Lords Sitting of 2 May 1991

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers —Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

AIDS and Cancer Treatment: NHS Expenditure
Lord Constantine of Stanmore Lord Constantine of Stanmore asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much the National Health Service has spent in each of the last three years on (a) the treatment of people with cancer and (b) the treatment of people with AIDS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, substantial sums have been expended in both general and specific programmes; but since treatment for these conditions is provided in a variety of specialties and settings, it is not possible to identify accurately the total cost.
Lore Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Is she aware 1 hat the organisations publishing cancer relief funds state many times in their advertising that one in five people get cancer and one in three die of it? Therefore, can the Government say whether there are any official figures for the number of deaths per annum from both AIDS and cancer for the three years stated in the Question?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am aware of the Cancer Research Campaign that states that one in three people get cancer and that one in four die from it. We are very much aware of those figures. That is why it is our aim to improve knowledge about its causes, prevention and treatment. Where a complete cure is not possible a great deal can be done, and is being done, to maximise the length and quality of life for sufferers. We very much appreciate and recognise the major contribution that the cancer charities are making to this effort. I regret that I do not have the total figures on either disease to give to the noble Lord at this point.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that enormous strides have been made because of cancer research and that there are many people alive now who would not be were it not for the research undertaken by the National Health Service? Therefore, does she agree that the Macmillan Fund appeal and other such organisations are well worth supporting?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Viscount is living testimony of that. We are very happy to have him contributing to this Question Session. We recognise the importance of research. The total amount spent on research by the Government and the major cancer charities in 1989–90 was about £95
852
million. The Government's comprehensive research and development strategy for health which has just been launched indicates that we are seeking priorities which still have to be worked out in discussions with the National Health Service, medical experts, research councils and other research funders. We attribute considerable importance to the research aspect.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister believe that enough is done in all schools, including private schools, in teaching prevention as regards both AIDS and cancer?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, again, health education is an extremely important area both in terms of helping the teachers to get the message across as well as specific programmes. Most of the Government's campaign is directed through the Health Education Authority. That goes towards various programmes directed at smoking education, nutrition, alcohol education, and so on.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister give any figures as to how many people are currently being treated at the Royal Marsden hospitals in Fulham and Sutton? Is she satisfied that there is enough money going into research for those very fine hospitals?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are certainly all aware of the splendid work that is being done at the Royal Marsden hospitals, particularly in the area of childhood cancer treatment. I cannot give the specific figures for which my noble friend asks. I repeat that we attribute considerable importance to the research aspect.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the BBC "Panorama" programme shown on 22nd April, Professor Karol Sikora of Hammersmith hospital claimed that of patients treated for cancer and AIDS in teaching hospitals, 60 per cent. survived as against 28 per cent. in district and general hospitals? That implies that if the skills of the teaching hospitals were transmitted to the district and general hospitals that would make much more money available for research in both respects?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I regret to say that I was unable to see the "Panorama" programme to which my noble friend referred. I believe that Professor Sikora referred to the difficulty of constructing league tables for cancer care in the absence of comprehensive information on the outcome of treatment at different centres.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give an assurance that general practitioners who on examination of a patient suspect that cancer may be present will be able to seek confirmation almost immediately? I understand from one or two general practitioners that any delay can be most serious.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, general practitioners are well aware of the importance of their initial screening role. Indeed, the Government's efforts

853
through encouraging cervical and breast screening programmes and through funding in those specific areas are showing helpful results.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister share my view that, quite apart from the medical forms of treatment, natural therapies can have a profound influence both in terms of cancer and AIDS victims? That is beginning to be shown by work in places such as the Bristol Cancer Health Centre.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, I believe that what I understand to be the holistic approach is one that is increasingly finding favour with practitioners.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the television programme referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Constantine, carried some extremely disturbing implications, particularly for people who are at present suffering from cancer and who are being treated perhaps in district general hospitals rather than in main teaching hospitals? Will the Government do anything to allay the fears of these people and to assure them that the treatment they are receiving is the very best, wherever they are treated?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the aim of the Government's recent reforms has been to improve the treatment on all fronts for patients who require the services of the National Health Service. I understand that there is little evidence that treatment in specialist centres, in particular for the common adult solid tumours, results in better survival rates than can be obtained in district general hospitals.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are dangers in comparing the results of treatment in teaching hospitals with those in district general hospitals? The only fair and just way so to do is to have a controlled clinical trial. Therefore, I think we can reassure those being treated in district general hospitals that the television programme did not present an accurate picture.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend speaks as an expert in this matter. I am grateful to him for giving that reassurance.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, my noble friend Lord McColl is obviously an expert in this field. However, is my noble friend aware that Mr. William Heald, who is a cancer expert at Basingstoke hospital, claims that by using a very simple method called the staple gun method the hospital experiences a recurrence rate of only 4 per cent.?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am advised that the results reported by Mr. Heald are considered to be exceptionally low by international standards. This is a matter for clinicians themselves. I understand that the profession is currently addressing the question of guidelines on the role of surgery in the management of colorectal cancer.

Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission
3.17 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the United Kingdom elements of the United Nations observer force on the Iraq-Kuwait frontier have yet taken up their duties.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the United Kingdom contingent of the observer force of the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait observation mission arrived in Kuwait during the week of 15th April.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. I am sure that the good wishes of all of us go to members of this force as they take up their duties in the next few days. If they discover infringements of the cease-fire terms, do they have discretion to take any action on the spot or are they restricted to reporting to a United Nations headquarters?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the role of UNIKOM will be to monitor the demilitarised zone established along the Iraq-Kuwait border, to deter by its presence violations of the boundary and to observe and report to the United Nations Secretary General any hostile or potentially hostile action.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what is the size of the United Nations force on the Iraq-Kuwait border? Given that Her Majesty's Government are proposing a United Nations police force, can he tell the House what is the difference between a United Nations force and a United Nations police force?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the observation mission comprises a force of 300 observers which is drawn from a wide range of countries, including the Soviet Union, China, the United States and France. It is the first time that a United Nations observer force has included contributions from all those countries together. The noble Lord asked about a United Nations police force. This is a proposal for northern Iraq which we have made to the United Nations Secretary General.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I was seeking to find out the difference between the United Nations force which is currently on the Iraq-Kuwait border and a United Nations police force as proposed by the Government.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the UNIKOM force was established under Security Council Resolution 687 which was passed on 3rd April. It called upon the Secretary General to establish an observer unit to monitor the demilitarised zone. The proposal for a United Nations police force which we have made to the Secretary General has so far only been discussed informally by the ambassadors of the Permanent Five whose governments are now considering the matter further.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, when the Minister speaks of the observer force of 300 men, presumably that does not include the protection force for the observer force of infantry and field engineers. Can he say whether they are now operational and, if they are not, when they will be? Further, can he say when the last American troops will leave the area?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in what: he first said. UNIKOM will be unarmed but it will be escorted by a United Nations infantry force of five infantry companies drawn from existing UN peace-keeping operations to provide security during the setting up phase. So far as concerns the withdrawal of forces from the demilitarised zone, all forces, including United States' troops, are planned to be withdrawn when UNIKOM takes over on 6th May.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what assistance the United Nations observer and protection forces are receiving from the Kuwaiti Government in carrying out their duties?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not sure that I have any particular information to give in answer to that question. Plainly the arrangements could not operate if the Kuwaiti Government were hostile to them.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is it honestly the case that we are receiving no financial or other assistance other than passive assent in respect of this operation, which is, after all, very important to the Kuwait Government; indeed, the whole operation was mounted in order to help them? Are we really saying that they are doing absolutely nothing to assist in the consequences of the action which we took, to some extent, on their behalf?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I did not say that the Kuwaiti Government would do nothing to assist. This is a United Nations operation which is responsible to the UN and conducted under the terms of a UN resolution.
Lord Elton: My Lords, given the fact that five infantry companies do not amount to a very formidable force, are there contingency plans for reinforcement should breaches of the agreement occur on a serious scale?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not aware of any plans for reinforcements; plainly this would be a matter for the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in the circumstances, would it not be wise to delay the return of the forces that are already in the area until we are sure that: the arrangement is working?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can speak only for our own forces. No decision has been taken on the timing of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom battle group, which is not present in the demilitarised zone but in Kuwait. That is a decision which is kept under close review a Id one which will be taken in the light of all the circumstances.

Eye Examinations: Charges
3.23 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish a report on the consequences of the introduction of charges for eye examinations.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, on 6th June 1990 the Government published the report of an independent market research company —NOP —on a survey of adults who had had sight tests during the first quarter of 1990. The results indicated that, in the first year after the restrictions on entitlement to National Health Service sight tests, there was an initial drop in the number of tests but that demand was returning to normal. We have no plans to publish another report at present.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept the report published by the Association of Optometrists which was only recently published in April? Further, now that two years have passed since the ending of free National Health Service sight tests, against the express wish of this House, is it not quite clear that a very serious mistake was made by Parliament at that time? Is it not also clear from recent evidence that there has been a fall of roughly one-fifth in the number of eye tests, especially affecting elderly patients, with the consequence that serious eye conditions, such as glaucoma, diabetes, hypertension and even brain tumours, are going undiagnosed? Does the noble Baroness accept that report and does she not think that it is a very serious challenge to the decision taken by the Government?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in the survey of the Association of Optometrists published in April the year 1988 was used as a baseline. In fact, that gives a distorted picture as sight tests were then at an all-time high prior to the highly publicised changes in eligibility in April 1989. However, it is encouraging to note that even those figures show that the number of sight tests is returning to normal, with those for the third quarter of this year up by 10 per cent. and those for the fourth quarter up by 16 per cent. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that eye disease is not being detected.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if she had consulted the opticians who actually carry out the eye tests and sell spectacles in the high streets rather than their association, she would have found that despite all the scaremongering, neither eye tests nor spectacle sales have fallen dramatically? Indeed, in some areas they have even increased.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend emphasises the difficulty in comparing one type of survey with another. We are not comparing like with like.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, following on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that an increasing number of elderly people are not having

