Spanish and Portuguese Foreign

219
Ministers, and that all appears to be happy and optimistic. Yet, as reported in The Times today, the Spanish Foreign Minister said, "At first glance the Community seems a long way away from us". There seems to be a little uncertainty in many parts of the House about the position on enlargement. I wonder whether the Minister could enlarge upon that subject.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can do no better than to repeat the words which I used the other day—not verbatim, but in essence—when we discussed this matter. The Government very much support the principle of Spanish and Portuguese accession to the European Community. We are working to negotiate our way through the inevitable difficulties which are created by that proposal. We have passed quite a number of the difficulties, and have solved some of them. We are now working to resolve the remainder. We still believe that it is desirable and probable that the European Community will be enlarged by the addition of Spain and Portugal in January 1986.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, although the appalling problem of starvation in Ethiopia and elsewhere was no part of the discussions in the council, none the less we are grateful to the noble Lord for the information that he has been able to let us have today. I believe that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that in view of the information which has come forward following the exchange on this subject which we had in the House on Friday of last week, we would expect Her Majesty's Government to take action with our partners in the Community, or, if necessary, alone, up to the point of chartering ships to take grain to Ethiopia, just as we chartered ships to go to the Falklands. Would the noble Lord be good enough to press this point on his right honourable friend?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall certainly take note of what the noble Lord says, but I have announced today an additional bilateral contribution to the problems of drought and famine in Ethiopia. It is difficult to imagine setting a better example than that.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, I apologise for returning to the subject, but may I ask the noble Lord whether the reports which he is to place in the Official Report will more clearly define the Community positions on Spanish and Portuguese accession which are referred to in the Statement? Will they more clearly define what exactly the Community positions are?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there will be some additional information in the documents which are to be incorporated in the Official Report. However, I am not today in a position to announce the completion of the negotiations. That has not yet been achieved. There are still some difficulties to be overcome. That is why I cannot go further than I have.

Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1984
3.59 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for introducing the order. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, put many questions. I, too, have a few questions to ask. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, paid tribute to the brave efforts of the fire services in the Province, with which we should like to be associated.
We are told that this order consolidates, with amendments, the law relating to fire services in Northern Ireland and makes fresh provision with respect to fire precautions. The noble Lord the Minister has done something to clarify the amendments to the law and the changes to the system. Can he please further clarify if and how—I am not quite clear about this—the law in Northern Ireland will differ from the law in the rest of the United Kingdom?
The troubles in the Province have been going on for some 15 years and the battle against the danger of fire is comparable to the battle against terrorism in general. In each case, total success is unattainable without quite exceptionally severe restrictions which would be intolerable in a free society. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can comment. In Part II of the order, Article 4(2) states:
"The Authority shall make the provision required under paragraph (1)(a) by securing—(a) the services of the fire brigade to meet efficiently all normal requirements"—
and I emphasise the word "normal". In times of accepted threat from terrorist bombings, what would abnormal requirements be? Perhaps the noble Lord will comment also on Article 5(1)(e), which states that the powers of the authority shall include the power:
"to pay to any persons who render services in connection with the extinction of fires and the protection of life and property in case of fire such rewards as it thinks fit, which in the case of a member of the fire brigade may be"—
and here is my emphasis—
"in addition to the renumeration of any such member".
What is the significance of those words?
In Article 10(1)(a) there is the rather surprising statement that the department may by order provide:
"for the establishment and maintenance of one or more pension schemes"—
and so on. Does this mean that a pension scheme is only just being considered? It also amazes me that it is felt necessary to state in Article 12(1), dealing with accounts, that:
"The Authority shall keep, in such form as the Department, with the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel may direct, accounts of all moneys received and of all moneys paid out by it".
Am I right in thinking that one penalty of consolidation is that nothing, however obvious, can be left out?
Article 22 contains a list of uses of premises for which a fire certificate is compulsory. This is difficult because one tragic accident will bring the call for tighter precautions. I know of charitable organisations in Britain who have been put to great expense by having to install fireproof doors where none has been considered necessary before. I shall be glad if the noble Lord can comment on why no fire certificate is required in respect of Article 23(a):
"any premises appropriated to, and used solely or mainly for, public religious worship".

221
Presumably the fire-fighting techniques of the congregation are considered adequate in themselves.
Finally, can the Minister say how the proportion of Protestants to Catholics is balanced in the fire service?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords—
Lord Inglewood: I am sorry, my Lords, but may I ask one short question before my noble friend the Minister replies? What scope is there under this order for a voluntary element or for a part-time element in the fire services? Such elements are very prominent and useful in some countries on the Continent, and could be very useful in Northern Ireland. I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend in that way.
Lord Lyell: Not at all, my Lords. I thank all three noble Lords who have spoken and all noble Lords who listened to my exposition of this somewhat complicated order this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was kind enough to give me more than adequate warning of the points he was going to raise. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, since my necessary absence in the Province prevented me from getting in touch with him. Perhaps I might have done better, but I will certainly ensure that the channels of communication will be better on future occasions. However, I believe that I shall be able to satisfy most of the noble Lord's questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned the Assembly and its recommendations. I am sure your Lordships will be interested to know that the Assembly made no fewer than 13 recommendations on the draft order. Of these, the Government accepted one for immediate action; they accepted four for action at the appropriate time—when, for example, other regulations are in the course of passing through your Lordships' House—and they accepted six further recommendations on which there was agreement following some clarification.
It follows that the Government found themselves unable to accept two of the Assembly's recommendations. One related to the composition of the fire authority, where the Assembly believed that a totally elected authority of 17 persons was appropriate. The other recommendation concerned a pension scheme for part-time firemen; the Government were unable to accept the Assembly's recommendation concerning that particular aspect. I have one or two further points to raise on the question of pensions in a few moments.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, further raised designation of the fire and rescue services. It has been remiss of me to delay until this point my thanks for the tributes paid by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Hampton, to the fire services who performed so heroically in Brighton recently—and to all the fire services who provide in similar, non-fire situations, a rescue service as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, may be interested to note that Article 5(1)(g) of the draft order states that the authority is empowered to employ the brigade:
"for such purposes other than fire-fighting purposes as it may think fit".
222
I hope the noble Lord will agree that this wide power covers the point he has in mind.
The noble Lord also mentioned fire hydrants. The existing arrangements for the supply of water for fire fighting purposes have been in force since 1973. Article 6 would re-enact the provision of the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 requiring the authority to arrange with the Department of the Environment for the provision and maintenance of these fire hydrants. Your Lordships may be interested to note that Article 35 of the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 empowers the Department to:
"enter into an agreement with the fire authority for the provision of adequate facilities for making water available for the purpose of fighting fires".
Your Lordships will see that no formal agreement exists at this point, but there is a close working liaison at divisional level between officers of the water service and the fire authority. This takes the form of consultations as to the location of hydrants when new mains are being laid and the operation of hydrant patrols by the authority. The department aims to remedy any defects as quickly as possible.
The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Hampton, both mentioned the question of a pension scheme for retained persons in the fire service. I am able to tell your Lordships that pay and conditions—which include pensions—for all firemen in Northern Ireland are identical to those which are determined by the national joint council for local authority fire brigades in Great Britain. I hope that will go some way to reassure both noble Lords.
In common with their counterparts in Great Britain, retained firemen in Northern Ireland do not have a pension scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned the absence of a scheme. That is indeed being challenged at the moment in the courts in Great Britain. We are awaiting that judgment and thus it would be inappropriate for me to comment or speculate on that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised also the question of the fire authorities in relation to their giving of advice to the Government. The draft order charges the authority or indeed the department to carry out fairly specific, and some quite specific, functions in this particular respect. I take one example. In Article 4 the authority is charged to provide an efficient fire service while the department is charged under Article 50 to appoint inspectors. There is the closest link between the various departments on a day-to-day basis in carrying out their separate duties under Articles 4 and 50. Therefore, we do not feel that it is necessary, or indeed practical, to enshrine the detailed aspects of what is a major problem; but, of course, there are new problems arising all the time. We do not think it is necessary to enshrine in the order this link and this liaison in legislation.
The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Hampton, raised the question of churches and, above all, the problem of churches which might be used for public functions from time to time. Your Lordships will notice that Article 23(a) exempts what are known as,
"premises … used solely or mainly for, public religious worship."

223
It exempts these premises from the need to have a fire certificate. I am advised that if the fire authority considers that a church is used substantially for other purposes, it can require a fire certificate to be applied for. Therefore, this is a matter of degree resting with the discretion of the authority.
I should like to dwell a little on this point. There are two main types of case where a church might be used for a non-ecclesiastical purpose. The first example would be if the church was used occasionally for an orchestral concert, a play, or something of that nature. Such uses might attact the need for certain basic safeguards to be imposed; for example, forbidding the locking of doors or, alternatively, banning the use of naked flames or highly inflammable drapes, although it takes some imagination to think of a play of such nature being performed in a church—perhaps "Murder in the Cathedral" would be such a one. Indeed, the regulations might require chairs to be battened together or require the provision of an adequate number of attendants to assist with the audience. However, these are all matters which could without any difficulty be included in regulations. The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Hampton, would, I think, agree that for an occasional performance of this kind it would be inappropriate to apply the full controls of a fire certificate.
The second example of a church being used for non-ecclesiastical or non-religious purposes might be where it belongs to a less well known denomination and consists of a small assembly room on the upper floor of a building or in a separate part of the building. It might be an office block, which I understand is the case in one or two areas in Northern Ireland. In that case the church may already benefit from controls under other legislation which would apply to that building or to the premises as a whole. Even if it did not, the regulation-making power under this part of the order—this is still Article 23—would be sufficient to ensure that adequate means of escape and the other fire precautions were provided. I do not think I should take your Lordships down any more fascinating ecclesiastical avenues as to whether a church might or might not be used for the purposes.
The noble Lord Underhill, asked about Article 8 and mentioned notices. Quite rightly, he asked about a notice or minutes being given to the Fire Brigades Union. Article 8 requires the authority to publish notice of its meetings, but I am afraid there is no provision in the draft order for the minutes of the authority to be made available. This is not the case in Great Britain, where minutes are available for inspection by electors. I hope your Lordships will accept that this difference reflects the differing composition of the repective fire authorities, with the Northern Ireland authority being comprised only partly of the elected representatives. My honourable friend in another place is examining this particular issue and I shall certainly ensure that all the points raised by your Lordships, in particular this one, are brought to his notice.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also asked about inquiries and public inquiries. This appeared to be in relation to the article dealing with the submission of an establishment scheme. He will find this in Article 51.
224
Article 51 merely empowers the department to hold an inquiry, but such inquiries attract the provisions of the Interpretation Act of Northern Ireland of 1954. This provides that such inquiries may be public. I think the noble Lord will accept that where there is genuine concern his fears will be met.
Article 50 deals with inspectors. This comes in Part IV, on the functions of the department. Article 50 merely seeks to renew what is current practice on the appointment of inspectors and the department will continue to rely on the services of the Home Office Inspectorate in these particular matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to two other major points. The provision in the 1969 Act for an advisory council is to be repealed. I am advised that no advisory council was ever appointed under the old Act. I see the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, nodding his assent. I give the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Hampton, the assurance which I am sure they seek in relation to the maintenance of standards on, first, advice, secondly, performance and, thirdly, conditions of employment. All these three points will continue to be the standards which are applicable in Great Britain, through the mechanisms which are already known as the Home Office Inspectorate and the National Joint Council for local authority fire brigades.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to Section 6 of the British legislation and Article 27—the parallel provision in the order we are now discussing—and, above all, the omission of sub-paragraph (f) in Section 6 which deals with factory premises and the storing of explosives. This does not represent any derogation from British standards whatever because the omission of the storing of explosives on factory premises in Article 27 represents no change from the standards. Explosives and their control are reserve matters and are dealt with under the Explosives (Northern Ireland) Order.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had one more point which concerned Fire Brigades Union consultation. I understand that a copy of the order was sent to the Northern Ireland secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, but I am advised that he had moved home and I regret to say that it took some time to arrange for a copy to be made available to him. I apologise for this omission. Indeed, I find that where a recipient moves home, normally the Post Office or neighbours are very helpful and can give some advice as to where he is to be found.
In addition to the points he raised on churches and pensions, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, drew attention to the use of the word "normal" which occurs in Article 4. I am advised that the staff of the brigade in Northern Ireland regularly attend all fires to which they are called. These can include fires which are provoked by terrorist action. I understand that there are other aspects to that. The fire brigade will attend any fire, but, of course, in terrorist incidents the security forces have to take the first action.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, also asked about Article 5(1)(f). I understand that this provides that payment by way of reward may be made to persons who are present in connection with the extinction of fires or indeed who assist in this process. I am advised that this is to reward particular acts of bravery, or