857
tests, does the Minister agree that it must follow that there are increasing numbers of drivers on the roads who are a hazard both to themselves and to other drivers? Has that aspect been taken into account by the Government?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, pensioners and elderly people on low incomes, or those people who have special medical needs, receive free sight tests in any event. We believe that it is reasonable to expect other pensioners who can afford to do so to pay the very modest sum involved. In fact, some 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of people are still able to have free sight tests. Therefore, I believe that we should not succumb to scaremongering.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as someone who has just had eye surgery —the need for which was uncovered by a routine eye examination —can the Minister tell me whether the charges are consistent with the Prime Minister's recent pledge that the NHS will remain free at the point of use?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the important consideration is that people who are really in need should have the opportunity to have totally free services. I believe that the variation in charges is not very great. Individual opticians set those charges and of course they vary. I repeat, only those people who can afford to pay are asked to pay any charges. Typically, those charges are something like £10 to £15 for an eye test, which is expected to take place every couple of years. I am sure that the noble Baroness found no difficulty in providing the payment for that eye test.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is not really quite so opposed to the privatisation of parts of the NHS as would appear to be the case? Further, would it be in order for the House to congratulate him on his appointment as a consultant to an old people's home which is run by a private company?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am very happy to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, on this sign of his further involvement in all aspects of health treatment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that over the weekend her right honourable friend the Prime Minister held a meeting at Chequers, and perhaps a seminar, about health? Further, does she know whether preventive medicine was discussed at that seminar? In that connection, would it not have been a good idea for the Government to have restored free eye tests?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, not only am I aware of the seminar, I actually attended it. Considerable interest was certainly shown by everyone around that table —that is, politicians and medical experts—in the importance of preventive methods to be taken. In that context, we still aim to have all health treatment available absolutely free for all those who cannot afford it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that in view of the high proportion of people who are entitled to free treatment —she mentioned figures of 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. —wide publicity will be given to that fact? I believe that many people are not aware that they qualify for free treatment. Can she further assure us that the Government are doing something about simplifying the form for assistance to help those who do not wish to claim benefits in general —including, for example, assistance with prison visits; a matter that I have previously raised —but simply wish to have help with their eye tests?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, some 35 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the population is still entitled to free sight tests. That includes all children and people on low incomes as well as those most at risk of developing a serious eye disease. The Government have promoted the availability of those free eye tests to bring them to the attention of those people who are in need. We bear in mind the importance of having simple forms.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister consult the Association of Optometrists about its survey, to which she referred in a way that misrepresents the conclusions of that study? Will she also consult Age Concern, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Consumers' Association and other organisations concerned with the welfare of elderly people, because were she to do so she would find that they stand solidly behind the Labour Party commitment that when it comes to power it will return to free sight tests, especially for elderly people?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, not only have I already consulted all the organisations referred to by the noble Lord, but I shall continue to do so.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, we are talking about a vital subject —people's eyesight. That might not appear important to noble Lords opposite, but it is important to most people. Will the Minister carry out the promise she has given to ensure that people who may not be able to afford an eye test know that they can have one? It is an important point, and I am glad that she made it. Does she further agree that those who are interested in people's eyesight and wish to ask questions about it should not be labelled as scaremongers?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes.

Shipping: British Merchant Fleet and Gulf War
3.31 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many ships were chartered to carry men and equipment for the Gulf war and how many of them were registered in the United Kingdom.
Lord Reay: My Lords, 114 vessels were chartered in support of the move of men and equipment to the Gulf, of which five were British flagged. A number of those vessels undertook more than one voyage.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I am aware that the special circumstances of the Gulf somewhat distort those figures Is he aware that, as a result of the recent report on our merchant fleet and its rundown, Early Day Motion No. 500, signed by 355 Members of Parliament in another place, drew attention to the need for action to reverse that position? It seems that if nothing is done we shall lose the fourth arm of our defence services and will no longer be able to deploy our forces as we did so well in the Gulf. The interests of Britain and its allies may be threatened in many parts or the world and we shall be unable to move our forces there. Can something be set in action to try to correct the position so that we have the flexibility to deploy our forces speedily where they are needed?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that action is needed. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged the interests of Members of another place in this matter when he singled out the Merchant Navy for assistance in the Budget. He proposed a further relaxation of the rules giving tax relief to British seafarers working mainly overseas. That will mean that more seamen will be exempt from United Kingdom tax on their overseas earnings. As my right honourable friend explained, his intention was to encourage shipping companies to draw their crews from United Kingdom seamen.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while it is regrettable that the merchant fleet flying the United Kingdom flag is now as small as it is, were not the circumstances last August that most of the suitable vessels were unavailable because they were already engaged —a felicitous reason for not being available at that time?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the advantage of chartering is that one can do so quickly. In the case of the Gulf conflict, we were able to operate entirely by charter on commercial terms and to obtain all the ships we needed in that way. The disadvantage is that chartered ships can refuse to sail into danger zones. That did not happen in that case. If it had, no doubt the Government and Parliament would have had to consider the possibility of emergency legislation which would have enabled requisitioning to take place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I asked —I believe that it was last week —a supplementary question as to whether we had sufficient merchant ships to mount an operation similar to that which was mounted in the Falklands to deal with a nasty little dictator, I was assured that the British merchant fleet was up to the job? Is e aware that the Answer he has given today seems to contradict his noble friend? Will he say which Answer is correct?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not think so. We should just about be able to mount an operation today similar to the one we mounted in the case of the Falklands, although it would be tight for some classes of ships.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend clarify the position as to the requisitioning of a vessel owned by a United Kingdom registered company sailing under a flag of convenience?
Lord Reay: My Lords, a ship has to be a British-flagged ship, flying the Red Ensign, before Her Majesty's Government can requisition it. Ownership is not the determining consideration.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if that is the case, will Her Majesty's Government reconsider their attitude to flags of convenience?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that is not a matter we intend to look at again at the moment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that if it comes to requisitioning in a state similar to that which existed at the time of the Gulf crisis, there is sufficient tonnage under the British flag to meet our defence needs?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said, in that case we were able to obtain the ships that we wanted, but it is possible to imagine a situation in which it might not be so easy.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the defence of this country and of our national interests should depend upon the willingness of charterers to go into danger zones?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I explained, if those circumstances had arisen, we should have had to consider the possibility of initiating emergency legislation.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, does my noble friend believe that one of the lessons learnt from the Gulf war was the effectiveness of helicopter gunships? Do some of the merchant ships have strengthened decks to carry those effective weapons?
Lord Reay: My Lords, there are a certain number of modern tankers and ships designed to take civil helicopters, which in some cases can be as heavy as military helicopters, and they should be available.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Welfare of Animals at Slaughter Bill will be taken.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess on Thursday 23rd May and return on Monday 3rd June. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 23rd May.

Road Traffic Bill
3.38 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Offences of dangerous driving]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (2A)").
The noble Lord said: It falls to my lot to move the first amendment on this important Bill. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the whole Committee would like to join in welcoming back the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, after his hospital treatment.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Underhill: This is a complicated Bill, although not of great political content. I am glad that the Minister will be fresh and energetic to deal with the many points that will arise. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 1 is merely a paving amendment for Amendment No. 2.
The effect of this amendment is to include driving when suffering from fatigue as one of the criteria for the new offence of dangerous driving. This matter was raised —admittedly briefly —in Committee in the other place. It was pointed out on that occasion that the White Paper, The Road User and the Law, committed the Government to extending the scope of the offence of driving or attempting to drive while unfit through drink or drugs to drivers who are unfit through any physical condition, such as fatigue. I quote from paragraph 2.31 of the White Paper:
"The offence will remain one of strict liability and is intended to cover people who are unfit to drive a motor vehicle by reason of drink, drugs, substance abuse, temporary incapacity due to fatigue, somnolence or temporary disability".
An amendment to provide exactly what the White Paper proposed was brought forward in Committee in the other place. Surprisingly, this was rejected by the Minister, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, primarily because he said that the overwhelming response to a consultation paper was opposition to the proposal. The Minister continued:
"The reasons were that it became clear that it would be difficult to frame an offence to deal with a driver who falls asleep at the wheel. It would be unfair to convict if the effects of the fatigue could not have been foreseen". —[Official report, Commons, 15/1/91; col. 46.]
I am certain that all Members of the Committee agreed that the Government should not be discouraged from changing their mind in the light of consultation documents. However, in this case the statement was quite clear in the White Paper. The important issue must have been considered by the
862
Government when the White Paper was published in February 1989. When they drafted the White Paper they must have considered the point raised in the Minister's reply in Committee in the Commons. It is significant that the Civil Aviation Authority recently proposed that fatigue should be one of the factors to be covered in regulations governing air traffic controllers.
When the amendment was moved in the other place, it was stressed that the adoption of a new offence and the production of publicity material associated with it could have a deterrent effect. The Minister quoted various bodies whose responses were to oppose the proposals. It would be interesting to know the view of the police. Their response has not been referred to. However, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, of which I am the president, issued its response. It has police advisers and I assure the Committee that those advisers were fully in support of the AMA response, which was in complete agreement with the basis of the amendment I now propose.
Despite the Minister's attitude in the Commons Committee, it should be mentioned that at the Second Reading in another place the Secretary of State was so impressed by the arguments in support of the proposal that he said he was prepared to look at the subject again. That was on 10th December at col. 689.
The matter was raised by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, myself and other noble Lords at Second Reading. On that occasion the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, referred to it in his reply. However, except for commenting that the causes of fatigue are complex, he did not explain the reasons for deciding not to make the change in the Bill as suggested in the White Paper.
The purpose of the amendment is to highlight that it is stupid and irresponsible to drive when fatigued. I am certain that many noble Lords have suffered from fatigue and have considered whether they should continue driving or have a rest. I hope that the Minister will decide that this is an important matter. It is in line with the original White Paper proposal and I hope that he will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I find myself in some difficulty over the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will not mind my saying that his reference to a comparison with the position of air traffic controllers is quite misleading. There is no suggestion by the Civil Aviation Authority that an air traffic controller who becomes less efficient than he should be because of fatigue commits a criminal offence. It is simply that as a matter of sensible policy it is thought advisable by the authority to take care that air traffic controllers, with their responsible and difficult job, should not work when too fatigued. There is all the difference in the world between that responsible attitude of the authority and suggesting, as the amendment does, that there should be a criminal offence committed by the fatigued person.

863
The only other point I make is that I believe it would be quite extraordinarily difficult to prove at a court hearing that a driver was, as a result of fatigue, driving dangerously. The hearing may take place some days later and no one will be in a good position to judge, other than the person concerned, whether he was suffering from fatigue. People's stamina varies enormously. Some people —I am sure that the noble Lord opposite is one —have tremendous stamina; they can go on working, as he does in this House, for many hours without showing any manifest symptoms of fatigue. Other people are less resistant to it.
It seems to me extraordinarily difficult to charge a man with driving when he is tired. If he goes to sleep at the wheel, other charges could easily be preferred. However, one is not concerned with that. The amendment proposes that if someone drives when suffering from fatigue, he thereby commits a criminal offence. I can see possibilities of injustice if charges were brought under this clause. No one, except the man himself or the woman herself, is in a position to know whether the fatigue was serious enough to diminish his or her effectiveness. I shall listen with interest to what my noble friend the Minister says, but I have some doubt about the amendment.
Lord Renton: I share this doubt. I wish to add one or two points. The first is that we are asked to make a presumption with regard to danger, but it is not a necessary presumption. Normally in cases like this the guilt of the accused is judged by the way in which he drives, not by the condition in which he may or may not be. I sometimes get sleepy when driving, especially on a long journey. The sleepiness may not be caused by fatigue at all but by boredom or by there not being enough fresh air in the car. The boredom can be overcome by turning on the car radio, especially if there is a report of parliamentary proceedings. The lack of fresh air is easily overcome by opening the window at the side of the driver's seat, and possibly by turning off the heating inside the car. However, to make an assumption that any kind of fatigue or apparent cause of fatigue must inevitably give rise to the kind of dangerous driving to which Section 2A already refers may well turn out to be unfair in many cases.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his kind remarks when moving the amendment. I am pleased to be back and able to lake part in the Committee stage of what is an important Bill. I hope that we shall treat it as such.
Turning to the content of the amendment, we are all in agreement that the question of driving fatigue as an element of dangerous driving is difficult. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. Driving when overtired, for whatever reason, is dangerous. Common sense tells us that the risk of having an accident increases the more tired a driver becomes,. My noble friend Lord Renton has outlined some of the reasons why drivers may suffer from fatigue. But fatigue is not the only physical condition which increases significantly the risk of having an accident. We should not place undue emphasis on it to the exclusion of other factors which are equally, if not
864
more, important, such as alcohol and medical conditions. That is why the Highway Code gives the following advice to drivers:
"Do not start a journey if you feel tired. Never drive after drinking alcohol or while under the influence of drugs. If you have to take drugs in the course of medical treatment consult your doctor about their possible effect on your driving ability. Do not drive if you feel unwell".
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned, we have given a good deal of thought to this matter as it was originally proposed in the Government White Paper, The Road User and the Law. The reaction to that proposal was unfavourable on the grounds that it would be unfair on people whose illness or incapacity could not have been foreseen, and it would be difficult to prove. A consultation paper issued in March 1990 explained that the proposal had been dropped. Response to that paper was overwhelmingly in favour of the decision.
We have therefore given the matter a good deal of consideration and we have concluded that it is too difficult to frame an offence which would catch a fatigued driver before there was evidence to show the effects on his driving. One of the main difficulties is that there is no established method for measuring fatigue, unlike alcohol consumption. But, where there is bad driving, it should be possible to bring an appropriate charge. My noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter made that point very clearly. For all those reasons, I believe we should reject the amendment although I accept that it responds to a real anxiety. Nevertheless, I do not believe it would be helpful.
Baroness Phillips: I recall that some time ago we discussed legislation in this Chamber which concerned the number of hours that a driver of a public service vehicle could remain at the wheel. That discussion was connected with the tachographs which revealed how many hours a driver had been at the wheel. Surely that discussion is relevant to the Bill that we are discussing. I am not suggesting that tachographs should be installed in private cars, but surely it should be possible to ask a driver whether he has been driving for, say, longer than six or seven hours without a break. There is no doubt that people often drive for far too long perhaps because their business obligations force them to do so. I have been driven by people who have asked me to keep talking to keep them awake. That was probably why they took me along for the ride. It is possible to assess, presumably in hours, how long someone can drive without becoming fatigued. If such a measure can be introduced in one piece of legislation, I do not understand why a similar measure cannot be introduced in this Bill.
Lord Renton: The noble Baroness has raised a point which deserves consideration. I hope I may remind the Committee that the limitation on drivers' hours was contained in the Road Traffic Act 1930 and referred specifically at first to drivers of public service vehicles. I believe it was extended later to the drivers of commercial goods vehicles. There is no point in making provisions of that kind unless they are enforceable. In the case of the public service vehicles and the commercial goods vehicles they are

865
enforceable because drivers are obliged to keep journey records. They have an obligation to do so. Quite frankly, if we were to apply the same sort of test to private cars, it would not be enforceable. I cannot imagine that with all the road inspectors that would be needed, we could contrive a system whereby every single driver of a private car kept an accurate record of the hours he spends driving and that that could be relied upon.
Lord Gisborough: I wish to reinforce that point. Many drivers who become tired may well have only just got into their cars or have driven for only one mile. They may have become tired during the day doing something totally different. The number of miles they drive after that does not alter the fact that they were tired when they got into their cars.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: They may have attended a prolonged debate in this Chamber until a late hour.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I believe my noble friend Lord Renton has answered many of the points that the noble Baroness made. The rules concerning drivers of commercial vehicles, whether public service vehicles or lorries, are aimed at those whose business it is to transport various items. They may well become tired after a certain number of hours spent at the wheel. However, as my noble friend has just said, one could be tired before one gets into one's car, not having driven a single mile; for example, those of us who get into our cars at the end of this evening's debate in the Chamber. The question of fatigue relating to private drivers is a very different matter.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to those who have taken part in the discussion on this important amendment. The Minister has explained why the proposal in the White Paper has been dropped. However, I cannot understand —I am certain others will not understand this either —why this matter was not seriously considered before the White Paper was published. This is an important issue. Questions have been raised of a legal nature, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Reference has been made to hours spent at the wheel. Tachographs will be discussed on a later amendment dealing with heavy goods vehicles. I am on very good terms with my local vehicle hire firms, and I do not wish to upset them. Without the aid of those vehicles, I could not get to the Chamber on certain days. I know the hours that a person who works for such firms may work. Some drivers work long hours for economic necessity; some do it because they enjoy driving; while others do it simply because their employer wishes them to work such hours. Have the Government any intention of considering legislation to deal with the number of hours that a mini cab driver, for example, may remain at the wheel?
Reference has been made to the fact that one can get in one's car and feel tired after having driven for just one mile as one was already tired before getting into the car. I know of people who have been stopped by a policeman before they even got into their cars.
866
The policeman suspected they had been drinking heavily by the way they held the door handle of the car. However, I believe it is quite right for the police to take such action.
I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am not a lawyer but, as regards a driver accused of an offence, I am certain it would be possible to ascertain under cross-examination how many hours he had been driving, his attitude and what he had been doing prior to driving. I am certain lawyers could find some way of dealing with this issue. I do not intend to press the amendment, but I hope this debate will convince the Minister and his department that this is an important matter to which some publicity should be given so that people do not risk driving long distances when they are fatigued. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Careless, and inconsiderate, driving]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 18, after ("attention") insert ("including while using hand-held car telephone apparatus while the vehicle is in motion").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the matter of hand held car telephones. A similar amendment was proposed in Committee in another place. I and my noble friends appreciate the value of the development of the car telephone. It is a considerable asset to many people who find it necessary to travel. The amendment is aimed at hand-held instruments being used by a driver when the car is being driven. The practice can be distracting and potentially dangerous to other road users. I am sure that every noble Lord who drives about the country will have realised that by seeing what happens when people use hand-held telephones while driving their cars.
In Committee in another place reference was made to other circumstances in which drivers take one hand off the wheel, such as eating an apple, lighting and smoking a cigarette and fiddling with the radio or cassette. The Minister, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, appeared to be sympathetic to those points. However, all of us, except those who have automatic cars, are always taking one hand off the wheel to change gear. That might have been brought in as another foolish point to oppose the amendment.
The Minister went on to say:
"there is universal condemnation of the use of car phones while cars are being driven. It is especially dangerous on motorways. The highway code specifically states that drivers should not use a hand-held telephone or microphone while the vehicle is in motion except for an emergency. That is rule 54 of the code. A driver who does so could face a charge for not having proper control of the vehicle or, indeed, a more serious charge depending on the circumstances of the case".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee G, 15/1/91; col. 33.]
It was then pointed out to the Minister that despite what he said enough is not being done to discourage this very dangerous practice and that very few prosecutions are brought to act as a deterrent.
I believe that the amendment will send a clear message. It will act as a deterrent so that people will