225
indeed assistance to the brigade. I understand that it is permissive far more than anything else.
I hope that I have answered all the queries that have been raised—I must apologise; I was forgetting my noble friend. I understand that he is quite right. Very valuable assistance is given by, I think he suggested, part-time firemen. I understand that they are paid or rewarded on the same basis as in Great Britain. I also understand that the strength of the fire brigade and fire services in Northern Ireland is considerably reinforced by the use of, as I think my noble friend suggested, part-time firemen. I think that I can probably obtain the approximate strength in numbers of these part-time firemen, so, if I may, I shall write to him briefly on that point. I stress to my noble friend and to all your Lordships how grateful we are in Northern Ireland to all members of the fire service, both part-time and full-time.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, the noble Lord did not reply to my question about the proportion of Catholics to Protestants in the fire service.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I apologise. That was one point which I seem to have lost amid the sea of papers. As I understand it, the proportion is something in the region of 83 per cent. Protestant and 17 per cent. Catholic. If I am wrong, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord. He will of course be aware that the fire service interviews and selects on an entirely non-denominational basis; the first parameter being that applicants must be suitably qualified for the duties which they may undertake. I understand that that is the approximate figure. If I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord.
Finally, I should like to thank everybody who has taken an interest in this specially difficult problem of the fire services which affects us in Northern Ireland. I should like to pay tribute to the continuing devotion to duty and bravery of all the firemen and other people concerned with the fire service in Northern Ireland. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Roads (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
4.23 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Roads (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [References are to (Bill 157) as first printed for the Commons.]
  1 Clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out ("thereof) and insert ("of their intention in that regard").
  2 line 12, leave out ("thereof) and insert ("of such intention").
  3 line 16, after ("representation") insert ("and give notice to the person making it and, with a note or copy of the representation, to the frontagers (or to the other
  226
  frontagers if it was a representation by a frontager) of the authority's decision as regards whether or not to proceed with the addition or deletion following the representation").
  4 line 26, leave out ("persons") and insert ("frontagers").
  5 line 27, leave out ("proposed addition or deletion") and insert ("decision following a representation").
  6 line 27, leave out ("(a)").
  7 line 28, leave out ("if that addition or deletion is subsequently made") and insert ("within 28 days of such notice").
  8 leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert ("and, where that decision requires the addition or deletion to be proceeded with, shall be given effect to forthwith by the local roads authority.
  (5A) A decision of which notice is given under subsection (4) above shall not be given effect to until the 28 days mentioned in subsection (5) above have expired or, if the matter has been referred under the said subsection (5) to the sheriff, until the summary application has been disposed of or abandoned.").
  9 line 36, leave out ("lands and heritages") and insert ("land").
  10 line 38, leave out ("include") and insert ("includes").
  11 line 39, leave out ("lands and heritages") and insert ("land").
  12 line 42, leave out ("front or abut") and insert ("fronts or abuts").
  13 line 42, leave out ("have") and insert ("has").
  14 line 44, leave out ("lands and heritages") and insert ("land").
  15 line 45, leave out ("front or abut") and insert ("fronts or abuts").
  16 Page 6, line 22, leave out ("this section to direct that a road shall become a trunk road") and insert ("subsection (2) (a) above").
  17 line 24, after ("road") insert (", or a proposed road,").
  18 line 25, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").
  19 line 26, after ("is") insert ("(or will be)").
  20 line 28, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (7)(i) below,").
  21 line 41, leave out ("such").
  22 line 41, after ("order") insert ("under this section").
  23 Page 7, line 9, after ("road") insert—
  ("—(i) is revoked by a subsequent order made at any time before the date on which that road is opened for the purposes of through traffic, Schedules 1 and 2 to this Act shall have no effect as regards the revoking order, but within 28 days of the revoking order's having been made notice of the revocation shall be published by the Secretary of State in the Edinburgh Gazette and in such other manner as he thinks best adapted for informing persons affected;
  (ii)").
  24 line 10, leave out ("time before the date on which that road is opened for the purposes of through traffic") and insert ("such time as aforesaid").
  25 line 13, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (6) above").
  26 Page 8, line 18, after ("road") insert ("(or proposed road in course of construction)").
  27 line 22, after ("road") insert ("(or proposed road in course of construction)").
  28 line 39, after ("road") insert ("(or proposed road)").
  29 Clause 9, page 9, line 41, after ("road") insert ("(or proposed road in course of construction)").
  30 line 43, after second ("road") insert ("(or proposed road)").
  31 page 10, line 2, after ("road") insert ("(or proposed road in course of construction)").
  32 line 3, after ("route") insert ("and").
  33 Clause 11, page 12, line 7, after ("road") insert ("(or proposed road)").
  34 line 18, after ("roads") insert ("(or proposed roads)").
  35 line 21, after ("road") insert ("(or to a proposed road)").
  36 line 22, after ("road") insert ("(or to a proposed road)").
  37 Clause 12, page 12, line 25, after ("made") insert ("by the roads authority").
  38 line 26, after ("road") insert ("(or proposed public road)").
  39 line 27, after ("road") insert ("(or proposed public road which is to be a special road)").
  40 line 28, after ("road") insert ("or proposed road").
  41 line 29, after ("road") insert ("or proposed road").
  42 page 13, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
  43 line 9, after ("section") insert ("by the Secretary of State as roads authority").
  44 line 13, leave out ("or confirmed").
  45 line 28, at beginning insert ("Except in a case to which section 125 of this Act applies,").
  46 line 31, at end insert—
  ("(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the procedure to be followed by a local roads authority in making an order under this section; and such regulations may in particular make provision as to the means of public notification of the proposal to make such an order and may make like provision in relation to the local roads authority as is made by subsection (4) above in relation to the Secretary of State.
  (8) Where a local roads authority propose to make an order under this section, then, before the expiry of 28 days from the date of the first public notification, in accordance with regulations under subsection (7) above, of the proposal to make the order, any person may object to it to the authority, and—

  (a) if no such objection is made, or objection is made but withdrawn, they may confirm the order themselves; and

  (b) if such objection is made and not withdrawn, the Secretary of State shall determine the matter, and may confirm the order with or without modification or refuse to confirm it.").

  47 Clause 13, page 14, line 16, leave out ("they all") and insert ("the requisite number of the frontagers so").
  48 line 16, leave out ("their behalf) and insert ("behalf of the frontagers").
  49 line 23, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to section [Power to contribute to, or carry out, work on private roads] of this Act,").
  50 line 27, leave out subsection (7).
  51 line 33, at end insert—
  ("(9) In subsection (4) above, "the requisite number" has the same meaning in relation to the private road and the land fronting or abutting the road as it has in section 1(6) of this Act in relation to the road and land mentioned in that section.").
  52 After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
  ("Power to contribute to, or carry out, work on private roads
  .—(1) A local roads authority may, if they think fit, pay the whole or any part of any expenditure incurred by a person in making up or maintaining a private road; and may, without prejudice to section 14 of this Act, at their own expense carry out any repair which they consider necessary in relation to a private road after giving such notice as is reasonable in the circumstances.
  (2) For the avoidance of doubt—

  (a) a local roads authority do not incur responsibility for making up or maintenance of the private road by reason only of their acting under subsection (1) above;

  (b) the carrying out of work by a local roads authority under subsection (1) above does not create any implication that the private road, on completion of the work, is of a standard satisfactory to the authority for the purposes of section 15(1)(b) of this Act.").

  53 Clause 15, page 15, line 6, leave out ("on") and insert ("if).
  54 line 6, after ("application") insert ("is made").
  55 line 7, after ("shall") insert (", subject to subsection (1C) below, within 12 months of the application").
  56 line 8, at end insert—
  (": Provided that where the requirement mentioned in paragraph (a) above has been fulfilled by the authority under subsection (4) of the said section 13 or the work specified in the notice has been carried out or completed by them under subsection (5) thereof no such application shall be required and the authority shall add the road to the said list forthwith.
  (1A) If, on completion of a private road constructed in accordance with a construction consent granted under section 20(3) of this Act, the person granted such consent applies, as respects the road, under this subsection to the local roads authority they shall within 12 months of the application add the road to their list of public roads.
  (1B) Any dispute in relation to—

  (a)subsection ( 1 ) above, between the local roads authority and any frontager, or

  (b) subsection (lA) above, between that authority and a person applying (or purporting to apply) under that subsection,

  shall be determined by arbitration by a single arbiter appointed in default of agreement by the sheriff on the application of either party.
  (1C) Without prejudice to any addition made under subsection (1) or (1 A) above, the said subsection (1) or as the case may be (1A) does not impose a duty as respects a road which within the period there allowed for such addition deteriorates to a standard below that mentioned in the said subsection (1).").
  57 line 9, leave out ("subsection (1) above") and insert ("the foregoing provisions of this section").
  58 line 12, leave out ("those lands and heritages as") and insert ("the land fronting or abutting the road as it has").
  59 line 13, leave out ("lands and heritages") and insert ("land").
  60 Clause 16, page 15, line 22, leave out ("lands and heritages") and insert ("land").
  61 line 22, leave out ("front or abut") and insert ("fronts or abuts").
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 61 en bloc. Should any of your Lordships wish it, I shall be happy to give further specification in regard to any of these amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
  Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think that we are very grateful to the Lord Advocate. After all, he inherited this Bill from a previous Lord Advocate. I do not know whether he realises it, but it set out on its parliamentary life on 3rd November last year. It has not exactly been an urgent Government priority. I only regret that they did not take my advice when I suggested that they should lose the Bill between this House and the other place. I call it the "James Mackay Memorial Bill". We could have done quite well without it. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate saw a note that I passed to the Government Whips where I suggested that we really should take these amendments page by page. There are only three or four that are worthy of comment.
  Lord Hughes: My Lords, in moving the amendments en bloc, the noble and learned Lord said he would answer questions about any of them. I do not want to object to their being taken in that way. As a matter of fact, I should have been quite happy had he taken the amendments from beginning to end en bloc. They seem to be a draftsman's paradise.

  229
  I wanted to ask a question which concerns various parts of the Bill. For instance, in Amendment No. 17 there is reference to, "a proposed road". The phrase "proposed road" is also used in Amendment No. 28, but Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 talk about,
  "proposed road in course of construction".
  Quite honestly, I do not understand how a proposed road could be in course of construction. As soon as construction starts, it becomes a road.
  That would appear to be the position when we get to Clause 144, where Amendment No. 210 says:
  " 'proposed road' means"—
  and I will leave out the words in brackets which refer only to public roads—
  "a new road in course of construction, or proposed to be constructed, by or on behalf of any person".
  It seems to me that in its zeal for change the other place has had rather misguided enthusiasm for adding still further to the matter by having these different definitions, when the interpretation appears to make the difference unnecessary. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will elucidate.
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am grateful to Lord Ross for the welcome that he gave to the return of the Bill to this House. I am sure that when he referred to my predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, he was not intending to suggest that it was not necessary to have him in this House.
  However, if I may just deal with the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, with regard to proposed roads, I think that your Lordships may recollect that when the Bill was originally before the House, the definition of "road" included a reference to a proposed road. The result of that was that with such a definition of the word "road"—and of course the word "road" only appeared throughout the Bill as it was then before the House—it could have had somewhat unfortunate consequences in several of the clauses as they were then drafted.
  I give but one example to indicate why that should be. There was the offence for an owner letting a child under 16 drive his horse and cart in a road. That would have applied whether the road was in being or whether it was as yet unconstructed—merely a figment of the planner's mind.
  So far as the second part of the matter to which Lord Hughes referred—the use in certain circumstances of the term:
  "proposed road in course of construction"—
  that is because the definition, "proposed road", contemplates not merely a road which is actually in the course of construction but also a road which has as yet merely been planned—that is to say, one which is on the drawing board and has not yet got to the stage of construction. But, of course, there are circumstances in the course of the Bill when it would obviously be inappropriate that clauses should refer simply to a road which is at that point on the draftsman's board and not in the course of construction. I trust that my attempts to allay your Lordships' fears are at least in part successful.
  Lord Hughes: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for that explanation. I shall read it with interest because at the moment I do not feel that I have elucidation. However, I wish to assure him that in this matter I have no fear—I lost all that way back about March or April of this year when we were wading through the Bill.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  62 Clause 16, page 16, line 8, leave out ("and") and insert—
  (" (bb) provide that—

  (i) in a case where circumstances mentioned in provisions made under paragraph (c)(vi) below have arisen the local roads authority shall construct the road or, as the case may be, make it up to the standard mentioned in section 15(1) of this Act; and

  (ii) subsection (2) of section 19 of this Act shall apply to a road so constructed or made up as that subsection applies to a road constructed under subsection (1) of that section; and")

  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62. This amendment relates to the road bond provision in the Bill. It enables regulations which may be made under Clause 16 to clarify that the local roads authority will complete an unmade-up road for which a road bond has been deposited and take the completed road onto the list of public roads.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could perhaps help me in my interpretation of this amendment. Could he tell me what safeguards the local authority or the road authority would have if there was a very long delay between the starting of a scheme, for example an estate of houses, and the building of a road. A point could be reached in which because of a long delay, there could have been a considerable escalation of cost over what was generally agreed as being a reasonable bond for the local authority to complete the road. However, as I understand it, if the contractor is not able to complete the road, the roads authority must do the work. Therefore, it could take a long time to complete the housing estate, since obviously the roads are only partly completed while the construction traffic is using them. On the other hand, severe difficulties could be encountered when the road was being constructed. It would, perhaps, be beneficial to an unworthy contractor who decided that he would not complete the job and wished the local authority to complete it.
  I should like to know this. With regard to Clause 16(4), which provides that any dispute between a local authority can go to an arbiter, would the arbiter be enabled to increase the liability of the contractor for the bond under circumstances such as I have tried to describe, or under some other, I agree hypothetical but frequently quite realisable, circumstances?
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I think there are two matters which arise. The first matter is in relation to the question of the cost of making up a road