867
not do this. When the Minister replies can he give figures for the number of prosecutions that have been brought as a result of this very dangerous practice of using a hand-held telephone while a car is being driven?
We know that the manufacturers are alert to the situation. A number of manufacturers are now bringing forward instruments which do not need to be held. That should be encouraged. However, the Minister will appreciate that it is not sufficient to put this in the Highway Code. We need the utmost publicity about this very dangerous practice. I do not know how many noble Lords do that, but I am sure that others, like me, see what happens when people are using tie instruments when driving. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said since it is obvious to any of us that using a hand-held telephone while driving a car is a very dangerous practice. I have sometimes travelled with people who have done it and I confess to the Committee that I felt considerable apprehension while that was happening. Members of the Committee may perhaps. sometimes regret that my apprehensions were ill-founded!
My only hesitation relates to the fact that anyone conducting this practice is quite plainly driving without due care and attention. A charge would therefore lie without adding these words to the Bill. I know that the noble Lord said that he wants to spell it out, but the trouble is that when legislating if one spells out one offence one appears to override the importance of others. There are many other activities in a moving car which are equally dangerous. An obvious one, without going into too much detail, is paying too much attention to a charming companion in the adjoining seat. Some Members of the Committee may, indirectly, have observed that happening. Therefore I wonder whether the law is not clear enough already and, if one is caught telephone in hand while driving a car, one would not in any event be convicted.
If that is right, and I wait to hear what my noble friend the Minister says, then it would be bad draftsmanship to pick out one plain example of driving without due care and attention while ignoring others. As a normal principle of legislation that is a sound approach.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, sits down perhaps he would agree that there is one essential difference between the very constructive points that he has made —namely, that when one is using a telephone one is driving with one hand —that would not apply in the other example (at least, I presume it would not) of having the kind of companion to which he referred.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It might be indelicate for me to reply to the noble Lord from the Floor of this Chamber, though I am sure that his experience as a man of the world may to some extent contradict what he said.
Lord Gisborough: I do not use a hand-held telephone. I do not have one. I join all those people who detest mobile telephones. We have seen in another context the depth of feeling against the mobile telephone —additional tax was placed on it. However, I do not believe that someone who is holding a telephone cannot necessarily pay adequate attention to the road. On the other hand, I believe that people who change a cassette are really dangerous because their attention and their eyes are taken off the road. That is really dangerous. I do not believe that speaking on the telephone is necessarily dangerous.
If being mobile and speaking on the telephone is illegal those people who use their telephones when traffic is crawling at five miles an hour are also acting illegally, but they are probably telephoning to say that they will be late. I do not support the amendment.
Lord Renton: We should not end this discussion without reminding ourselves of what the Chancellor said in his Budget Statement on 19th March (at col. 176 of Commons Hansard for that day). It might assist the Committee if I read it out:
"I turn now to what I regard as one of the greatest scourges of modern life. I refer to the mobile telephone. I propose to bring the benefit of car phones into income tax and to simplify the tax treatment of mobile phones by introducing a standard charge on the private use of such phones provided by an employer".
There is a limitation, I agree.
"Tax will be paid of £200 for each phone for 1991–92. I hope that, as a result of this measure, restaurants will be quieter and the roads will be safer".
I suggest that we give the Chancellor's fiscal measure an opportunity to produce results without adding for the time being to the offences in the Road Traffic Bill.
Baroness Nicol: I should like strongly to support my noble friend's amendment. Several times in the past few weeks driving down the M.11 on Monday mornings I have had to fall in behind a car whose driver —always a gentleman, I regret to say —is holding a telephone, has put himself in the centre lane of the motorway, reduced his speed to about 60 miles an hour so that he can give half of his attention to driving and the other half to the telephone and is ignoring the left hand lane, which is completely empty. When one wishes to drive faster than 60 miles an hour, in order to overtake him one has to pull right out into the outside lane before being able to go back into the left hand lane.
That is two offences in one. We are not nearly fierce enough with people who hog the centre lane when the left hand lane is empty. When that person's attention is diverted by the use of a telephone it becomes a very serious matter. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it is driving without due care and attention and I do not know why more people are not prosecuted.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I added my name to the amendment because I have some sympathy with it. I have seen drivers with a hand-held telephone start their call at the traffic lights. The lights turn green and the phone is in their left hand. They have to change the phone to their right hand to change gear, meanwhile

869
steering the car with their knees. That is not very easy and is very unsafe because they are not in control of the car for the few minutes until they get into top gear.
There is an article in ROSPA's magazine Care on the Road in which the police say,
"Have you heard the one about the motorist driving along the M.6 with his car phone to one ear and his finger in the other? You do not believe it? Neither did the guilty driver until he watched the replay of the police video".
The amendment might cause problems with cyclists using Walkman machines, which is also a dangerous practice as you cannot hear the traffic coming up behind you. I have some sympathy with the amendment, but I shall listen to my noble friend's reply.
Baroness Phillips: I too should like to support the amendment. The advertisements on television are particularly dangerous because they show a man in a van who is clever enough to have a telephone while the other people cannot get in touch with anyone. He is usually shown on a motorway, just as my noble friend Lady Nicol described. With the telephone, the driver can do things that others cannot.
I was in a vehicle that was completely smashed up in Parliament Square. It is the second time that something has happened to me in Parliament Square. It seems to be a place to avoid. The driver of the van who crashed into the Mercedes said that he was looking at a map, so he had no hands on the wheel. That was going one better. When it was suggested that it was a case of driving without due care, I said that it was dangerous driving. The phrase "due care" does not mean anything.
This telephone business has rather a macho image. Those of us who travel by rail have to listen to totally fatuous conversations so that those people can produce their telephones. They usually ring their wives to say that they are on the way home, which must astonish their wives. It is unfortunate that it is now the "in" thing. The advertisements always show the man with the telephone. It undoubtedly takes a person's attention away from the wheel. I do not speak as a driver, but as one who has been driven by some drivers who probably should not be on the road but, as they offered me a lift, I did not refuse.
We must be careful not to add more dangers to those that already exist in driving, particularly, as my noble friend said, on motorways.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and I have great sympathy with the amendment. When I was much younger, I was a grand prix driver. People today do not appreciate the speed of traffic. They must concentrate all their attention on driving. It is perfectly all right for a person to use a telephone in his car if he goes at a leisurely speed but, if he goes at 70, 80, 90 or 100 miles an hour and breaks the law, he is a danger to the public, no matter how proficient he is. In my experience, having occasionally driven with people who have hand-held telephones in their cars, they are only trying to show off the fact that they are rich enough to have them, but I should like to see them banished from the roads.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We have had an interesting short debate on this matter. It is obvious from the debate that a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux, have witnessed examples of the bad use of car telephones by drivers. It is also obvious, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, that in his Budget speech my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer touched a nerve which has also been of concern to the Committee.
I should begin my reply to the debate by making it quite clear that the Government condemn the practice of using a telephone handset while driving. The Highway Code states quite clearly in Rule 54 that drivers should not use a hand-held telephone or microphone while the vehicle is in motion, except in an emergency. Noble Lords will be aware that contravention of the Highway Code is not in itself an offence, but it can provide prima facie evidence of, for instance, careless or inconsiderate driving. That applies to Rule 54 as much as to any other part of the Highway Code.
Noble Lords may also know that the construction and use regulations made under the Road Traffic Act 1988 create an offence of not having proper control of a vehicle. There are circumstances in which use of a hand-held telephone can be held to constitute an offence under the regulations.
I know that there are those who say that this is a back-door approach to dealing with a threat to road safety and that what is needed is, as the amendment states, a specific offence. I do not agree. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, the principle behind the road traffic acts —a principle which was examined and commended by the North Report-is that bad driving should be covered by a limited number of general offences backed up by a similarly limited number of easily proved specific offences. The obvious examples of the latter are speeding and traffic-light offences.
There are many types of behaviour when driving a car which are to be deplored —my noble friend Lord Gisborough quoted the example of changing a cassette in a cassette player —but they are not all the subject of separate specific offences; nor should they be. It is much better that a driver can be charged, depending on the facts of the case, with careless or even dangerous driving. The prosecution can then bring evidence as to what the driver was doing, whether using a telephone handset or anything else, and how that constituted careless driving. The police and prosecution service are content with their existing powers. Convictions for careless driving in those circumstances are far from unknown.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me about that point. Unfortunately, the statistics for careless driving, as for construction and use offences, are not collected in such a way as to permit us to identify how the offences were committed, but I can assure noble Lords that they are convictions. They will undoubted-ly have seen reports of them from time to time in the press.

871
I appreciate and endorse the strength of feeling against the use of hand-held telephones while moving, but I do not believe that further legislation is either necessary or desirable in that case.
Lord Underhill: It is notable that no noble Lord said that it was a good idea to use a telephone while driving. The Minister made clear the Government's view; namely, that the practice is to be deplored.
It was asked why we should pick out that particular offence, The Minister referred to Rule 54 of the Highway Code but, despite that rule, people persist in that foolish and dangerous practice. The purpose of the amendment is therefore to endeavour to lay more emphasis on stopping the practice. I do not intend to divide the Committee, but we must do far more than just say that the matter is covered in the code. A number of matters are covered in the code, but people do not follow the advice. Every noble Lord who spoke in effect deplored the practice of people using hand-held telephones while driving. I hope that manufacturers will be encouraged to explore hands-free equipment, that drivers will be encouraged to use that equipment and that firms which pay for their employees to have a telephone in their car as a useful object while they are driving will be encouraged to provide their employees with hands-free telephones.
Great emphasis should be laid on and publicity given to the point of the amendment. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I wish to raise a few points on Clause 2 of which I have given notice to my noble friend and which I raised on Second Reading. I thank my noble friend for his letter of 27th March covering, some of the points that I raised on Second Reading. I am content with his explanation as to why he cannot at present bring in new legislation to simplify the road traffic signs, but I hope that he can find a way round the problem soon.
I want to come back to my point about motorway driving standards; that is lane discipline and tailgating. There must be some way (stiff fines or something else) to get motorway drivers to pull into the inside lane when they have overtaken other cars and to deal with cars that proceed slowly and sit in the middle lane with big lorries sitting on their tails flashing their lights.
As the White Paper said in paragraph 6.6, the Government recognise the importance of improving public understanding of the law and propose to produce a clear and simplified guide for the lay person to understand the Highway Code. Together with heavier penalties, that would be one way to get the message home.
The other point I raised at Second Reading concerned the yellow junction boxes. When they were first introduced on the whole drivers did not go into them if their exit was not clear. That has changed. Cars are always stopping in those boxes blocking the way for ether road users and causing disruption to the
872
flow of traffic and long tailbacks. Can we not consider making them red boxes and have more signs warning drivers to keep clear?
The last point is concerned with drivers who fail to use their indicators. I like to think that we have been given two eyes to see with and two hands to point with; car manufacturers have provided us with two flashing indicators so that others can see. If drivers fail to use their indicators, not only are they guilty of inconsiderate driving but also of dangerous driving which can affect other road users and pedestrians. In an ideal world, if everyone took an advanced driving test, as I have, they would be much more aware of their past misdemeanours than they are now and would rectify them. That is one way of re-educating drivers, which is long overdue. I hope that the new Highway Code will be simpler for drivers to understand and that all of these points as well a lot of others will be covered.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Knowing that my noble friend was going to raise some points in the debate on whether this clause should stand part of the Bill, I venture to intervene for one moment. On the question of the yellow boxes, I shall look forward to discussing it further when we consider remote surveillance equipment later in the Bill.
This debate gives me the opportunity of discussing generally motorway driving and behaviour. The Committee may recall that some months ago there was an horrific road accident on one of our motorways. It caused a Question to be asked in your Lordships' House which tended to lay the blame firmly on the police authorities for not having switched on warning lights at an earlier stage. That Question was answered in part by a noble Lord from the Cross-Benches with whom I agreed. In his remarks, he suggested that this was not really the responsibility of the police or highway authorities but was firmly the responsibility of individual drivers.
In the past few days we have had some fairly foul weather. While anecdotal evidence is not very good for the purpose of law-making, it will illustrate what I mean. When driving on a motorway last Monday in absolutely appalling weather I came across an individual waving vigorously, urging traffic to move over from the right-hand lane. Suspecting that an accident had taken place, I and a number of other drivers slowed down to about 40 miles per hour. We came upon an accident involving three cars. Notwithstanding that, within moments cars and other vehicles resumed thrashing down the motorway certainly at all of 70 miles per hour —I would not suggest any more —in conditions which made it patently obvious to anybody that speed should be restricted. I take this opportunity of praising the police and authorities responsible for warnings on motorways for what they are able to do in the very short time available to them. But I underline that frankly the cause and remedy lie in the hands of the motorist and that responsibility cannot be passed to anybody else.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My noble friend Lord Brougham kindly gave me notice that he would raise

873
a number of points on the use of motorways, tailgating, box junctions and lane discipline. I have considerable sympathy with the points he has raised. Motorways are still the safest roads. They carry 14.6 per cent. of all traffic but account for only 2.5 per cent. of those killed or seriously injured. We are all aware of some of the serious accidents which have taken place recently. My noble friend Lord Lucas reminded us of one such accident not long ago. The Government are not complacent about safety on motorways and agree that a minorityߞand I hope it is only a minority-drive dangerously. Legislation is not always the answer. We need to ensure that drivers are aware of the rules and the road safety reasons for them. We welcome the efforts of the police in educating drivers: for example, through their regular motorway safety campaigns. Indeed, they are planning another national campaign this summer.
As far as tailgating is concerned, I agree that driving too close to other cars and overtaking on the inside lane is dangerous. There is no evidence to show that it is a major cause of accidents, but I am concerned that motorists who do this are increasing the risk of having an accident. Some police forces are using video cameras to educate drivers about the dangers involved. It is not a specific offence but drivers could be charged with careless and inconsiderate driving, or in extreme cases, the new dangerous driving offence. As with the use of indicators, this is largely a matter of education backed up where necessary by enforcement. I am not aware that in itself it is a major cause of accidents, but it may well be a contributory factor.
Dealing with box junctions, failure to comply with the requirements of a box junction marking is an offence of failing to comply with a traffic sign under Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
As far as lane discipline is concerned, the advice given in the Highway Code is clear; it says
"keep to the left except when overtaking".
Lane discipline is not in itself a specific offence. Although the Highway Code is not a legal document, it has the statutory authority of Parliament, and consequently failure to comply with the rules therein may be brought forward as evidence in proceedings for any alleged offence. We are commissioning research which will help us decide whether changes are needed in our advice to drivers, but we continue to stress that good lane discipline on motorways is important. I hope that that gives my noble friend some reassurance.
Clause 2 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Criminally negligent driving
.ߞ(1) A person is guilty of an offence if his driving of a mechanically propelled vehiclfe on a road or other public place is criminally negligent.
(2) A person's driving is to be regarded as criminally negligent if in all the circumstances that person actedߞ

(a) unreasonably; or

874

(b) without sensible regard for the safety or well-being of other persons on the road or other public place,

in driving in the manner in which he did.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. This amendment touches on consideration of the concepts which are developed in Clauses 1 to 3. It is a little complicated and I beg the indulgence of the Committee if I take a little time seeking to explain why we have put down this new clause. It introduces into the Bill the concept of criminally negligent driving. As I have indicated, it enables us to test whether the new offences which are set out in Clauses 1 to 3 achieve the objectives which both the North Report and the Government White Paper sought to attain.
I want to make it clear at the outset that it is not our purpose to question the underlying principles of Clauses 1 to 3. We are anxious to determine whether the most effective means of implementing those principles has been deployed, because we are not the only ones to have serious reservations about the likely effectiveness of the new offences.
Those issues were canvassed at the Committee stage in another place. Reading the response of the Minister to the amendments which were tabled on that occasion, I have to say that it was less than satisfactory. Consequently, I believe that it is perfectly proper to pursue those concerns further.
Perhaps I may start with the objectives set out by North and in particular the second principle in the report's recommendations. It was said:
"The law will be at its most effective when it is seen to be laying down necessary and reasonable standards for road user behaviour. We have therefore tried, in the changes we are proposing, to make the content of the law accessible and clear to the average road user, and we believe that clarity in the legislation should be backed up by a clear and persuasive presentation of the law's requirements to the public in order to obtain the maximum level of voluntary compliance".
That is very well put indeed and would govern the considerations of any new offences that fall to this House to consider.
What are the anxieties that we wish to express about the new offences? First, the creation of an offence which is specifically linked to the consequences of an actߞthat is to say, causing death-gives rise to some concern. Secondly, the criteria used for defining the new, more serious offence of dangerous driving and of driving which falls far below that of a competent and careful driver are novel concepts which certainly require very careful examination. As I said, they give rise to some anxiety.
As to the first area of concern, it is highly controversial, to say the least, to seek to establish the principle that driving offences should mirror the consequences of the driving. That was a matter very properly discussed in considerable detail in the North Report. Although the report recommended that separate offences in relation to causing death should be kept, it recognised that there were strong, very respectable legal arguments against that idea. In particular there was the view that such an offence might be seen as downgrading cases where no death arises and further the view that:
"it is improper to create a greater liability based on the consequences which may to a degree be fortuitous".

875
Given the nature of the debate that was canvassed in North, I express some surprise that those points were given so little attention in the White Paper. In effect, all that was said there was:
"The Government agrees that there needs to be a stronger response: to the tragic outcome of the driver's actions and therefore proposes to introduce a new and more serious offence'.
That did not do justice to the argument. One has to ask why the White Paper was so dismissive of the issues which were genuinely and properly raised.
So serious questions arise. Is it not a fact that serious injury can lead to more pain, anguish and heartbreak, particularly when the victim is permanently maimed rather than killed? Should not the deterrent factor relate to the propensity to kill or injure rather than to the actual outcome which may arise in any specific case?
As to the second area of concern, the North Report advised very strongly against using the term "dangerous driving". The report states:
"It would run the risk of the reintroduction into the law of problems which led to the deletion of that term from the Road Traffic Act of 1972".
So the essential question is: will the new offence of dangerous driving encompass in practice all those types of driving which North envisaged should be caught Put which are not caught by the present offence of reckless driving? Again I quote from North, because what was said was very important:
"We have in mind such activities as driving excessively fast for the prevailing road or traffic conditions, or driving in an aggressive or intimidatory fashion which might involve, for example, sudden lane changes, cutting into a line of vehicles or persistently driving much too close to a vehicle in front".
Those are the matters about which North was troubled.
At the Committee stage in another place, the Minister, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, asserted that aberrant acts would qualify as dangerous driving under Clause 1. When pressed on the matter he went on to say:
"It is important that a proper distinction be maintained between the offences of 'dangerous driving' and 'careless, and inconsiderate driving'. It is impossible to state categorically that an act is either 'dangerous' or 'careless', as it depends on the facts Of each case".ߞ[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/91; col. 25.]
Perhaps I may say that from my point of view in moving this amendment that was an extremely helpful response because it makes the case for the new clause. The real weakness and problem of the law as it stands is a failure to draw a satisfactory distinction between reckless and careless driving. That is represented in the everyday experiences of many lawyers who practise in the criminal courts.
Is it not likely that precisely similar problems will arise because of the distinction between dangerous and careless driving in that decisions about the degree of blame or seriousness of a particular act will have to be judged against the particular circumstances. As has been intimated earlier, one cannot provide in legislation for all the various permutations that exist.
Criminally negligent driving was considered by the North Review. The report gave two important arguments in favour. First, there was the objective nature of the test:
876
"It covers the driver who thinks about the risk and decides to take it, the driver who does not bother to think about it and the driver who does think but also thinks foolishly that there is no risk".
The second point that was made was that the offence is not linked to particular circumstances or results. Why then, having regard to the formidable way in which the point was made by North, was the approach rejected in that report? I believe that the reason is that when North analysed criminal negligence it focused on a draft criminal code which proposed the definition of criminal negligenceߞI quote from the draft codeߞas conduct which is:
"a very serious deviation from the standard of care to be expected of a reasonable person".
North went on to argue that the very serious deviation test could perpetuate the problems arising from the reluctance of the courts to include cases of bad as opposed to very bad driving within the meaning of reckless driving. I think it right to add that that draft criminal code was never adopted and the very serious deviation test is not proposed in relation to the new clause.
In my submission, North was right to be concerned about the test. However, that concern is far more relevant to the "far below" test set out in the new offence than to the new clause. The second reason that North gave was rather curious; that new case law would have to develop. That is right. It is equally right of the new offences. Indeed that represents an argument against any change whatever. I therefore find it an extraordinary argument.
The third reason given by North was that although a single offence has the force of logic because bad driving is bad drivingߞthat is to say, it is essentially indivisibleߞit was thought that the courts would be given too broad a discretion and would therefore risk greater inconsistency of treatment of like offenders. However, our experience seems to be the other way when seeking to differentiate between various categories of driving in the relevant Acts of Parliament.
My conclusion is this. I suggest that we abandon the effort to differentiate between levels of offence. The new clause makes such provision. I urge the creation of a single offence which extends to all circumstances of driving. It would then be left to the prosecution to decide how to proceed in each individual case in the light of the individual circumstances. The question of sentence would be appropriately reflected in the event of conviction.
We propose that the offence should be triable summarily or on indictment before a jury. The prosecution would have a hand in that. The court would make the ultimate determination. Our wish is to ensure that the Bills avoids what I call the pitfalls of previous multitier offences and the potential injustice which can accompany charges linked to the outcome of an action. I therefore urge the Committee to support the new clause. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: We are grateful to the noble Lord for the very careful way in which he has put forward his view of the need for the amendment. However, having