  231
  in the event that construction consent has been granted. Your Lordships will recollect that this is a requirement first of all under Clause 16 and thereafter by way of application under Clause 20. It is anticipated that Clause 20(4), which provides that it shall be a condition of any construction consent that the construction be completed within such a period as the local roads authority may specify in giving consent, will be the basis upon which the local roads authority would of course determine what is the amount of the road bond to be provided under Clause 16(2).
  Obviously they will look forward to the period of time which they give in relation to completion of the road as being one of the factors to which they will look in fixing an appropriate sum. I can simply say that where there is a dispute it would be a dispute between the local roads authority and the particular person in regard to the amount which the local roads authority are intending to fix. It would be within those parameters that an arbiter would operate. So far as I can see, that would seem to be a perfectly sensible way in which to proceed in relation to a security by way of a road bond. Your Lordships are well aware that it is for that purpose that the provisions of road bonds have been brought into Clause 16 of the Bill.
  Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I do not think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate quite sees the point. We are not arguing about the bond. We are not arguing about what has been fixed by the local authority and the circumstances in which, and the procedure whereby such a deposit may be applied, and so on. We are talking about the actual fact that the local authority is left with an obligation to complete a road and the bond itself may not be sufficient, for all sorts of circumstances. What happens then?
  Remember, it may well be that the builder or the person constructing the road has gone bankrupt, so that it is no use going to him. It is a case of going to whoever would own the houses, who normally and probably would have already paid, in the cost of their houses, their share of the construction of that road. Who is going to come to the relief of the local authority in that case, where the bond is not sufficient to meet the cost?
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, my response to that must be this. In the kind of situation which has been postulated by the noble Lord, some construction has already taken place within the period afforded for the construction of the road. As noble Lords will understand, the bond itself is for the full cost of the road before construction. So, in so far as the road has already been constructed, that is expenditure which the local roads authority would not then have to meet. I should have thought that in general terms the balance would probably be fully met out of the road bond provision.
  All I can say is that in the unlikely event that there was an excess over and above the road bond provision, as I understand it in such circumstances it would have to be the local roads authority that would meet the difference. However, my submission to your Lordships is that this would be very unlikely. One would contemplate the situation where there had already been a part making-up of the road, and of
  232
  course the road bond provision is to cover the whole making up of the road. I hope that I have made my sense plain.
  Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may have made his position or the Government's position about this clear to others; but I am afraid that it is not very clear to us. He says that this is very unlikely to happen. May I tell him that it has happened? May I also tell him that the bond is surely not purely to cover the local authority's liability but the fact that the person constructing the road may not have paid for those who are constructing it on his behalf. He may not have paid for the materials. There are more than the local authority who have the claim upon that bond. So, the fact that some work has been done does not mean to say that it has been paid for. I am sorry that this matter has not been raised at an earlier stage, but it is not the fault of the noble and learned Lord. This is not the noble and learned Lord's Bill.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  63 Clause 20, page 18, line 17, after ("initimated") insert ("by the applicant").
  64 line 18, leave out ("lands and heritages") and insert ("land").
  65 page 19, line 9, after ("date") insert ("of the intimation to him").
  66 Clause 28, page 21, line 12, after ("road") insert ("or proposed road").
  67 line 14, after ("road") insert ("or proposed road").
  68 line 34, after ("road") insert ("or proposed public road").
  69 Clause 30, page 21, line 38, after ("road") insert ("or proposed public road").
  70 line 40, leave out ("the road") and insert ("it").
  71 line 41, leave out ("the road") and insert ("it").
  72 line 1, leave out ("the road") and insert ("it").
  73 line 4, leave out ("the road") and insert ("it").
  74 line 6, leave out ("the road") and insert ("it").
  75 Clause 31, page 23, line 5, after ("road") insert ("or proposed public road").
  76 Clause 34, line 33, at end insert—
  ("(1A) In subsection (1) above, the reference to roads, or proposed roads, which will be maintainable by the local roads authority does not include a reference to—

  (a)an existing road which is a prospective public road within the meaning of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950;

  (b)a new road in course of construction, or to be constructed, other than by or on behalf of the authority; or

  (c) a road which would be maintainable by them only if application were made to them under section 15(1) of this Act.")

  77 line 38, leave out ("private road") and insert ("road, or proposed road,").
  78 line 39, at end insert ("and as regards which no duty is imposed by them by subsection (1) above.").
  79 line 41, leave out ("lands and heritages") and insert ("land").
  80 line 44, after ("road") insert ("or proposed road").
  81 Clause 39. page 26, line 18, leave out ("1967") and insert ("1984").
  82 Clause 40, page 26, line 35, at end insert ("; and such provision and maintenance may take place whether the road is in existence and open to public traffic or is a proposed road in course of construction.").
  83 line 38, after ("road") insert "(or proposed road)").
  84 line 42, after ("road") insert ("(or, where the road is a proposed road, which will on completion of that road be so entitled)").
  85 line 41, at end insert—
  ("(9) Without prejudice to subsections (1) and (2) of this section, in subsections (3) to (7) of this section and in Schedule 4 to this Act references to a road shall be construed as including references to a proposed road.").
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 63 to 85 en bloc. I am happy to give any specification that noble Lords may wish.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  86 After Clause 47, insert the following new clause—
  Provision of bus shelters, etc. by loca! roads authorities.
  (" .—(1) In the Local Government (Omnibus Shelters and Queue Barriers) (Scotland) Act 1958, for the words "local authority" wherever they occur other than the places mentioned in subsection (2) below there shall be substituted the words "local roads authority".
  (2) The excepted places referred to in subsection (1) above are—

  (a) the first place where the words "local authority" occur in section 1(2) of the said Act of 1958;

  (b) section 3(2) of that Act;

  (c) the first place where those words occur in section 4(1) of that Act; and

  (d) section 7(1) of that Act.").

  4.40 p.m.
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 86. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 182 and 247, which are consequential.
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  182 Amendment No. 182: After Clause 111, insert the following new clause—
  Transfer of officers and property in connection with lighting and bus shelters, etc.
  (" .—( 1 ) This section applies where, by virtue of section 34 or [Provision of bus shelters, etc. by local roads authorities] of this Act, a function which was, before the commencement of this Act, exercisable by a district council (whether or not concurrently with another local authority) is exercisable by a local roads authority.
  (2) An officer of a district council who, in the period immediately before the coming into force of this Act, was wholly or mainly employed in duties pertaining, irrespective of how his office or employment was formally described, to a function referred to in subsection (1) above, shall be transferred into the employment of the local roads authority; but such transfer shall not affect any legal right or entitlement of the officer.
  (3) Subject to any such agreement as is provided for in subsection (4) below, any heritable or moveable property of a district council which is wholly or mainly used, or held, by the council in relation to the discharge of a function referred to in subsection (1) above shall transfer to and vest in the local roads authority.
  (4) If or in so far as the district council and the local roads authority agree that property shall not be transferred by subsection (3) above, that subsection shall have no effect as regards the property; but the property shall no longer be used or held by the district council in relation to the discharge of a function referred to in subsection (1) above.
  (5) Any dispute between a district council and a local roads authority as to whether or when a transfer falls to take
  234
  place under subsection (2) or (3) above or as to any other matter concerning such a transfer shall be determined by arbitration by a single arbiter appointed in default of agreement by the Court of Session, or the sheriff, on the application of either party.").
  247 Amendment No. 247: Schedule 8, page 142, line 7, at end insert—
  ("(4) In section 7(1) (interpretation), after the definition of "local authority" there shall be inserted the following definition—
  "local roads authority" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".").
  Amendments Nos. 86 and 247 implement a recommendation of the committee which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston. It was a recommendation, supported by COSLA, that responsibility for the provision and maintenance of bus shelters should be confined to regional or islands councils as part of their general responsibilities for local transport matters. At present, district councils have a concurrent responsibility with regional authorities. All but one of the regional councils already accept full responsibility for bus shelter provision and maintenance. The amendments therefore provide for uniform practice throughout the country.
  The new clause added by Amendment No. 182 is necessitated by the transfer to the regional councils of district functions relating to bus shelters and road lighting, and again both these are recommendations of the committee that was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston. This new clause allows for property to be transferred from district councils to the local roads authority—most notably this would be road lights and bus shelters—and for the transfer of any staff wholly or mainly employed by the district councils on either of those functions.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.— (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
  Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, this is one of the more respectable clauses in this rather silly Bill. The question must arise: why did the Government wait until this got to the Commons before they put it in? After all, Lord Stodart's committee reported in 1981, and that is now getting on for three years ago. We are all conversant with the actual clause. I think it was chapter 14 and paragraph 207 of that report which dealt with the subject of bus shelters and also with the cleansing. We had a Bill on this subject. Once again, it is pretty unfair to ask a new boy to explain the delays of the Government and their muddled thinking in respect of this. We had an actual Bill on the subject of Stodart. No wonder the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, is not here. He is ashamed that his Bill should be handled in this dilatory way. If the noble and learned Lord opposite has received an explanation, if the cavalry are as good as they used to be, then he might let us have it.
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, again I shall be happy to try to allay the apprehension of the noble Lord, Lord Ross. My understanding is that in this case, despite the fact that the recommendation was made some time ago, it was necessary for negotiation about the matter to continue with interested parties. That is why, as I indicated just now

  235
  to your Lordships, the amendment now comes supported by COSLA.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  87 Clause 48, page 31, line 9, after ("road") insert ("or of a proposed public road which is in course of construction").
  88 line 16, after ("road") insert (" (or proposed road) ").
  89 line 18, leave out ("lands and heritages") and insert ("land").
  90 after ("road") insert (" (or proposed road) ").
  91 line 19, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
  (" (3) Paragraph 23 of the telecommunications code (which provides a procedure for certain cases where works involve the alteration of telecommunication apparatus) shall, subject to subsection (4) below, apply, for the purposes of any works which may be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this section, to the roads authority.
  (4) Where the roads authority is the Secretary of State, sub-paragraph (8) of paragraph 23 of the telecommunications code (offence) shall be omitted for the purposes of the application of that paragraph to him by subsection (3) above. ").
  92 Clause 50, page 32, line 3, leave out ("any").
  93 line 4, leave out ("any") and insert ("a").
  94 line 5, leave out ("any") and insert ("a").
  95 after ("or") insert ("as the case may be").
  96 line 9, leave out ("a") and insert ("any").
  97 line 10, after ("the") insert ("last mentioned").
  98 line 18, after ("road") insert ("proposed road").
  99 line 21, after first ("road") insert (" (or proposed road) ").
  100 leave out ("the surroundings of the road") and insert ("its surroundings").
  101 line 23, after ("road") insert (" (or proposed road) ").
  102 Clause 52, page 33, line 7, after ("road") insert (" , or a proposed road in course of construction,").
  103 Clause 53, page 33, line 12, after ("road") insert (" , or a proposed public road which is to be a trunk road,").
  104 line 14, after ("road") insert ("or proposed road").
  105 Clause 54, page 34, line 19, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve").
  106 Clause 56, page 36, line 18, at end insert (" : Provided that the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not constitute a defence as regards any such contravention as is mentioned in section (Saving for, and extension of section 80 of, Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974) (1) of this Act.").
  107 Clause 57, page 37, line 18, after ("authority" insert ("or by a constable in uniform").
  108 line 26, after ("authority") insert ("or a constable").
  109 after ("obstruction") insert (" (or cause it to be removed) ").
  110 line 32, at end insert (" , except that where the removal is by a constable the said subsections (8) and (9) shall be read as if any reference therein to the roads authority were a reference to the police authority.").
  111 line 33, at end insert—
  ("—
  (a) ").
  112 line 36, at end insert—
  (" ; or
  (b) to works to which the street works code, as contained in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, applies.").
  113 Clause 58, page 38, line 27, after ("or") insert ("reasonable").
  114 line 30, after ("removes") insert (", interferes with").
  115 Clause 59, page 39, line 4, after ("road") insert ("or proposed public road").
  116 line 5, after ("road") insert ("or proposed road").
  117 at end insert—
  (" (1A) In subsection (1) above, "proposed public road" means a new road in course of construction by or on behalf of the roads authority.").
  118 Clause 60, page 39, line 23, leave out ("12") and insert ("14").
  119 leave out ("1967") and insert ("1984").
  120 line 31, after ("and") insert (" (where practicable)").
  121 Clause 63, page 41, line 7, leave out ("16") and insert ("—
  (a) 14").
  122 line 8, at end insert—
  (" ; or
  (b) 16 years of age (not being such child as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above) to drive that vehicle on a road other than under the immediate supervision of a person of 18 years of age or more.").
  123 Clause 64, page 41, line 27, at end insert—
  (" (3) A person upon whom a notice has been served under subsection (2) above may, within the 28 days mentioned in that subsection, refer the matter by summary application to the sheriff; and the decision of the sheriff on the matter shall be final.
  (4) A local roads authority may, if they think fit, pay the whole or any part of any expenditure incurred by a person in complying with subsection (1) or (2) above.").
  124 Clause 66, page 42, line 19. after ("shall") insert (", except in a case to which section 125 of this Act applies,").
  125 Clause 67, page 42, line 26, leave out ("public road") and insert ("road or proposed road,").
  126 leave out ("or premises").
  127 line 29, leave out ("or premises").
  128 Clause 68, page 42, line 40, after ("68") insert ("(1)").
  129 line 43, leave out ("or premises").
  130 page 43, line 4, leave out ("or premises").
  131 line 5, at end insert—
  ("(2) The references in subsection (1) above to a special road and to a main road shall be construed as including references to a proposed such road.").
  132 Clause 69, page 43, line 29, leave out ("or premises").
  133 line 32, leave out ("or premises").
  134 line 35, leave out ("or premises").
  135 page 44, line 1, leave out ("or premises").
  136 line 6, leave out ("or premises").
  137 line 7, leave out ("or premises").
  138 Clause 70, page 44, line 13, leave out ("or premises").
  139 line 15, leave out ("or premises").
  140 after ("road") insert (", or proposed public road,").
  141 line 16, leave out ("or premises").
  142 Clause 73, page 46, line 27, at end insert—
  ("(5A) The reference in—

  (a) subsection (1) above to a trunk road;

  (b) subsection (2) above to a special road; or

  (c) subsection (3) above to a public road,

  shall be construed as including a reference to a proposed trunk, special or public road as the case may be.").
  143 line 37, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
  ("(8) Paragraph 23 of the telecommunications code (which provides a procedure for certain cases where works involve the alteration of telecommunication apparatus) shall, subject to subsection (9) below, apply, for the purposes of any works authorised by a scheme made under subsection (3) above, to the roads authority.

  237
  (9) Where the roads authority is the Secretary of State, sub-paragraph (8) of paragraph 23 of the telecommunications code (offence) shall be omitted for the purposes of the application of that paragraph to him by subsection (8) above.").
  144 Clause 76, page 48, line 12, after ("road") insert (" (or proposed public road)").
  145 line 44, at end insert—
  ("(4) In subsection (2)(6) above the reference to a body acting under statutory powers includes a reference to the operator of a telecommunications code system (whether or not a body) acting in pursuance of any right conferred by or in accordance with the telecommunications code.").
  146 Clause 77, page 49, line 1, leave out ("13(7)") and insert ("(Power to contribute to. or carry out, work on private roads) (1)").
  147 Clause 81, page 53, line 2, after ("fence,") insert ("advertising hoarding,").
  148 line 8, leave out ("or fence") and insert (", fence or advertising hoarding").
  149 line 12, at end insert—
  ("(1A) In subsection (1) above "advertising hoarding" means a hoarding or similar structure used, or adapted for use, for the display of advertisements.").
  150 Clause 85, page 56, line 12, leave out from ("require") to end of line 15 and insert ("that within such period as may be specified in the notice the person having control or possession of the structure—

  (a) shall remove it; and

  (b) if the authority consider reinstatement of the road to be requisite, shall carry out such reinstatement.").

  151 Clause 87, page 56, line 33, leave out ("on") and insert ("onto").
  152 Clause 91, page 59, line 32, after ("road") insert ("—(a)").
  153 line 36, leave out ("as") and insert—
  (";
  (b) and is a building constitutes a danger to road users and there is no other such provision as aforesaid, they shall under this subsection take such steps by way of enclosure or screening, as").
  154 Clause 92, page 61, line 13, leave out ("and").
  155 line 14, after ("works") insert ("; and "public road" includes a proposed public road.").
  156 Clause 93, page 61, line 18, after ("material") insert ("(of whatever nature)").
  157 line 19, after ("drop") insert ("onto").
  158 Clause 94, page 62, line 22, leave out from ("shall") to ("within") in line 25 and insert ("not be commenced later than 12 months after the damage has been done unless that damage is the consequence of a particular building contract or of work extending over a long period, in which case they may, notwithstanding that such period of 12 months has elapsed, be commenced").
  159 Clause 95, page 62, line 39, leave out ("reference") and insert ("references").
  160 after ("subsection") insert ("and in subsection (4) below").
  161 line 40, leave out ("includes") and insert ("include").
  162 Page 63, line 7, at end insert—
  ("(aa) the sale or offer or exposure for sale of things in, and as part of, a relevant public market;").
  163 line 27, at end insert—
  (" 'relevant public market' means a market or fair—

  (a) held by virtue of a grant from the Crown or of prescription or under statutory authority; and

  (b) established, held or having its place fixed, by a regional, islands, or district council:

  Provided that in establishing or holding, or fixing the place of, the market and in regulating it the council shall consult the roads authority and shall, so far as the council consider it practicable to do so, give effect to any recommendation as respects the market made to them by the roads authority in the interests of road users;").
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 87 to 163 en bloc. Again, I should be happy to answer any questions on this matter.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  164 Clause 96, page 63, line 33, leave out ("public").
  165 line 35, at end insert ("or by a constable; and the person so leaving an animal or allowing it so to stray commits an offence.").
  166 line 38, after ("authority") insert (", or as the case may be from the police authority,").
  167 line 39, at end insert—
  (" : Provided that no such payment shall be exigible where the owner took all reasonable steps to ensure that the animal was not so left as is mentioned in subsection (1) above or, as the case may be, did not so stray as is there mentioned.").
  168 line 40, at beginning insert ("Subject to the proviso to subsection (2) above,").
  169 after ("authority") insert ("or as the case may be police authority").
  170 Page 64, line 4, at end insert ("or as the case may be police authority.
  (4A) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above, it shall be a defence for a person accused of allowing an animal to stray onto a road to prove that he took all reasonable steps to prevent such straying.").
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 164 to 170 en bloc. It would be for convenience if I may speak also to Amendment No. 227.
  Commons Amendment No. 227: Schedule 7, page 110, line 31, at end insert—
  ("22A. Section 96(1) (leaving animal on, or Level 3.") allowing it to stray onto, road).
  Amendments Nos. 164 to 166, and Nos. 169, 170 and 227 were made in the light of comments that were received from two sources. The first was from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the second was from COSLA. The amendments make three distinct changes to Clause 96. The first change is that since the straying of an animal is a safety hazard which should be prevented on any road, the clause is no longer confined to public roads. I would point your Lordships to the definition of a road in the definition clause of the Bill, which provides that a road is that over which the public have a right of passage, and comprehends, of course, not only public but private roads.
  Secondly, again bearing in mind the need to secure safety on the roads, under the clause the police have been given the same powers of seizure and detention as road authorities have. Again, I suggest to your Lordships that this is compatible with that need. For instance, police in a patrol car or (dare I say it?) on foot might well be able to seize and detain an erring animal and perhaps prevent a bull in a china shop situation developing.
  Finally, provision in existing legislation which makes it an offence to allow an animal to stray on a road has been reinstated. It appears that the mere existence of such an offence has had a salutary effect on

  239
  those responsible for animals. But, in order to ensure that nobody is unjustly convicted through no fault of his own, the amendments have made it a defence to prove that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent the animal straying. Amendments Nos. 167 and 168 ensure that an owner will not be required to pay the costs of detention of his animals if they strayed onto a road through no fault of his own, perhaps because walkers left a gate open. The owner would not be required to make such payment if he has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that his animals do not stray onto a road.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
  Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am merely checking the progress of the Bill at this point so that we can be told exactly what change in the law there is. In certain parts of the country there have been occasions when, if an animal strayed on the road and a motorist hit it, the motorist, rather than the owner of the animal, was liable. What I want to get clear from the Lord Advocate is, first, what is the present law, and, secondly, what change this makes?
  Noble Lords will remember that there have been one or two recent cases in Scotland—one a very serious one—where animals strayed. They strayed not only on to public roads but actually on to a railway track and caused a very serious accident. That is not necessarily covered by this. I do not think the permanent way is covered even by the strange language that we have in this Bill. I should like the Lord Advocate to make it absolutely clear to everyone exactly what the present law is and what change is being made by this.
  It is not going to be very easy to prove that any farmer deliberately left a gate open. This is rather important. I heard of a recent case in Dumfriesshire where a car driving along a trunk road was suddenly confronted by a bull. The car was travelling at about 40 or 50 miles an hour. The car hit the animal, but what might well have been a serious accident fortuitously and happily turned out to be a mishap rather than an accident. But who is responsible? It is easy for the farmer to say, "Someone else opened the gate", or, "Somebody broke down the fence". As far as I can see, the change that is made here—the Lord Advocate can correct me if I am wrong—is that it gives a reasonable "out" to the farmer and reduces the possibility of any help to the motorist, or the pedestrian, for that matter, who is harmed by a straying animal, as in the case I cited.
  Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I am concerned about the areas where there are unfenced roads. In the Borders, for example, there are a great many sheep and one cannot fence all the roads because it would involve miles and miles of fencing. Nearly always there is a notice saying, "Beware of sheep". But if there is not, and if the animals are in the way and one cannot possibly fence the roads, what happens? Whose responsibility is it if an animal is killed?
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, let me deal first with the matter of the offence. The amendments re-enact the offence which existed in terms of the
  240
  Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878. However, they provide the defence—which is set out—that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent the animal from straying. I want to make it quite clear that the reason why this has been reinstated is that it is the view of the authorities most interested in this matter that the existence of such an offence has been salutary and obviously, as your Lordships will understand, anything which tries to contain animals from straying on to roads where vehicles or others may pass, is something to be commended. I would merely say in regard to the question of proof that these are obviously matters which the prosecution will have to take into account when it is considering whether any prosecution should follow.
  But I still say and suggest to your Lordships that it is appropriate to have this provision on the statute book for the purpose for which it is there; namely, to secure safety on the roads. Perhaps I should say that of course this is in relation to criminal law; it does not deal with the liability arising under the civil law which is the type of case of which the noble Lord opposite was perhaps thinking, where there may, I appreciate, be difficulties in proving negligence where there has been a straying animal. For the very same reason it may be that the owner of the animal cannot be traced or, if traced, may have taken all reasonable steps to prevent the animal straying.
  The noble Baroness asked me about the situation when animals stray on to roads that are unfenced. Again it would be a question of the owner taking reasonable steps in those circumstances to prevent the animal straying on to the road. I do not think that I can assist your Lordships further on this matter.
  Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, surely the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would agree that the result of a prosecution would considerably affect the result of a civil action. Can the noble Lord tell me how many prosecutions there have been in, for example, the last year or so in respect of owners allowing their animals to stray on public roads?
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am not in a position to give that information, but I should be happy to write to the noble Lord with the information.
  Lord Hughes: My Lords, further to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, about unfenced roads and with reference to the terms of Amendment No. 170, would the putting up of a notice saying, "Beware of sheep" on unfenced roads, be regarded as having taken "all reasonable steps", not to prevent the animal straying, but to warn people of the possibility?
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, a lawyer is always very cautious about giving legal advice in a matter of this type, particularly since the amendment provides that it is for the defence to prove that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent the animal straying. No doubt one of the matters which the court could well take into account would be the provision of notices informing the public of the danger. However, I obviously cannot give any undertaking and would

  241
  not seek to do so to your Lordships. It must always be a matter for the particular circumstances of the particular case.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  171 Clause 97, page 64, line 8, leave out ("lands and heritages") and insert ("land").
  172 line 9, leave out ("those lands and heritages are") and insert ("that land is").
  173 line 9, leave out ("constitute") and insert ("constitutes").
  174 line 12, leave out ("lands and heritages") and insert ("land").
  175 line 23, leave out ("lands and heritages") and insert ("land").
  176 Clause 102, page 66, line 28, at end insert—
  (" (5) In the foregoing provisions of this section any reference to—

  (a) a public road shall be construed as including a reference to a proposed public road;

  (b) a trunk road shall be construed as including a reference to a proposed public road which is to be a trunk road; and

  (c) a special road shall be construed as including a reference to a proposed public road which is to be a special road.").

  177 Clause 103, page 66, line 31, after ("road") insert (" (or proposed public road) ").
  178 line 40, after ("road") insert (" (or proposed public road) ").
  179 Clause 105, page 68, line 29, leave out ("require") and insert ("acquire").
  180 Clause 107, page 69, line 3, at end insert—
  ("(4) In subsection (3) above and in Schedule 5 to this Act, references to a road and to a public road shall be construed, respectively, as including references to a proposed road and to a proposed public road.").
  181 Clause 109, page 70, line 28, at end insert—
  ("(3) In the foregoing provisions of this section, references to special roads or to trunk roads shall be construed as including references to proposed public roads which are to be special roads or as the case may be are to be trunk roads.").
  [Amendment No. 182 printed earlier: col. 233.]
  183 Clause 112, page 73, line 14, after second ("of) insert ("the").
  184 After Clause 114, insert the following new clause:
  ("Compensation where interest in land subject to heritable security.
  . Subsection (4) of section 167 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (provisions as to compensation where an interest in land is subject to a heritable security) shall apply in relation to such compensation as is mentioned in section 69(6), 70( 1 ), 81 (7) or 86(2), or as may be provided for in an agreement under section 51 (2), of this Act as the said subsection (4) applies in relation to compensation to which the said section 167 applies.").
  185 Clause 116, page 75, line 40, at end insert—
  ("(5) In the foregoing provisions of this section, references to a road shall be construed as including references to a proposed road.").
  186 Clause 117, page 75, line 43, after ("road") insert ("or of repairing a prospective public road").
  187 line 44, at end insert—
  ("(1A) In subsection (1) above "prospective public road" has the same meaning as in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950.").
  188 Clause 121, page 77, line 19, leave out ("29A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967") and insert ("34 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984").
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos.
  242
  171 to 188 en bloc. Again I should be happy to provide further information if your Lordships wish.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  189 After Clause 121, insert the following new Clause:
  ("Restricted roads: amendment of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
  . Schedule (Restricted roads) to this Act (which amends provisions regarding restricted roads under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) shall have effect.").
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 189 and in so doing I should wish to speak also to Amendment No. 226:
  226 Amendment No. 226: after Schedule 6, insert the following new Schedule—
  ("RESTRICTED ROADS
  Amendment of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
  1. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 shall be amended in accordance with this Schedule.
  2. In section 82(1) (restricted roads)—