877
listened to him carefully I am sorry to have to say that, first, I do not think his amendment achieves the purposes which he describes and wants. Secondly, it seems to me that what he has put forward overlaps to a great extent what is already in Clause 2 of the Bill. Indeed, if he analysed the amendment the effect of it is to a great extent identical with Clause 2.
It is a rather complicated matter. However, let me do my best to explain the view that I have just expressed. The noble Lord took a lot of trouble, having had the opportunity to work the matter out beforehand. I now have to explain the answer to it having merely listened to him. I view the matter in this way. First, subsection (1) of the amendment states that,
"A person is guilty of an offence if his driving … is criminally negligent".
The expression "criminally negligent" brings us to an in-between stage of dangerous driving and driving without due care and attention or consideration to other users of the road.
At present when people are charged with offences of driving without due care and attention and driving without consideration they frequently plead guilty. They are not obliged to attend court and many people do not do so. But people will not readily wish to have recorded against them a finding that they have been criminally negligent. If the noble Lord's offence were added to the Bill there would be relatively few pleas of guilty and people would attend court to contest cases. I do not say that that in itself is an objection to the clause. If what the noble Lord proposes is right, we should not be afraid of that consequence. I must grant that point. However, this is a new expression which people will find unwelcome.
I turn to subsection (2) of the amendment which describes the substance of the offence of being criminally negligent. The first example given is that the person acted "unreasonably". With my limited intelligence I find it difficult to distinguish between that and either driving without due care and attention or driving without reasonable consideration, both of which are covered already by Clause 2 of the Bill. To that extent in substance the new clause adds nothing.
Let us consider paragraph (b), which states,
"without sensible regard for the safety or well-being of other persons on the road or other public place".
Again, I find that extremely close to the expression in Clause 2 of the Bill which rewrites Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988ߞa consolidation Act. The phrase,
"without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place"
overlaps. I can see no difference of importance or substance between what the noble Lord proposes and what is in the last part of Clause 2 of the Bill. Therefore, without advancing any further, the new clause has the disadvantage of introducing a concept of being criminally negligent and overlaps to a great extent what is already in the present law as rewritten in Clause 2 of the Bill. Therefore, I would not expect my noble friend to accept the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Is it only the act of driving that is covered, or would someone driving a car which is in a dangerous condition and could result in an accident also be covered by the amendment?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I shall reply later to the entirety of the debate. However, in my view it would.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: First, I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that this is a complicated matter. I am very conscious that, unlike my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I am not a lawyer. Therefore I am at a disadvantage when considering these matters. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for the detailed way in which he introduced the amendment. Obviously it will require further reading on my part. However, I do not believe that there is a case for creating a new bad driving offence based on the concept of criminal negligence. I am not convinced that in the light of the Bill's reforms there will remain any gap in the law which needs to be filled. My noble friend Lord Renton made that point.
I remind Members of the Committee that many of the provisions in Part I of the Bill, especially those relating to the creation of new and revised driving offences, are based on the recommendations of the major review of road traffic law carried out by the North Committee.
The North Committee looked at the general structure of road traffic law and considered a number of alternatives such as a more detailed hierarchy of offences. Its conclusion, which the Government accept, was that the broad structure of general bad driving offencesߞfor example, the reckless and careless offencesߞshould not be changed although it recommended the reformulation of reckless driving. It also considered the Law Commission's suggestion in its draft criminal code for an offence to replace reckless driving based on a test of criminal negligence in which the manner of driving showed a serious deviation from the standard of care to be expected of a reasonable person. In spite of some obvious merits, notably the fact that it sets an objective test and goes wider than the existing English interpretation of "reckless", it rejected it on the grounds that it did not fully define what is meant by criminal negligence. Leaving that to the courts would run the risk of a restrictive definition and the possibility of different interpretation north and south of the border.
I recognise that the proposed new clause contains a fuller definition of "criminally negligent" driving but this particular formulation fails to distinguish the extent to which the driving falls short of a reasonable standard. It would therefore overlap with the existing offence of careless or inconsiderate driving in Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. That offence is defined as driving:
"without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road".
Clause 2 of the Bill will extend the scope of this offence to other public places. I do not consider that the definition of criminally negligent driving set out in the proposed new clause would add substantially to the

879
Section 3 offence. Furthermore, it would lead to confusion as to the appropriate charge in different circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the question of serious injury. I sympathise with the view that the driver who causes serious injury when driving dangerously may cause as much pain and suffering as the driver who causes a death. I heartily condemn such driving. However, we must be careful that our concern for the consequences of an incident does not lead us to lose sight of the need for the court to concentrate on the offender's culpability and to consider the circumstances of the individual case in deciding on the appropriate penalty.
Causing death is an exception. For many years the law has recognised the particular horror of a driver who causes a death, but it is difficult to extend that principle. What is a serious injury for this purpose? It would be difficult to define on the face of the statute, and the definition would doubtless become a matter of protracted legal dispute each time the offence was charged. The point was carefully considered by the North Committee which accepted that there were arguments on both sides of the case but concluded by recommending against a specific offence. I concur with that conclusion.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will be assured that our intention in reformulating the bad driving offences was to meet as closely as possible the recommendations of the North Report (recommendation 20). The test is based on the standard of driving and it avoids the subjective element of the current reckless offence.
What will dangerous driving cover in Clause 1? It has proved difficult to secure convictions in England and Wales for the existing reckless driving offences because of the need for juries to be satisfied as to the driver's state of mind at the time of the offence. The new offences are based more firmly on the standard of driving. The driving must fall far below what would be expected by a competent and careful driver. It must be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. This is a reasonable person test; we no longer need to inquire into the mind of the driver. Moreover, it is intended that the requirement of the offence should be fulfilled where the manner of driving is dangerous even if it can be shown that no person or property is put at risk in the particular case. It should henceforth be possible to secure convictions in many cases which in the public's mind clearly and reasonably constitute dangerous driving but where the existing offences have not proved satisfactory. That would fulfil the recommendations at the North Report.
If one offence of criminally negligent driving were to replace dangerous driving and careless or inconsiderate driving all drivers would face the same maximum penaltyߞfor example, at present causing death by reckless driving carries a penalty of five years' irnprisonmentߞand that would be inappropriate in many cases. There would also be significant procedural problems; for example, if all defendants
880
were to elect trial by jury in the Crown Court which would be possible if the offence were to be triable either way.
The offences of dangerous driving and careless or inconsiderate driving will in future provide sufficient scope for bringing appropriate charges where bad driving has occurred. The seriousness of the charge will depend on the individual circumstances of each case. To add a further offence which introduces the concept of criminal negligence into road traffic law is unnecessary and would create confusion. Therefore I cannot recommend the new clause to the Committee.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have participated in this interesting debate. If the amendment were to become part of the law the existing offences must be amended. My purpose was not to complicate the issue unduly, but to canvas the ideas at this stage and to hear the response of the Committee, and in particular that of the Minister.
I turn to the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I always respect him; he speaks from a wealth of experience in the courts. He appears to have missed the main distinctions between my proposed new clause and the new offences which are created by the Government's proposals in relation to Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill. I shall return to that matter in a moment. It is not an entirely respectable argument to say that there would be relatively few pleas of guilty. My experience in the criminal courts is now a little distant but I believe that too many people are able to plead guilty to driving without due care in circumstances which justify a more major offence. That might be the noble Lord's experience too but he must speak for himself. Consequently it is an argument of convenience which ought not to be a major concern for the Committee.
In relation to offences of this kind, particularly where serious injury or even death occurs and where there are serious consequences, the purpose should be to deter. Indeed, that goes to the heart of the considerations to which we shall turn later. They are reflected in the Government's approach to the matter and in ours. It is true that if one were to isolate from the arguments that I have put forward the references that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made to subsection (2) one would see points that were not massively capable of being distinguished from the Government's provisions. However, there is one distinction. As has been widely canvassed, the Government have taken a different view, as did the North Committee, when reflecting on the issues. However, we believe that there is a strong case for arguing for a single offence. Most specifically, in our judgment it is necessary to avoid creating an offence which is specifically linked to a consequence of the act; the act being the causing of death.
It is true that in the past there has been legislation of that kind. However, we are considering the whole matter and there is every good reason to inject the notions that I have sought to introduce into the debate when considering the approach that we should now take.