  (a) after the word "if there shall be inserted "—(a)"

  (b) for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "carriageway";

  (c) for the words "200 yards" there shall be substituted the words "185 metres"; and

  (d) at the end there shall be inserted the following words—

  "; and
  (b) the road is of a classification or type specified for the purposes of this subsection in regulations made by the Secretary of State.".
  3. In section 85 (traffic signs for indicating speed restrictions)—

  (a) in subsection (4), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "carriageway", and for the words "200 yards" there shall be substituted the words "185 metres";

  (b) in subsection (5), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "carriageway"; and

  (c) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

  "(5A) In any proceedings for a contravention of section 81 of this Act, a certificate of an officer of the Secretary of State that a road is of a specified classification or type shall be sufficient evidence of the facts certified; and a document purporting to be such a certificate and to be signed by such an officer shall be deemed to be such a certificate uniess the contrary is shown.".
  4. In section 134(2) (provisions as to regulations), after the word "sections" there shall be inserted the words "82(1),".
  Transitional provision
  5. Where, immediately prior to the commencement of this Schedule—
  (a) a road is or is deemed to be a restricted road for the purposes of section 81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and that road would, apart from this paragraph, cease to be a restricted road in consequence of the first regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 82(1) of that Act as amended by paragraph 2 above; or
  (b) a road is not and is not deemed to be a restricted road for those purposes and that road would, apart from this paragraph, become a restricted road in consequence of those regulations,
  the roads authority may, prior to the commencement of the regulations, make an order specifying the road, and the road shall, notwithstanding the commencement of the regulations, continue to be, or to be deemed to be, a restricted road or, as the case may be, a road which is not a restricted road until such time as the order is superseded, in relation to that road,

  243
  by a direction under section 82(2) of that Act (directions making specified roads restricted or not restricted) or an order under section 84(1) of that Act (power to fix speed limits).").
  These amendments have been introduced following representations by local roads authorities and by the police about problems which exist in applying speed limit control provisions, especially those arising out of the classification of roads as restricted roads.
  As your Lordships will be aware, a "restricterd road" is automatically subject to a 30 miles per hour speed limit. The basic criterion for such a road is that it has a system of street lighting with lamps not more that 185 metres apart. Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, a second determining factor was that a road was unclassified or, if it was a trunk or classified road, had a system of street lighting prior to 1st July 1957.
  As a consequence of those provisions it became difficult as time passed to establish which roads had lights prior to that date in July 1957. Accordingly, problems arose with prosecutions for speeding offences on some roads. In the Transport Act 1982, amending provisions aimed at remedying the situation were introduced, but these have proved complicated to operate. They have had the adverse effect of applying a 30 miles per hour limit, whether appropriate or not, to any road on which lights are installed. To apply the appropriate limit, roads authorities were faced with a wasteful requirement to make individual speed limit control orders. The amendments made by the 1982 Act also made reference to a specific date—1st November 1982—and that has caused problems which they were meant to solve.
  As your Lordships are aware, the existing provisions within these Acts were consolidated in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It was accordingly considered as a result of the representations by the local roads authorities and the police that it would be best to bring in a method of classifying roads as restricted roads which would be simpler to operate. This would also result in a revised system of speed limit control which would not require the re-education of drivers and which would involve minimum public expenditure. The amendments implement such a system. They are amendments which have been agreed in discussion between the Scottish Office, local authorities, the police and the Crown Office. They provide that "restricted roads" will be those which are of a class or type specified by the Secretary of State in regulations and which have a system of carriageway lighting provided by lamps not more that 185 metres apart.
  In proceedings for a speeding offence on a restricted road, a certificate, signed by an officer or the Secretary of State, as to a road's classification or type will be evidence of the facts certified. Other roads will of course be subject to the prevailing national speed limits. In all cases however a roads authority may impose a different speed limit on a road by order, subject to compliance with relevant procedures.
  In order to enable existing speed limits to be maintained which would otherwise be affected by the changes, the amendments empower roads authorities to make transitional orders. These orders can be simply made. Since they will maintain the status quo,
  244
  they will not require to be advertised and no provision is made for objections to them.
  Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
  5.1 p.m.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his explanation of these particular amendments. The House will also be hopeful that the amendments will do the job which he expects them to do. I do not think there is any doubt that the link between lighting and speed restrictions in many cases is now outdated. The noble and learned Lord will be as aware as I am that in Scotland the M.8, the A.77 and the A.74 are fairly long stretches of road which have been released from restrictions, and to these roads the standard national speed limits apply.
  There is some genuine concern at what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said at the Committee stage in another place. He said:
  "I hope the House will agree that the existing position is near to complete collapse."
  He continued:
  "It is evident that a revised system of determining speed limit control is necessary".
  This was after the amendment of the 1982 Act which it was hoped would clear up the matter of speed limits. This is where I and a number of other people and groups become slightly concerned. The amendment of 1982 was introduced with a little panic and some haste in order to stop a gap. I understand that the gap had become so wide that in many circumstances certain police forces were not willing to risk trying to prosecute. One gets an uneasy feeling that in this particular instance, this amendment coming as late in the Bill as this, there has perhaps been some panic in trying to standardise the whole question of the speed limit.
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that there had been consultation with local authorities and the police. I should like to know whether, for instance, any of the motoring organisations, any reputable authorities concerned with traffic or any other organisations concerned with lorries, freight transport, and so on, have been asked for their impressions of the proposed amendments to the Bill. Perhaps most important of all, I should like to know what consideration was given to the Department of Transport's paper, Restricted Roads—an Alternative Approach, a copy of which I was only able to obtain this morning. That is the speed at which things appear to be changing. It appears as though in England and Wales the Department of Transport is moving away from the idea that lighting should determine what the speed limit should be and that they are talking about an overall urban speed limit with exceptions within that urban area.
  Therefore, if these amendments go through—and I have no doubt that they will—it could very well be that, according to the suggestions of this consultative document from the Department of Transport, Scotland would have a different system from that which operates in England and Wales. As there is much cross-border traffic, it seems to me that there

  245
  should have been a little more correspondence between the two bodies—the Scottish people involved in road traffic and the Department of Transport.
  It was unfortunate that the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 was amended in such a way that the Secretary of State is under no duty to consult. I know that it is always difficult to name names or to make specific recommendations as to who should be consulted; but if the Secretary of State and his officers know that they have a duty to consult people, I am sure that they know exactly to whom to go to get a respectable and reputable opinion on new legislation. These are important points, and it is perhaps unfortunate that if new regulations are adopted in England and Wales which prove better, we shall fairly soon have an amendment to this particular Bill.
  Finally, in the phrase:
  "a system of carriageway lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 185 metres apart"
  why was the word "carriageway" used when in every other part of the Bill almost every reference to "street" or "highway" has been thrown out and replaced by the word "road"? What is the precise meaning of "carriageway" in this connection? Is the expression actually defined in the Bill for the purposes that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the Bill intend?
  This is a very late amendment. I am not sure that it will work. We all have reason to be slightly unhappy about the history of the speed limit law, particularly in Scotland, and perhaps it would have been better if a little longer time had been taken before an amendment had been made in the existing regulations.
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having raised these points, and in some ways perhaps it is an omission on my part that I have not made the distinction clearly enough between the matter of classification and the actual signing of roads. I think that the signing of roads will remain the same on both sides of the border, and therefore so far as the ordinary driver is concerned he will notice no difference.
  The purpose of this amendment is to provide a better way of classifying roads as restricted roads—a way which will not be subject to the vagaries of past legislation—in requiring that there should be both a system of street lighting and then, in addition that a road was unclassified, or if, it was a trunk or classified road, had been provided with such a system of street lighting prior to a certain date.
  As I understand it, proposals are presently being considered in England and Wales on the method to be adopted to classify restricted roads which may or may not fall in line with the proposals which are suggested in these amendments. I think it proper to inform your Lordships that what is pesently in mind in England is one of the alternatives considered by the authorities, to which I referred. It was considered that the system which is now presented in these amendments was a better one and had the added advantage that it involved a minimum of public expenditure. I am sure that your Lordships will support such a course.
  So far as the last aspect the noble Lord asked me about is concerned, the reason the phrase "carriage-
  246
  way lighting" is used in these amendments is that it is simply to make it clear beyond peradventure that it is lighting which is aimed to fight up the road—that is, the roadway on which vehicles pass—as opposed, as is sometimes the case, to lighting which is directed merely to lighting a footway; that is to say, that along which foot passengers, and not vehicles, pass. I hope that with these explanations the noble Lord's fears are to a large extent allayed.
  Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I should be happy with that explanation if it told us anything. The noble and learned Lord mentioned the system in these amendments. What is the system in these amendments? Am I right in thinking that these amendments only give power to the Secretary of State to specify what is a restricted road? We know what the system is, but we do not know what it is going to be.
  Concerning the explanation of "carriageway", I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord knows it, but "street" is a dirty word. We are coming, I think, to Amendment No. 226 to Schedule 8, and the purpose of this schedule is to get rid of the word "highway". I do not know what we are going to do with the Highway Code, because there will be no such thing as a "highway" in Scotland after we pass this Bill. Streets are out, roads are in. We are going to codify and modernise the language and here we go back to the word "carriageway". A more gracious way of living is evoked by the word "carriageway", rather than by what we are now presented with, and we are told that this is to light up the roadway. We have gone right round in a circle.
  I have said that the draftsmen have gone mad on this Bill. Take Schedule 8 that we are now on, with Amendment No. 226. It started out with 26 pages. By the time it left this House it had 60 pages. By the time we finish it today and we agree to these amendments—and we are all going to agree to them, because I am so sick of this Bill that I would agree to anything—nothing at all will be added, apart from two or three clauses which could have been in a small Bill and gone through this House in no time. There will now be 71 pages for Schedule 8.
  All it does is get rid of words which we quite reasonably understood; simple words such as "highway" and "street". Do not let me go on, my Lords. But may I have an explanation in relation to what the Lord Advocate, in all his glory—nearly as fine looking a man as his father, who is a judge in Scotland—tells us about this new system? What is the new system? There is no new system here. All we do is give power to the Secretary of State to produce a system. We do not know what the system is. Should I be comforted by the fact that when he draws up his new system he will consult the motoring organisations as well as the local authorities and the police authorities?
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, as briefly as I can, I shall endeavour to answer the points made by the noble Lord opposite. I appreciate from the remarks that have fallen from him today and from my reading of other occasions that he dislikes this Bill. However, it is only fair to say that it is at long last bringing up to date matters with regard to roads in

  247
  Scotland and is repealing a considerable amount of previous legislation. I assure your Lordships that one of the great things is to try to find provisions in one Bill, rather than spread them about over a number.
  On the particular point raised with regard to the system, obviously the system depends on two things. The first is, that it is operated by the Secretary of State in regulations, and it is to deal with unclassified and Class C roads which are provided with a system of carriageway lighting—I observe the noble Lord's dislike of the word "carriageway", though it is one which is used often even in law courts—provided by lamps not more than 185 metres apart. If the system is adopted, it will perhaps avoid a return to your Lordships' House in due course for further amendment.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  190. After Clause 121, insert the following new clause—
  ("Power of Secretary of State to extend provisions of Road
  Traffic Regulation Act 1984 etc. to proposed roads in Scotland
  . After section 132 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Power of Secretary of State to extend provisions of this Act etc. to proposed roads in Scotland.
  132A.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, there may be prescribed relevant references proposed roads
  (2) No regulation under subsection (1) above shall Purport to have, the effect of rendering roads in criminal conduct (or omissions) which, but for the Scotland, regulations, would not be criminal.
  (3) The foregoing provisions of this section are without prejudice to the exercise of any other power under this Act.
  (4) In subsections (1) and (2) above—
  "proposed road" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984; and
  "relevant reference" means a reference to a road in a provision of, or made by, under or by virtue of, this Act.").
  191 After Clause 121 insert the following new clause—
  ("Saving for and extension of section 80 of Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
  —(1) Nothing in this Act authorises the carrying out of any operation in contravention of "the relevant statutory provisions" defined in Part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 or in contravention of any regulation made, or prohibition notice or improvement notice served, under or by virtue of that Act or any of those provisions.
  (2) For the purposes of the application of section 80(1) of the said Act of 1974 (general power to repeal or modify Acts and instruments where such repeal or modification appears expedient in consequence of or in connection with any provision made by or under Part I of that Act), this Act shall be deemed an Act passed before that Act.").
  192 Clause 125, page 80, leave out from ("any") in line 6 to end of line 12 and insert—
  ("rights conferred by or in accordance with the telecommunications code on the operator of a telecommunications code system or any duty of any such operator under that code; or
  (b) applies to any telecommunication apparatus kept installed for the purposes of any such system.").
  193 line 17, leave out from ("road") to ("shall") in line 21 and insert ("any telecommunication apparatus kept installed for the purposes of a telecommunications code system, the operator of that system").
  194 line 22, leave out ("line") and insert ("apparatus").
  195 line 22, at end insert ("; but any person entitled to land over which the road subsisted may require the alteration of the apparatus.").
  196 line 23, leave out subsection (3).
  197 line 30, leave out (", not being a trunk road").
  198 line 33, leave out from ("road") to end of line 7 on page 81 and insert—
  ("any telecommunication apparatus kept installed for the purposes of a telecommunications code system, the roads authority shall be entitled to require the alteration of the apparatus.
  This subsection does not have effect so far as it relates to the alteration of any telecommunication apparatus for the purpose of authority's work as defined in Part II of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950.
  (4A) Paragraph 1(2) of the telecommunications code (alteration of apparatus to include moving, removal or replacement of apparatus) shall apply for the purposes of subsections ( 1 ), (2) and (4) above as it applies for the purposes of that code.
  (4B) Paragraph 21 of the telecommunications code (restriction on removal of telecommunication apparatus) shall apply in relation to any right conferred by this section to require the alteration, moving or replacement of any telecommunication apparatus as it applies in relation to a right to require the removal of such apparatus.").
  199 Clause 128, page 83, line 11, leave out ("126,") and insert ("127),").
  200 Clause 138, page 89, line 3, after "may" insert ", subject to subsection (5) below and to subsection (7)(i) of the said section 5,".
  201 line 26,. at end insert—
  ("(5) Where—