881
If the Minister believes seriously that my proposal will introduce protracted legal arguments but that as regards his new offences everything will be hunkydory and that the Court of Appeal will never be worried about those matters, then let us consider the notion of "far below". That is a novel concept. I suspect that the Minister's expectations of a fair ride, and no challenges or complexity will be sadly disappointed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I did not say that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister did not say that but it is implicit in everything he said. He said that my proposals are inordinately complex and will lead to a joyride for lawyers. Therefore, I merely mentioned the concept of "far below". He must not run away with the idea that it will all be easy and right nor that it will all work out in practice. I am convinced that that will be far from the case.
I do not intend to press the matter to a Division. Before the Report stage I shall reflect on what the Minister and other Members of the Committee have said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I should like the Minister to explain subsection (3) of Clause 3. That says that subsections (1) (b) and (c), which are alcohol-related offences for failing to give a specimen:
"shall not apply in relation to a person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle other than a motor vehicle".
For example, does that mean that a person driving a steam-roller under the influence of alcohol-a rather riotous thoughtߞ would be immune or is it, as I suspect, that there is an alternative way of dealing with that? On the face of it, it is rather surprising to see that subsection but no doubt, as always, my noble friend has a good explanation.
Lord Renton: Do horse-drawn vehicles come into this? In the past there have been notorious cases of people causing injury to other people by driving a horse-drawn vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I believe that I may have to write to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter with an explanation in greater detail than I am able to give him now. There are certain categories of mechanically propelled vehicle to which this clause does not apply. That does not mean that, for example, it is legal to drive a steam-roller while under the influence of drink. Such a person could be caught under other provisions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will my noble friend be good enough to let me know what are those provisions under which such a person could be charged? I should hate to think that we may be excluding that rather amusing possibility.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As I said, I shall have to write to my noble friend and I shall include that in my reply.
As regards a horse-drawn vehicle, I am not sure whether that would be included in the definition of a mechanically propelled vehicle. I suspect that it would not because it is being propelled by a horse. I know that it is possible to be charged with driving a horse-drawn vehicle while under the influence of alcohol just as it is possible as regards driving a bicycle while under the influence of alcohol. However, I shall write to my noble friend in more detail on that.
In general terms my noble friend will appreciate that breath tests are designed for motor vehicles. However, drivers of go-carts, mechanical diggers and so on can be convicted of driving when unfit.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: It may be that the man is driving the horse but surely the horse cannot be under the influence of drink, or at least I hope not. Who is responsible for the accident?
Lord Renton: Is my noble friend aware that the great Earl of Montrose always gave quantities of beer to his horse?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In law the human being must be responsible for the conduct of whoever or whatever may be hauling the carriage.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Perhaps I may put another conundrum to my noble friend. Will he take into account that some vehicles are now driven by solar panels? Will they be mechanically driven?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am sure that they would be mechanically driven because they require a source of power. It may be solar but it is a source of power just like an internal combustion engine.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I should hate to be excluded from the intriguing correspondence and I hope that the Minister will agree to let me have a copy of the engaging letters which he is going to write to his noble friends.
In the course of the Minister's reply, I wondered whether he was going back to the past and confusing horse power with the issue which we are now considering. However a serious point has been raised and I am sure the Minister is right to reflect upon it rather than to give an immediate answer.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Random breath testing at roadside checkpoints
(". In section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted after sub-section (2) the following subsectionsߞ
(2A) The Secretary of State may make provisions, by regulations which shall be subject to approval by each House of Parliament, for roadside checks at which either all vehicles or a sample of vehicles may be stopped by a constable in uniform under section 163 of this Act for the purpose of administering breath tests to their drivers at or near the place where such vehicles are stopped to ascertain whether any offence has been committed under section 4 or 5 of this Act.
(2B) Regulations under subsection (2A) above shall provide for any roadside check under sub-section (2A) above to be authorised in writing by a senior police officer and for the display of signs making the purpose of the check clear to road users and for the maintenance of records of the authorisation and of the location, date and time of such checks.
(2C) Regulations under subsection (2A) shall be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to England and Wales and by the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to Scotland.
(2D) The Secretary of State shall consult with chief officers of police and other organisations on a code of practice for the detailed operation of roadside checks carried out in accordance with the Regulations under subsection (2A).".
The noble Lord said: I should say at the outset that this amendment is intended to apply not to horses or animals but only to human beings.
On Second Reading I attempted to make out a case for random breath testing. That is a matter for the judgment and conscience of Members of the Committee. I said at that stage and I repeat now that I have not asked the Opposition Chief Whip to impose a Whip on this issue for that reason, although I believe that the Government have taken a different view, but that is a matter for the Government.
I believe that there is a very powerful case for random breath testing. In order to put the matter into context, I shall redeploy some of the arguments I raised in order to set the proper backcloth to the debate.
The latest figures I have are those of 1989 which show that one in six accidental road deaths was drink related. The terrible toll was that 22,000 were injured and 840 people were killed. The cost in terms of human suffering is incalculable. There is also a cost to society which is measurable in terms of each fatal accident. I believe that the Government said that each fatal accident costs about £600,000. Consequently, at the very least, that cost could be said to be £365 million per year. I do not believe that that is a major item of anxiety but it is worth recollecting.
Also, far too many people continue to drink and drive. A Gallup poll was conducted by the General Accident Insurance Group in 1990 which revealed that 30 per cent. of all drivers and 41 per cent. of business drivers admitted to drinking and driving. Therefore, the deterrent factor which seemed to appear at first has, to some degree although not entirely, withered on the vine.
There is of course ample precedent for random breath testing along the lines that we are suggesting. That is reflected by the practices that have been deployed in other countries. The practices which have been so deployed appear to show that the random breath testing experiment works. That proposition is sustained overwhelmingly by organisations which have impeccable credentials as regards their ability to speak on these matters. They are the BMA, the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport and Safety and Alcohol Concern. Interestingly enough, the National Council for Civil Liberties, which would be the first to complain about any invasion of civil liberties, supports the proposition. The Association of Police Surgeons, the Royal College of Psychiatrists
884
and the police as well support this measure, although they want to go further than we are advising in this case.
The European Committee of High Level Experts on Road Safety supports the proposition. The United Kingdom representative was a Mr. Jim Harrigan, who was a former deputy secretary at the Department of Transport. He must have had appropriately good credentials. Perhaps I may quote from a passage in the report at pages 28 and 29:
"The Experts' Committee consider that the development of campaigns of random alcohol checks is without doubt one of the most effective steps to be taken to improve road safety in the Member States".
It is true that against that very heavy weight of experience and expertise the Government have been able to muster the support of the RAC, which is a perfectly respectable and worthy organisation. They also have the support of the National Licensed Victuallers Association which has campaigned vigorously against this idea, and not altogether surprisingly. The proposition that I have advanced is supported overwhelmingly by public opinion. Among many other tests that have been carried out, that support was revealed in response to the consultation paper put out by the Home Office. Out of the 3,400 replies received to the paper, 3,000 supported random breath tests.
The common denominator in support of this idea is that it is believed that there is a deterrent value and, based on the conclusions reached elsewhere, that that deterrent value would lead to a reduction in the number of deaths and injuries. But, Canute-like, the Government continue to stand against the rising tide in support of random breath testing. In another place Ministers have categorically refused to take steps, and Ministers here have been obliged to say the same thing. But that is not unlike the resistance that once occurred not so long ago to the wearing of seatbelts. More topically, it is not unlike the endeavours of the MCC to exclude women members. That endeavour will fall to the ground in no time at all.
Lord Peston: I think that is a bit optimistic.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My noble friend says that that is a bit optimistic. Not even the MCC can prevail against the tide, but that is another matter.
I should like to consider some of the arguments which have been adduced in another place and here against the proposition. It is argued that random breath testing is unnecessary because fewer drivers are drinking and driving. It is argued that we have a better driving record than other countries and so on. The argument about the experience of other countries is of itself not conclusive either in my favour or against. It is difficult to make an exact comparison because there are different factors, different attitudes and different approaches which govern the issues.
I claim that the assertion made by those who say that we have a remarkable record is probably wildly optimistic. Notwithstanding what I have said, Sweden and the Netherlands seem to have lower levels of drinking and driving deaths than occur here. But the

885
important point is that there can be no room for complacency whatever may be the situation as regards the statistics that I have already adduced. In my judgment the suggestion that we do not need to go further is complacent.
There are other factors which it is said render random breath testing unnecessary. It is said that there have been changes in attitude and publicity campaigns. There have been Christmas campaigns and there is also the effect of the media. That is all very good. I do not complain in the least about those factors. I support them. But are they and random breath testing to be regarded as mutually exclusive? Are they not to be regarded as complementary instruments in attacking drinking and driving?
It is said that increased penalties and their severity will do the trick. That argument is misconceived. I am not at all against increasing the penalties. But the fact isߞ and this is the subject of much research-that while far too many drivers here believe that there is little chance of being caught, heavier penalties will not deter the drinking driver. In Sweden, where penalties for excess alcohol reached the ceiling of severity without evidence of deterring the excess alcohol offender, the situation was dramatically changed with the introduction of random breath testing.
Then it is said that random breath testing is an inefficient way of catching drinking drivers and therefore of using police time. The real criterion for dealing with a policy of this kind must be whether we can reduce alcohol-related accidents. When we look at the situation in some other countries we find that random breath testing has had a considerably greater effect on reducing accidents and casualties than targeting offenders alone.
We have heard from the Minister that police powers are already sufficiently extensive to cover this and therefore there is no need for any extension. That is a very strange argument in a way because, while the Government argue that they are against random breath testing in principle, they assert that the police already have the necessary powers. The Government cannot have it both ways. Quite apart from the logical inconsistency, that is not right. The same patterns are not deployed by the police throughout the country.
There appears to be some questioning by police authorities in some parts of the country as to whether what the Government have to say in this regard is right. Therefore they do not deploy the tests that are used elsewhere. In order to sustain the breath tests that they undertake, the police are sometimes driven to invent and engage in pretence in order to enable them to be applied. I do not believe that engaging in pretence is good. It is the very matter that determines that relationships between the police and the public can be impaired. I am against that.
It is argued that too much time would be involved by the police in dealing with this issue rather than dealing with issues that are more generally regarded as crimes. I regard this as crime. I make that clear from the first. The consequences of drinking and driving can be, and often are, absolutely appalling. However, if it is a question of cost and the deployment of the
886
police forces, should we not consider again that statistic to which I referred earlier-the cost to society? That has to be weighed against anything the Minister says in regard to a cost of at least £600 million.
It is probable, I concede, that traffic policing levels will have to be increased, although the situation has not been mirrored in New South Wales or Finland when random breath testing has been introduced. Traffic policing levels have been allowed to dwindle, let me say, over recent years. Therefore the increase in resources which may be necessary in some areas is, I would argue, absolutely right. The fact is that quantifiable benefits to the community would far exceed the known direct costs of making random breath testing work. The allocation of new resources would be cost effective and a good investment.
The next argument to which I refer is that random breath testing would not operate as a deterrent to drinking and driving and would lead to fewer convictions of drunken drivers. The reason why relatively fewer offenders are detected at roadside check points is that random breath testing acts as a deterrent. People have to come into collision with these random breath testing points and of course have to take more care. That is the whole object of the exercise. It is also said that there will be friction between the police and the driving population. I do not believe that a random breath testing system such as we are seeking to introduce here would have that effect. People are against drinking and driving. They would understand. It would avoid the pretence to which I referred earlier.
I dealt with the question of civil liberties on Second Reading. I simply do not believe that the civil liberty of someone being able to drink and perhaps enter into some conjecture as to whether or not he has exceeded the limit or whether he was within the limit is a civil liberty that ought to be preserved at all cost against the civil liberty of ensuring that people who have not taken a drink can drive safely and pedestrians are protected from these people who absorb so much drink. Therefore I believe that that is not an argument to which this Chamber should give serious credit. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that this is a matter on which there are no conceivable grounds for complacency. I know that the view which he has argued, if he will allow me to say, so effectively just now is a view that is very widely held by a great many people in all parties and in all sections of the country. It is therefore an issue which I am sure the Committee will wish to consider carefully and on which it will wish to weigh carefully the arguments used. However, before I venture direct comments on that point I must take the noble Lord up on his historical inaccuracy when referring to the Government's Canute-like attitude to this issue. The noble Lord may recall that, by standing beside the sea and asking the tide to come no further, his late Majesty demonstrated to those who had foolishly said that the King had complete and overwhelming power what nonsense they were talking. If the noble Lord was referring to that, his late