  (a) a scheme under section 7 or 73(3) of this Act; or

  (b) an order under section 9 or 12 of this Act in relation to—

  (i) a special road; or

  (ii) a main road (within the meaning of the said section 12);

  which has not been opened for the purposes of through traffic,
  is revoked at any time before the special road, main road, bridge or tunnel is opened for the purposes of through traffic, Schedules 1 and 2 to this Act shall have no effect as regards the revocation but, within 28 days of the revocation, notice of it shall be published by the Secretary of State in the Edinburgh Gazette and in such other manner as he thinks best adapted for informing persons affected.").
  202 Clause 144, page 91, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—
  (" "footpath" shall be construed in accordance with subsections (2) and (3)(a) and (b), and "footway" in accordance with subsection (2), below;").
  203 line 26, after ("road") insert ("or proposed road").
  204 line 27, leave out ("lands and heritages") and insert ("land").
  205 line 27, leave out ("that road") and insert ("it").
  206 page 92, line 16, at end insert—
  (" "operator", in relation to a telecommunications code system, has the same meaning as in pragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Telecommunications Act 1984;").
  207 line 26, after ("roads") insert ("(whether existing or proposed)").
  208 line 28, leave out ("premises") and inert ("land").
  209 line 32, after ("riders") insert ("or which complies with the requirements specified in Regulation 4 of the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983").
  210 line 33, at end insert—
  (" "proposed road" means (without prejudice to the definition in this subsection of "proposed public road") a new road in course of construction, or proposed to be constructed, by or on behalf of any person;
  "proposed public road" means either—

  (a) a new road in course of construction, or proposed to be constructed, by or on behalf of a roads authority; or

  (b) an existing road which is a prospective public road within the meaning of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950;").

  211 page 93, line 2, after first ("road") insert ("or proposed road,").
  212 line 2, leave out second ("road").
  213 line 7, after ("road") insert ("(whether existing or in course of construction)").
  214 line 9, after ("(5)") insert ("(or to be provided by him under section 7(5)(a) or (b))").
  215 line 10, after ("constructed") insert ("(or to be constructed)").
  216 line 21, leave out ("British Telecommunications") and insert (", except in sections 126 and 133(4) of this Act, the operator of any telecommunications code system").
  217 line 24, at end insert—
  (" "telecommunication apparatus", "the telecommunications code" and "telecommunications code system" have the same meanings as in pragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Telecommunications Act 1984;".
  218 Page 93, line 29, leave out ("54(1)") and insert ("64(1)").
  219 line 30, leave out ("1967") and insert ("1984").
  220 Page 94, line 19, after ("road") insert ("or proposed road").
  221 line 34, at end insert—
  (" (4) Any reference in this Act to apparatus belonging to statutory undertakers shall, in relation to the operator of a telecommunications code system, have effect as a reference to telecommunication apparatus kept installed for the purposes of that system.").
  222 Page 97, line 8, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below,").
  223 line 9, at end insert (" (in this Act referred to as "the commencement of this Act").
  (2A) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint, and different days may be so appointed for different provisions, for different purposes and for different areas—
  sections 35 to 39;
  section (Restricted roads: amendment of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) and Schedule (Restricted Roads);
  section 149(3) and Schedule 10 in so far as they relate to Schedule 10 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.").
  224 Schedule 1, page 99, line 32, column 2, leave out ("premises") and insert ("land").
  225 line 35, column 1, leave out ("premises") and insert ("land").
  [Amendments Nos. 226 and 227 printed earlier: cols. 242 and 238.]
  228 Schedule 8, page 112, line 38, leave out ("12") and insert ("7·62").
  229 line 39, leave out ("4") and insert ("3·66").
  230 line 41, leave out ("6") and insert ("4·57").
  231 line 42, leave out ("4") and insert ("3·05").
  232 line 47, leave out ("4") and insert ("3·66").
  233 Page 113, line 1, leave out ("3") and insert ("2·74").
  234 line 2, leave out ("5") and insert ("4·27").
  235 line 4, leave out ("30") and insert ("20").
  236 line 9, leave out ("1½") and insert ("1·22").
  237 line 9, leave out ("1") and insert ("0·91").
  238 line 13, leave out ("12") and insert ("7·62").
  239 line 13, leave out ("4") and insert ("3·66").
  240 line 15, leave out ("30") and insert ("20").
  241 Page 117, line 24, at end insert—
  ("The Electric Lighting Act 1888 (c. 12)
  In section 4 of the Electric Lighting Act 1888 (restrictions as to placing of electric lines etc.)—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

  (b) in subsection (5), the words "the term 'street' shall include any square, court, or alley, highway, lane, road, thoroughfare, or public passage or place whatever, and" shall cease to have effect.").

  242 Page 119, line 42, after ("substitution") insert—
  (a) for any reference to a relevant telecommunications operator of a reference to the operator of any telecommunications code system for the purposes of which any telecommunication apparatus is kept installed in, under, along or across that road (or bridge); and
  (b).").
  243 Page 119, line 45, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i)").
  244 Page 120, line 1, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(ii)").
  245 Page 125, leave out lines 28 to 37.
  246 Page 133, line 28, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(1)").
  [Amendment No. 247 printed earlier: col. 234.]
  248 Page 146, line 7, at end insert—
  ("(3A) In section 51(1), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".").
  249 Page 148, line 4, leave out (", wherever it occurs,").
  250 Page 152, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (10).
  251 Page 158, line 30, at end insert —
  ("(16A) In section 209 (provision as to telegraphic lines)—

  (a) in subsection (1), the words ", 200" shall cease to have effect, and for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road";

  (b) in subsection (2), for the word "highway" in the first and second places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "road", and in the third place where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "roads".").

  252 Page 162, line 43, leave out ("(6)") and insert ("(8)").
  253 Page 163, line 41, at beginning insert—
  ("—(1) The Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
  (2)").
  254 line 41, leave out ("of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979").
  255 line 45, at end insert—
  ("(3) In section 13(8) (exercise of powers relating to breaking up of streets, etc), for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads".").
  256 Page 167, leave out lines 17 to 40.
  257 Page 170, line 29, leave out from beginning to (" (interpretation)") in line 35 and insert—
  ("In section 75 of the Transport Act 1982").
  258 Page 170, line 37, at end insert—
  ("(4) In Schedule 2 (fixed penalty offences confined to Scotland) after the list of offences under the Road Traffic Act 1972 there shall be inserted the following words—
  "Offences under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984
  Section 63(1) Conveying insecure load on drawn vehicle.
  Section 63(2) Permitting child to drive drawn vehicle.
  Section 93(1) Dropping and failing to remove mud, etc.
  Section 122(3) Carrying projecting load.
  Section 122(5) Driving on footway, etc.
  Section 122(6) Parking motor vehicle on cycle track.").
  259 page 170, line 39, after ("1983") insert ("(interpretation)").
  260 page 171, line 12, at end insert—
  ("The Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12)
  —(1) The Telecommunications Act 1984 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
  (2) In section 10(4)(b) (exceptions and conditions in licence under section 7), for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
  (3) In section 98 (use of conduits for telecommunication purposes)—

  (a) in subsection (5), for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

  (b) in subsection (9), for the word " "street" " there shall be substituted the word " "road" ".

  (4) In Schedule 2 (the telecommuncications Code)—

  (a) in paragraph 1(1)—

  (i) the definitions of "maintainable highway" and "street" shall cease to have effect;

  251

  (ii) the following definitions shall be inserted in the appropriate place in alphabetical order—

  " "public road" means a public road within the meaning of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 other than one which is a footpath or a bridleway that crosses, and forms part of, any agricultural land or any land which is being brought into use for agriculture;
  "road" has the meaning given by section 1(3) of the said Act of 1950;";

  (b) in paragraph 1(3), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road";

  (c) in paragraph 1(4)—

  (i) for the word "street" where it first occurs there shall be substituted the word "road";

  (ii) for the words "street is a highway which" there shall be substituted the word"road";

  (d) paragraphs 1(5) shall cease to have effect;

  (e) in paragraph 2(8)(a)—

  (i) for the word "street" in each place where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

  (ii) the words "(which for this purpose shall be deemed to extend to Northern Ireland)" shall cease to have effect;

  (f) in paragraph 3(5), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road";

  (g) in paragraph 9(1), for the word "street" in the first, second and third places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "road";

  (h) in paragraph 9(2)—

  (i) for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

  (ii) for the words "maintainable highway" there shall be substituted the words "public road";

  (i) in paragraph 9(3), for the words "Special Roads Act 1949" there shall be substituted the words "Roads (Scotland) Act 1984";

  (j) in paragraph 19(1), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

  (k) in paragraph 21(10), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".

  The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27)
  —(1) The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1948 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
  (2) In section 1 (traffic regulation orders)—

  (a) in subsection (2), for the words from "and to section" to the end there shall be substituted the words "shall be the roads authority.";

  (b) in subsection (3)—

  (i) after the word "local" there shall be inserted the word "roads";

  (ii) for the words "trunk road" where they first occur there shall be substituted the words "road for which he is the roads authority"; and

  (iii) the word "trunk", where it occurs for the second time, shall cease to have effect; and

  (c) in subsection (4), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

  (3) In section 2(4) (preservation or improvement of amenity), for the words "authority (as defined in section l(2)(a) of this Act)" there shall be substituted the words "roads authority".
  (4) In section 9, for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(2) The authority having power to make an experimental traffic order shall be the roads authority or (where the experimental traffic order is made with the consent of the Secretary of State in relation to a length of road for which he is the roads authority) the local roads authority which would, with his consent, have power to make a traffic regulation order under section 1(2) and (3) of this Act in relation to the length of road.".
  (5) In section 10 (supplementary provisions as to experimental traffic orders)—

  (a) in subsection (2), for the words "the highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

  (b) in subsection (3), for the words, "a highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

  (6) In section 14 (temporary prohibition or restriction of traffic on roads)—

  (a) in each of subsections (1) and (3), for the word "highway" where it occurs for the—

  (i) first time there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

  (ii) second time there shall be substituted the word "road";

  (b) in subsection (2), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

  (c) in subsection (5)—

  (i) for the word "highway", where it first occurs and where it occurs in paragraph (a), there shall in each case be substituted the word "roads"; and

  (ii) for paragaphs (b) and (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

  "(b) where the initiating authority is not the roads authority for the alternative road (such roads authority being in this paragraph referred to as the "second authority") and the second authority is—

  (i) a local roads authority, be made by order made by the initiating authority with the consent of the second authority;

  (ii) the Secretary of State, be made by order made by the second authority on the application of the initiating authority.".

  (7) In section 17(1) (restrictions on use of special road) for the words "1 of the Special Roads Act 1949" there shall be substituted the words "7 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984".
  (8) In section 18(1) (one-way traffic on trunk roads), for the words "1 of the Trunk Roads Act 1946" there shall be substituted the words "5 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984".
  (9) In section 19(1) (regulation of use of highways by public service vehicles), in each of paragraphs (a) and (b), for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
  (10) In section 21(3) (interpretation), for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads".
  (11) In section 23 (powers of local authorities with respect to pedestrian crossings)—

  (a) in subsection (1)(a), for the words "trunk roads" there shall be substituted the words "roads for which the Secretary of State is the roads authority"; and

  (b) in subsection (5)(b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

  (12) In section 24 (duty of Secretary of State to establish pedestrian crossings), for the words "trunk roads" there shall be substituted the words "roads for which he is the roads authority.".
  (13) In section 29 (prohibition of traffic on roads to be used as playgrounds), for the word "highway", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads".
  (14) In section 32(4)(a) (interpretation), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
  (15) In section 34 (which is extended to Scotland by section 121 of this Act and which relates to the provision of access to premises through off-street parking places), in subsection (l)(a), for the word "highway", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".
  (16) In section 37(1) (extension of powers for purposes of general scheme of traffic control), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
  ( 17) In section 38(3) (power to charge for parking place for public service vehicle), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".
  (18) In section 45 (designation of paying parking places on highways)—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the word "highway" where it occurs for the first and third times there shall in each case be substituted the word "roads"; where it occurs for the second time there shall be substituted the word "road"; and for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads";

  (b) in subsection (3)(c), for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

  (c) in subsection (7)(c), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

  (19) In section 53(1) (content of designation order), for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
  (20) In section 55 (financial provisions relating to designation orders)—
  (a) in subsection (4)—

  (i) for the word "highways", where it occurs for the first, second and third times, there shall in each case be substituted the word "roads"; and

  (ii) in sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (d), for the words from "of any work" to the end there shall be substituted the words—

  "purposes of a project connected with the doing by the roads authority (whether or not the local authority) of anything which, within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, constitutes the improvement of a road in the local authority's area."; and
  (b) subsection (5) shall cease to have effect.
  (21) In section 64(4)(c) (placing of traffic sign on or near road), in each of sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
  (22) In section 65 (powers and duties as to placing of traffic signs)—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the words "a highway" there shall be substituted the words "the roads"; and

  (b) in subsection (2), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "local roads".

  (23) In section 66 (traffic signs for giving effect to local traffic regulations etc.)—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the word "highway", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

  (b) in subsection (2)(d), for the words "385 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892" there shall be substituted the words "60 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984".

  (24) In section 67(1) (emergencies and temporary obstructions), for the word "highway", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".
  (25) In section 68 (placing of traffic signs in connection with exercise of other powers), in each of subsections (2) and (3), for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads".
  (26) In section 69 (general provisions as to removal of signs)—

  (a) in subsection (1)—

  (i) for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

  (ii) for the words "the roads" there shall be substituted the words "a road;

  (b) in subsection (2) for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

  (c) in subsection (3), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "local roads".

  (27) In section 70(1) (default powers of Secretary of State as to traffic signs), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "local roads".
  (28) In section 71(1) (power to enter land in connection with traffic signs) for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "local roads".
  (29) In section 77 (traffic signs: modifications as respects trunk roads), for the words "trunk road" there shall be substituted the words "road for which the Secretary of State is roads authority".
  (30) In section 78 (modifications in relation to roads where parking permitted without lights)—

  (a) in subsection (1)—

  (i) in paragraph (a), for the word "highway", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

  (ii) in paragraph (b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "local roads"; and

  (b) in sub-section (2), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads"
  (31) In section 79(5) (advances by Secretary of State towards expenses of traffic signs), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "local roads".
  (32) In section 80(1) (interpretation), for the word "highway", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads".
  (33) In section 83 (directions as regards what roads are restricted roads)—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the words "trunk road" there shall be substituted the words "road managed and maintained by him"; and

  254

  (b) in subsection (2), for the words "a trunk road" there shall be substituted the words "managed and maintained by the Secretary of State".

  (34) In section 84(2) (powers as regards speed limits on roads other than restricted roads), for the words "trunk road" there shall be substituted the words "road for which he is the roads authority".
  (35) I for the words "trunk roads" there shall be speed restrictions)—

  (a) in subsection ( 1), for the words "trunk road" there shall be substituted the words "road managed and maintained by him"; and

  (b) in subsection (2), for the words "a trunk road" there shall be substituted the words "so managed and maintained".

  (36) In section 92 (bollards and other obstructions on roads)—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the word "highway", where it occurs for the second time, there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

  (b) in subsection (4), for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

  "(a) where the order referred to in subsection (1) above has been made as regards a road managed and maintained by the Secretary of State, may be placed on the road by him; and
  (b) where the order has been made as respects a road other than one so managed and maintained, may be placed on the road by the local roads authority.".
  (37) In section 93(1) (powers of Secretary of State in relation to functions under section 92) for the words from "trunk" where it first occurs to "that point" there shall be substituted the words "road managed and maintained by him he may authorise or require the roads authority for any other road which at that point leads into or crosses the road so managed and maintained".
  (38) In each of sections 100(5)(c) and 106(8)(c) (interpretation), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
  (39) In section 120(2)(e) (evidence in certain proceedings)—

  (a) for the words "Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971" there shall be substituted the words "Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"; and

  (b) for the words "that Act"—

  (i) where they first occur, there shall be substituted the words "Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971"; and

  (ii) where they occur for the second time, there shall be substituted the words "the said Act of 1971".

  (40) In section 122(1) (exercise of functions by local authorities), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
  (41 ) In section 131 (application of road traffic enactments to Crown roads)—

  (a) in subsection (2), in each of paragraphs (a) and (6), for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

  (b) in subsection (7)(6), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "public road".

  (42) In section 132(5) (special provisions as to certain Crown roads), for the words "highway authority shall include power to give the like directions to the local authority concerned" there shall be substituted the words "local roads authority shall include power to give the like directions to them".
  (43) In section 134(4) (provisions as to regulations), for the words "or section" there shall be substituted the words ", 132A or".
  (44) In section 142(1) (interpretation)—

  (a) in the definition of "highway authority", paragraph (b), and the word "and" immediately preceding that paragraph, shall cease to have effect;

  (b) for the definition of "local highway authority" there shall be substituted the following definition—

  " 'local roads authority' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";

  (c) after the definition of "prescribed" there shall be inserted the following definition—

  " 'public road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";

  255

  (d) for the definition of "road" there shall be substituted the following definitions—

  " 'road' and 'roads authority' have the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;"; and

  (e) in the definition of "special road"—

  (i) the word "or", where it occurs for the second time, shall cease to have effect; and

  (ii) after the words "1980", where they first occur, there shall be inserted the words "or section 7 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984,"

  (45) In Schedule 9 (special provisions as to certain orders)—

  (a) in paragraph 19(b), for the words "28(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966" there shall be substituted the words " 11(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"; and

  (b) in paragraph 25, for the word "highway", where it occurs for the first and third times there shall in each case be substituted the word "road"; and where it occurs for the first and third times, there shall in each word "roads".").

  261 Schedule 9, page 172, line 20, at end insert—
  ("7. In relation to an order under section 3 of the Special Roads Act 1949 coming into force before the appointed day within the meaning of section 2 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, section 20 of the said Act of 1949 shall have effect, notwithstanding any repeal made by this Act, as it had effect immediately before that appointed day.").
  262 Schedule 10, page 173, line 29, at end insert—

  ("51 & 52 Vict. c. 12.

  The Electric Lighting Act 1888.

  In section 4(5), the words "the term 'street' shall include any square, court or alley, highway, lane, road, thoroughfare, or public passage or place whatever, and").

  263 page 176, line 53, column 3, at end insert ("In section 209(1), the words ", 200".").
  264 page 178, leave out lines 6 and 7.
  265 line 24, at end insert—

  ("1984 c. 12.

  The Telecommunications Act 1984.

  In Schedule 2, in paragraph 1, in sub paragraph (1) the definitions of "maintainable highway" and "street", and sub-paragraph (5); and in paragraph 2(8)(a) the words "(which for this purpose shall be deemed to extend to Northern Ireland)".

  In Schedule 4, paragraphs 9(4)(g), 17, 19, 26 and 51.

  1984 c. 27.

  The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

  In section 1(3), the word "trunk" where it occurs for the second time.

  In section 34(1), the words "in England or Wales".

  Section 55(5).

  In section 142(1), in the definition of "highway authority", paragraph (b) and the word " and" immediately preceding that paragraph.

  In Schedule 10, paragraphs 14 to 16.").

  5.16 p.m.
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 190 to 265 en bloc. If your Lordships desire, I can
  256
  make any information available on any, or all, of these amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
  Lord Hughes: My Lords, there is another momentous matter to be raised. In the amendments to Schedule 8 the sort of rough change from feet to metres has now been made into the exact figure, which makes me wonder why in Amendments Nos. 229,232, and 239 four metres becomes 3.66, but in Amendment No. 231 four metres, for some reason, becomes 3.05 metres? Just so that I do not lie awake at night wondering why this is done, can the Lord Advocate explain it?
  Lord Ross of Marnock: He disnae ken.
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I never embark upon a reply without being absolutely certain of the facts that I am endeavouring to give to your Lordships. May I simply say that I do not have the information immediately available? There is in fact a good reason, and if the noble Lord is content with the matter, I shall write to him about it.
  Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, surely the Lord Advocate will not confine the information to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. The rest of us are dying to know.
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am reminded, which I had forgotten, that I ought to have the information available, and indeed it is here. It goes back a long way to the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845, and in particular Section 41, with which of course the noble Lord will be familiar. I understand that that defines separate minimum arch dimensions of railway bridges over turnpike roads, public carriage roads, and private roads, and that the Bill amalgamates the turnpike and public carriage road provisions into a public road minimum clearance for railway bridges.
  However, British Rail drew attention to the fact that the obsolete turnpike standards instead of the smaller public carriage road dimensions to which British Rail now operates had been used in Schedule 8 to the Bill. The result would have been that if allowed to stand without these amendments, which in some sense are of a technical nature, the amended Section 41 of the 1845 Act would increase British Rail's costs when rebuilding existing bridges, since they might have to be reconstructed with a larger arch for vehicle clearance, that being by the obsolete turnpike standards as opposed to the standards to which British Rail now operates. I apologise to your Lordships that I did not have that explanation immediately to hand when I stood up.
  Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, surely that means we should have left well alone and not proceeded on this thing at all.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Summer Time: The Miners' Strike
5.20 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the circumstances of the continuation of the coal mining dispute, they would consider extending British Summer Time this autumn, and if necessary advancing it in the spring.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should like first to express my gratitude to my noble friend the Chief Whip for allowing me time to raise this matter in your Lordships' House. I had thought to raise it before the Summer Recess, and it could then well have been argued with some justification that the matter might be hypothetical, as few people of good will could have expected matters relating to the industrial dispute in the mines to have reached the stage at which they are now.
While I am sure that from every quarter of this House and from any other part of the country there is a fervent wish that this dispute should be speedily brought to a close, I feel it might be irresponsible of us not to consider taking some reasonable and painless precautions to go some way towards attempting to conserve our fuel stocks, which are bound to diminish on an increasing scale, particularly if the pit deputies' union also find that it must join in the dispute.
I hope very much that this Question will not lead to a discussion on the merits or otherwise of the points at issue in the mines; nor would I wish to see a general discussion on the extension, termination or otherwise of summer time as a whole as a general principle, as I feel that this is outside the scope of the question at issue. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that some of the arguments deployed in favour of the underlying principle are as relevant to a permanent situation as they are to what I would fervently hope would be a temporary arrangement.
I asked questions on this subject in 1974 and 1979, but unfortunately they seemed to fall on rather stony ground. As your Lordships may remember, we had an experiment for one year—I believe it was in 1972 or 1973—when summer time, daylight saving time or European Standard time, however one may refer to it, was adopted throughout the winter. This led to a considerable amount of objection from all quarters. The Government then decided to revert to the practice that we had been used to adopting, which is currently in force. My questions in the years referred to aimed at seeking to extend British Summer Time for a matter of a few weeks and returning earlier thereto than had previously been the normal habit on the grounds of conservation of energy. I was advised that there would be a saving of only 150,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil, which was considered at that time to be an insignificant amount. Insignificant or not, a saving is a saving. I feel that if the situation were to arise as a result of the continuation of the present dispute (which appears regrettably likely to continue) that the Government were to request everybody to carry out savings on however small a scale, they would be incorrect not to set a lead from the outset.
To extend British Summer Time for a matter of some four weeks until the end of November would, as I have said before, be a painless exercise. It would be
258
welcomed by a great number of people, not least the farmers and those in the construction industry, and certainly all people who have their main business activities with their counterparts in Europe. At present we are on the same time as that in Europe. I can see nothing but inconvenience from aggravating the situation by putting our clocks back for no particularly good reason, thus making life rather more difficult for people in the administration of their companies.
I fully accept that there are some sections of the community who would find the suggestion not so attractive, in particular people who live in the far north of Scotland, where, quite frankly, at that time of year they have only about five hours of proper daylight, whatever time the clocks on the mantelpiece may say.
For many of us, until the end of November it is lighter at half-past seven in the morning, Greenwich mean time, than it is at half-past four in the afternoon. I believe it is infinitely easier for the majority of people affected by daylight to go to work in the light rather than working into the darkness. The effect on children going to school should not arise, because by eight o'clock in the morning it is clear daylight by Greenwich mean time but by four o'clock in the afternoon it is almost dark. It would benefit them. If the clocks remained constant for a matter of a further few weeks, that would be of assistance rather than a hindrance. I entirely accept that during the dark months of December and January this argument does not apply, and it would be undesirable to do other than to revert to Greenwich mean time for those two months. If this unfortunate dispute were to continue after the end of January, which I sincerely hope it will not, the same arguments would apply for advancing a new start to British Summer Time next year at the beginning of February.
I have had it argued with me that if the Government were to decide to make such an order it could be deemed to be giving in to Mr. Scargill and running away from the problems. I cannot accept this argument. Indeed, I feel it would have totally the reverse effect. It would demonstrate that the Government are prepared to see to it that we are determined to stick to our guns and are not prepared to submit to what appear to be extortionate and unreasonable demands, and that we are determined to take reasonable and relatively painless action from the outset to meet the inevitable inconvenience that will be caused by a continuance of absence from work in the mines.
I should also like to say that I have had a very wide measure of support both from my colleagues and from Members of your Lordships' House on other Benches. Regrettably, due to the short notice of this Question many of your Lordships who have indicated a great measure of support for this suggestion are unfortunately unable to be here. Indeed, if they had known—and I was nearly caught short—that the previous business was likely to terminate as early as it has, I think they might have been able to be here: but, alas, they are not. But there is a fairly wide measure of support in principle.
I hope that if the Government feel that there is a broad section of agreement among all the parties, there should be little reason why the necessary order should not be issued forthwith. I hope, therefore, that my

259
Question will receive the serious consideration which I believe is its due.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this issue, which has relevance in the present difficulties affecting the coal industry. It is not my intention, as indeed it was not the intention of the noble Viscount, to refer to the dispute in the coal industry except to say that we all hope that there will be an early and satisfactory settlement and a full resumption of work.
When I knew that I was to speak in this debate my mind went back to December 1970, shortly after I was elected to another place, when there was a debate in the Commons about British Standard Time—which, incidentally, ran for a three-year experimental period between 1968 and 1971, so it was tried for rather more than one year. I remember the debate very well: it was about standard time, and whether it should continue. I was among the small band of 81 Members who voted for the continuation of British Standard Time; but we were overwhelmed by the 366 who voted for its abandonment. That was nearly 14 years ago, and British Summer Time has operated since then.
However, as well as looking at a number of reports—and, in particular, Command Paper 4512, which was the review of British Standard Time published in October 1970—I glanced through the pages of Hansard for 2nd December 1970, the date on which the House of Commons debated British Standard Time. I must say that I met many old friends among those pages. Some are still Members of another place, others have left voluntarily, others have left involuntarily, some have unfortunately passed on from this life, and others have been elevated to your Lordships' House. Indeed, two very notable contributions in that debate were made by people who are now members of your Lordships' House, and it is worthwhile considering what they said during that famous debate.
They are, in fact, both Scotsmen—and it is difficult to go anywhere in the United Kingdom without bumping into a Scot. In fact, although I was born in Wales, I, myself, have a claim to Scots ancestry. The first name that I came across in those pages of Hansard was that of a certain Hamish Gray, the then Member for Ross and Cromarty, who now graces the Government Benches as Lord Gray of Contin. In fact, he made his maiden speech on this subject—and, if I may say so, a good one, indeed, it was.
The noble Lord was for the abandonment of British Summer Time. In brief, he complained of the difficulties, particularly in Scotland, that early morning workers experienced as a result of British Standard Time, and he spoke of the very heavy extra cost incurred by industry, in particular the building and farming industries. He also complained of the dreariness of the early mornings—I believe it is always dreary in Scotland in winter anyway—which made it necessary when driving to use headlights until the hour of 9.40 a.m. in the depths of winter.
But then, a few pages on, who else should I meet in those immortal pages of Hansard but another old friend, a John Mackie, who then sat as the Member of Parliament for Enfield, East, and who now adds
260
stature to our Benches as Lord John-Mackie. He was on the other side of the argument. In fact, he was on my side, as he usually is and as I hope he always will be. He, like me, wanted British Standard Time to continue and to become permanent. He pointed out that in Scotland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, what daylight they lost in the morning they gained in the evening. He also pointed out that, while many outdoor workers disliked British Standard Time, others, especially the old, the young and sportsmen—and there are many of those in this House—liked it very much. He also reminded the House that cows and other stock dislike changing time: they like some permanence; they like things to go on as usual. He also observed that milk yields dropped following the alteration of the clocks. They were some of the arguments. There are, of course, others.
I mention those two speeches because what the Unstarred Question seeks is a return, albeit on a temporary basis, to British Standard Time; and some of the arguments for and against are contained in the two speeches, parts of which I have summarised. As I have said, there are other arguments as well that have to be taken into account. A point that I noted in particular was that during the period of British Standard Time accidents to postal workers increased very sharply indeed, and that is certainly something to which I believe the Government will want to give serious attention when considering the advisability of acceding to the request in the Unstarred Question.
But there is one factor which the Government will wish to take into account above all, and that is this. Would the extension of Summer Time save electricity? In 1970 the electricity boards believed that any effect of time-changing on the volume of electricity sold was marginal, if any. That is a very important consideration. However, the position may very well have changed over the 14 intervening years between 1970 and the present time, and no doubt the Government will have much better information on this point than the rest of us.
Indeed, the Opposition has altogether insufficient information to enable us to judge the issue. For example, we do not know the present level of stocks of coal at the power stations. Nor do we know what the present or future oil-burn is likely to be. We also do not know what proportion of our nuclear power station capacity is available, or what proportion of oil and nuclear power plant will remain fully available throughout the winter. Nor do we know the Government's intentions regarding the 22 million tonnes of coal stocked at pitheads and elsewhere: that is, whether it is intended at some stage to move those stocks into the power stations.
There is a great deal of information that we would need to have to be able to make a judgment on this which we do not have. Therefore, I believe that the judgment on the issue is one strictly for the Government to make. I shall listen with great interest, as will other noble Lords, to the speech of the noble Baroness at the end of this debate.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I am also grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret for putting this

261
Unstarred Question on the Order Paper for debate this evening. I know that my noble friend Lord Ezra would have wished to take part in this debate had it not occurred on an evening when he was not able to be present. Certainly his contribution would have been of more use to the House than I fear mine may be.
I think that to those noble Lords who were not aware of it, the fact that the NACODS strike apparently has been called off will be a source of considerable relief, as it will be on all sides of the House. I should certainly like to take the opportunity, while not getting into the argument about the coal industry, to say how much I, personally—and I am sure that here I speak on behalf of my colleagues—have welcomed the rational approach to this difficult problem that has come from that union throughout the whole of their negotiations with the National Coal Board, and the use which they have made of ACAS. One can only hope—and I am sure that this will be echoed on all sides—that this will lead to a de-escalation of the situation, and that we can all look forward to a settlement of the coal mining dispute before too long.
That does not take away, however, from the merit of this Unstarred Question, because I think that, even in terms of energy saving as a whole, it is something that we could well debate even if there were not a mining dispute in front of us. There has been some reference tonight to the north of Scotland being a problem area for changes of time. Certainly this has been the case in earlier debates on such subjects.
It is therefore interesting that my honourable friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, Mr. Jim Wallace—a worthy successor to my noble friend Lord Grimond—raised this matter with the right honourable Mr. Walker, the Secretary of State for Energy, on 24th September and suggested that there might be a postponement of the reintroduction of GMT. The Secretary of State replied to that letter from Mr. Wallace to say:
"You will not be surprised to hear that this subject has been considered by the electricity supply industry in the past. Their conclusion was that no fuel savings would be expected because the reduction in electricity demand during the later winter afternoon peak would be offset by the increase in demand during the darker mornings".
I would suggest to your Lordships that that may be true, taking the winter as a whole; but I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, may have put his finger on something about which the Government have not as yet given reassurance. That is that in the shorter term the balancing offset between the evening and the morning loads may be slightly different during a period of three to four weeks between this coming weekend and the end of November.
One would like to hear from the Government, if they are going to resist the suggestion behind this Question, that in fact the arithmetic has been done over that shorter term. We are not talking today, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was talking in the earlier debate in 1971 in the other place about continuing throughout the whole of the winter. Quite clearly, as one gets into the later part of the winter the saving will be balanced; but the idea behind this Question is whether in the short term there is not some saving. I think we all suspect that there may be some saving in
262
this shorter period. If there is, then we should take advantage of it, if possible, for ecological reasons as well as for reasons relating to the miners' strike.
In the Home Office's Review of British Standard Time (Cmnd. 4512), again it says at paragraph 153:
"Since the change in the hours of darkness has meant darker mornings and lighter evenings there has been, as expected, a shift in the demand for electricity from the evening to the morning peak period."
It then goes on to say that if British Standard Time were to be retained—this was in 1970—
"it is estimated that over a period of time there will be a saving in the generating capacity needed in the evenings equivalent to one power station, representing a capital cost of about £100m."
That of course relates to generating capacity, of which we are not short at the moment; so one does not know precisely what the relevance of that figure would be in terms of today's fuel consumption.
The only hint I have been able to get on this was a remark on the BBC's news programme on Wednesday last, 17th October, at 6 o'clock. When referring to the expected (now defunct, I am glad to say) pit deputies' strike, it was said that when the clocks went back on 28th October the coal burn would jump from 1 million to 1.2 million tonnes per week. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, we do not know precisely the proportion of nuclear burn or the proportion of oil burn which is taking place at the moment, so one does not know whether that has any relevance. But obviously one of the people preparing the news programme for the BBC thought that there would be a significant jump in the coal burn when the clocks went back. One would be glad if the Government could confirm or deny that.
I have very little else to say, except slightly to refute what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said about cows not liking time changes. The fact is that cows are very fortunate: they do not have time changes. It is the farmers and the cowmen who have the time changes and not the cows themselves.
I think none of us would wish to see this change take place if it were to put at risk school children, together with Post Office workers and many of the other people referred to in earlier debates when we talked about British Standard Time going through the whole winter. But I suspect that those arguments do not apply to this short term and if, as I have said, there is evidence that there would be a saving in fuel, then I hope that the Government will be able to do something even at this late hour.
It is perhaps worth noting this evening that the European Parliament yesterday came to the conclusion that we all ought to change our clocks on the same day next year, which will actually be a fortnight earlier than the date on which we shall change this year. That should give us pause for thought. Once again, I thank the noble Viscount for raising this Question and I look forward with interest to the noble Baroness's reply.
5.44 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the speech of my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, to the witty speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and to that of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, whose remarks are always of the greatest

263
interest to hear. The information contained in his speech was as interesting as if his noble friend Lord Ezra had been here in person. All those noble Lords are concerned with the possibility of saving fuel by extending summer time.
Let me deal first with the fuel economy aspect and start by making a tremendously simple statement. There comes a point towards the end of October when it is no longer helpful to prolong summer time. By then sunset takes place at around 4.30 p.m. GMT and sunrise does not occur until about 7 a.m. If we were to make it lighter in the evenings by extending summer time, it would be even darker in the morning. Any energy savings in the evenings would be offset by a greater use of energy in the mornings.
My noble friend mentioned the British Summer Time experiment which actually occurred from 1968 to 1971. This was not extended after a debate in another place in which the measure was defeated by a massive majority of 366 votes to 81. The Government have no reason to believe that a similar debate now would have a different result.
In 1979 the Central Electricity Generating Board considered the effects of extending summer time throughout the winter in the light of the British Summer Time experience of 1968 to 1971, as well as of likely changes in the pattern of demand for electricity in March and October of subsequent years. It was estimated that the late afternoon peak in demand would be decreased by some 1,200 megawatts, mainly as a result of lighting-up time being postponed by an hour; but the morning peak would be increased by about 900 megawatts, mainly due to additional lighting as well as to some extra heating requirements caused by the one-hour advance in time. There would also be a more rapid rate of rise from night to daytime demand between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. The electricity supply industry concluded that the potential fuel and cost savings in the afternoons would be roughly cancelled out by the extra consumption and cost incurred during the morning pick-up and peak.
The Central Electricity Generating Board has recently re-examined the figures and has concluded that in present circumstances the effect of extending summer time would be marginally to increase fuel consumption. This arises from the growth in recent years of off-peak electric heating. Some 2.7 million consumers are now on off-peak tariffs and the time clocks for this heating are set by Greenwich Mean Time, since the main demand for it occurs in winter. If summer time were extended, this demand would encroach on the morning peak rather than occur just during times of low system demand, as intended. Clocks could be reset but the industry officials would have to visit each off-peak consumer and the cost of such an exercise was estimated, even in 1979, at around £6 million.
Your Lordships will be interested in the question of harmonising summer time with the other European Community countries. I think it is worth referring to this, even though it was not touched on in the speeches. At present there is a common starting date, and discussions about a commencing date from 1986 to 1988 are taking place in Brussels. The European
264
Commission has proposed that member states should end summer time on the second Sunday in October rather than at the end of October, as in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, or at the end of September, as happens on the continent.
The Government have approached these discussions in a friendly and co-operative spirit, but we are well aware of the strong opposition to any shortening of summer time which has been expressed, particularly by those in agriculture, the construction industry and the domestic tourist industry, as well as by those who value light evenings in October for sports and leisure purposes. Shortening summer time would also mean that, in many cases, it would get dark before school half-term holidays, and particularly in Scotland, as noble Lords have mentioned, it would mean children going home in the dark for a greater part of the year. In the course of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, quite rightly included also the difficulties endured by postmen.
Some of your Lordships may have seen articles in the press today indicating that the European Parliament has voted in favour of ending summer time on the second Sunday in October. I should point out that the opinion of the European Parliament is advisory and not mandatory in this matter, and that, despite a similar vote three years ago, the Government decided that the United Kingdom should retain its late October ending date. A further press report in the same article to the effect that the Government have indicated that they will follow the European Parliament's advice is unfounded.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked a number of questions about the position as to coal stocks at power stations and power station operations this winter. These questions are not material to the main point at issue, which is extending summer time. I hope he will therefore forgive me if I leave that point for now.
I totally agree with the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Mountgarret and the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Tordoff, concerning, we hope, a future, happy and successful ending of the coal dispute. But turning briefly to the implications of the coal mining dispute and a possible energy crisis, the Government are, of course, keeping the situation under constant review. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy said on Monday in another place:
"The Government will continue to take all the actions that are necessary to see that the power stations continue to provide the energy necessary to protect the life of the nation and to preserve jobs",—[Official Report, Commons; 22/10/84, col. 446.]
I, too, am delighted to learn that the pit deputies' union, NACODS, has decided not to put into effect the strike which had been threatened for tomorrow. This is good news. Let us all hope that the negotiations which are to continue tomorrow will result in real progress towards a constructive settlement of this issue.
This has been a most interesting short debate, and we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Mountgarret for raising this topical subject.
House adjourned at seven minutes before six o'clock.