887
Majesty was absolutely right. He was also extremely sensible and extremely persuasive. Therefore to use him as a term of abuse to the Government-because of the view the Government have taken on this matterߞis somewhat a perversion of history.
The amendment itself is rather curious because it provides for random stopping of either all vehicles or a sample of vehicles. How the sample would be selected, if this power were given, of itself raises some quite important questions. Would it be all big cars? Would it be all small cars? Would it be all cars apparently driven by young people? How would a sample be selected? I should like to put the argument nonetheless on broader grounds. Why is it thought that the knowledge that the police have this power would, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, act as a deterrent to drivers from drinking and driving'? Everybody knows nowadays that if one is caught driving under the influence of drink the penalties are serious. To anyone of any public position the publicity is extremely tiresome and harmful. Everybody knows that. Why should the thought of the stopping of either a sample or the whole lot, add appreciably to the deterrent factor? I do not follow. People know that if they drink before driving and anything happens they will be in for very serious trouble. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will not enter into the debate at this stage, save to say this: what we are seeking to do by this provision is to supplement the existing law, not replace it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: That does not seem to sustain the argument that the deterrent effect of the law will be substantially improved by introducing this provision. People know that if they have had drink and an incident occurs while they are driving they are in serious trouble. They know that perfectly well. Why should the separate factor of being the victim of a sample stop, or of a complete stop, be a greater deterrent? That does not seem to me to be at all convincing.
One comes therefore to the question of what such a provision will do to relations between the motoring public and the police. I attach very great importance to that. I like the feeling that when one sees a police officer one is pleased and reassured to know that he is there. However, if a perfectly sober driver is liable to be stopped and subjected, first, to a certain amount of delay, and, secondly, to a somewhat humiliating process of being tested, it is likely very seriously to damage relations between the motorist and the police.
The noble Lord said, and I agree with him, that we want fuller policing of the roads. I believe that considerably more police should be available on the motorways. However, they should be available to deal with actual incidents of bad driving, accidents and all the various chances and changes of the road. If one makes the police the potential enemy of a perfectly sober driver who is stopped and subjected to a somewhat humiliating routine, one will very seriously damage those relations and make the motorist feel, "Oh, there are those wretched police. Now they are probably going to stop us". Given the weight of traffic
888
that we now have on our motorways, particularly at weekends and in the rush hour, if any substantial number is to be stopped for testsߞthe majority of which, I think it is accepted, will produce nothingߞone will add very seriously to the traffic congestion and therefore once again to the ill temper and ill will towards the police.
It seems to me that the onus is upon those who argue that the present law is inadequate to discharge that onus. I have no reason to believe that the present legal position is inadequately strong. Motorists increasingly realise the serious consequences of driving when they have taken even a moderate quantity of drink. That fact is well realised. I also believe that, for practical purposes with the various other powers that the police have, it is quite unnecessary to make this addition. As making such an addition would impair relations with the police, I suggest to Members of the Committee that we should follow the previous decisions taken in another place and elsewhere and reject the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I rise to speak in support of the amendment. I should like to begin with a personal view. I have to say that I personally enjoy the fruits of the grape and related beverages in appropriate circumstances. There is some evidence that alcohol in moderation can make a significant contribution to human well-being. There is even some recent evidence emerging to suggest that in moderation it may have a protective effect against coronary heart disease.
However, my personal decision not to drive after drinking made several years ago was, I can assure Members of the Committee, not wholly related to the fact that any doctor convicted in the United Kingdom of driving with more than the prescribed level of alcohol on the breath is automatically reported to the president of the General Medical Council. That was an office which I held at the time. That particular decision was based upon my growing realisation of the appalling roll of death, injury and bereavement caused all too often to innocent persons in this country by drinking drivers.
I wholly accept some of the arguments put forward so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. However, I believe that there is one that he may conceivably have overlooked. The present law requires that, for the police to stop a motorist and invite him to undergo a breath test, there must be reasonable cause for suspicion that he may have been drinking. It is my viewߞand one which I have to say is shared by the British Medical Associationߞthat that immediately introduces in the present law a confrontational situation. If the public were to recognise that random breath testing was part of our law, then, contrary to the noble Lord's view, I believe that that would not impair but that it would ultimately improve the relations between the public and the police.
Drinking and driving still remains the single main cause of death and injury on our roads. The Department of Transport estimates, as the noble

889
Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, that over 22,000 casualties each year can be attributed to alcohol at an annual cost to the National Health Service of £600 million.
In countries such as Finland and Australia, random breath testing has reduced the number of casualties and fatalities on the roads. Moreover, in New South Wales, the public has responded well to testing by teams stationed by the roadside which, combined with a public information programme, has been successful. In the four years following the introduction of random breath tests in that country, the average number of alcohol-related fatal and serious accidents has been reduced by 35 per cent., and the savings in health and social security benefit costs have been 20 times the cost of implementing the scheme.
I firmly believe in the proposal. I understand from a recent conversation that this view is not only shared by the British Medical Association, and many other organisations to which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred, but that it is also supported by many other organisations. Moreover, I also understand that the Automobile Association has recently expressed the same view.
If we were to accept the amendment in Committee it would send a signal to the world at large and to the country that we take very seriously this growing toll of people being injured, killed or maimed on our roads, and that this is one way in which we can hope to reduce that appalling incidence.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I am sorry that I missed some of the first moments of this debate. However, I should like to say a few words in answer to what has just been said. Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I do not drink and drive. By that I mean I do not drive at all after drinking, as of set purpose. I accept wholly what the noble Lord said about the seriousness of the number of casualties which may occur if people do so. However, I am perfectly convinced that the amendment is unnecessary. I believe that the noble Lord has been misled by his perhaps insufficient acquaintance with what actually goes on on the ground. It is true that before a breath test is administered a policeman must have reason to believe that alcohol is within the body of the driver. But it is not the only reason why a motorist can be stopped.
To begin with, a motorist can be stopped if he is committing a moving traffic offence. It is thereafter that the policeman can form the idea that alcohol is within the body. A moving traffic offence includes, of course, breaking the 30 mph speed limit. Anyone who thinks that that limit is observed generally at present has only to go out into the streets and watch the cars going by. In fact, anyone can be stopped who is in motion.
Moreover, the police have the power to ask for one's driving licence and insurance certificate and thus form some idea, as the documents are being examined, as to whether there is alcohol in the body. The impression that the noble Lord seems to have that the policeman is driven to form some conclusion about the state of alcohol in the breath before he stops a
890
motorist bears no relation to the truth. I should point out that I have had quite considerable professional experience of cases in which breath tests have been administered and where other alcohol-related offences when driving have been committed, and also some ߞalthough not quite so muchߞjudicial experience.
I do not wish to detain Members of the Committee for any length of time. However, I should like to put the matter in the form of a parable. I am a very bad pheasant shot, as many of my noble friends (and those who are more acquainted with my social habits) will probably be able to confirm. But I am rather more likely to hit the bird if I aim at it than if I just fire my gun into the air in the hope that something will come down. The number of our policemen is not unlimited. They have many other duties to perform, quite apart from the possibility that they may stop every member of the public on any occasion to see whether he has any alcohol on his breath. Indeed, they may have to search for more serious criminals or have better reasons than that for stopping motorists. I suggest that an aimed shot is rather better than one shot into the ground. I regard the amendment as dangerous and wholly unnecessary.
Lord Tordoff: There is no question that my noble friends from these Benches shall have anything other than a vote according to their consciences. In other words, this is not a matter for party distinction. The vast phalanx which sits behind me will now therefore be making up its own mind!
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who engaged the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on the matter of King Canute. He was perfectly right in what he said; indeed, had he not done so, I should have said precisely the same, although less well no doubt. I say that because my territorial title is Knutsford in the county of Cheshire which, as people will know, is Canutesford. Therefore, I have a particular affection for that great and noble King.
I said on Second Reading that I was an agnostic on the subject and was waiting to be persuaded. As Members of the Committee may guess, I have received a great deal of correspondence, as they will have, from various organisations on this important amendment. Having thought about the matter at some considerable length, I have come down in favour of the amendment. I do not seek to persuade my colleagues. They can make up their own minds. They probably have done so, which may be why they are not here. I have come down in favour of the amendment, although I listened with great care to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and which will doubtless be made by the Minister in due course.
It does not seem to me that the arguments that those noble Lords adduce against the amendment are strong enough to overcome two simple facts. The first was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and it is that we are talking about serious criminal behaviour. It is serious in the sense that it causes grievous bodily harm to many people. I find the argument about it causing friction with the police difficult to accept, because the police, on the whole,

891
are in favour of the amendment. We should listen to what they have to say. I cannot believe that being tested i i the way suggested is likely to be worse than being tested in the way that people are tested at the moment. That brings me to my next point.
On the one hand, people say that they do not want random breath testing and, on the other, they say that we have random breath testing at the moment, so why bother. If we have random breath testing, let us call it random breath testing, let us ensure that it is random breath testing, and let us ensure that it is on the face of the Bill, and is not done by devices that the police may be forced to introduce to carry out the amendment's intention. That is what is happening at the moment.
The noble and learned Lord is right, of course: the police cannot stop people on suspicion of their having alcohol in their bodies, but they can stop them for a moving traffic offence. A moving traffic offence can be their suspicion that the driver is not driving fast enough. That causes them to suspect that something is going wrong. The vehicle may have a cracked tail light or something similar. There are a thousand different ways by which a policeman can find justification for stopping a car if he wishes to do so. Basically, I cannot accept that the law should be brought into some disrepute by relying upon a device such as I have described to introduce random breath testing by the back door.
The final point we must consider is whether the introduction of systematic breath testing will reduce the number of deaths on the road. It is my belief, after due consideration, that it will so reduce death and injury on the roads, and because of that, I support the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for so comprehensively exposing the arguments in favour of random breath testing. I have never heard it done better. The argument, as he will be the first to recognise, is very much a matter of balance, My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham made the point that police capacity is limited and always will be. It could be extended a little, but it costs a great deal to do so. The police have many other duties of great importance to carry out in protecting the public. What we are considering is how police power, authority and spread can best be used.
My noble and learned friend made a cogent point with his metaphor about shooting, or not shooting, pheasants. A random shot in the air is not likely to do much good. What has evolved is a type of instinctive arrangement. Over the past 10 years, the police have developed a practice of intensifying tests over the Christmas period. They now carry out about three times as many tests as they did 10 years ago. That practice is accepted by the public. The law just covers it, as my noble and learned friend with his great authority explained. People as a whole accept it as a convention that at Christmas time, for a week or two, there will be an intensification of testing. Everyone thinks mat that is a good thing, and so it has been accepted.
892
As a result, during those 10 years there has been a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of deaths caused by drinking and driving. To a considerable extent that must be due to the practice of intensification at Christmas time when, instead of the random shot in the air described by my noble and learned friend, the police shoot at some birds they are pretty sure they can bring down. Some of those people will have been drinking and driving. They will be caught and prosecuted. That is the deterrent in which we are all interested.
I share with other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Walton, with whom I am glad to find myself agreeing as usual, the view that we all want to reduce drinking and driving. We all recognise that there are still some people who drink and drive, and perhaps there always will be, unless they are taken off the road altogether. But we cannot do that at one fell swoop.
We must consider whether the available police capacity is being used most effectively at the moment, using present methods. There is no doubt that substantial improvement has been achieved over the past 10 years and is likely to continue. Last Christmas, breath tests increased by 15 per cent. over the previous year. The number of positive testsߞthat is to say, the number of people who were found to have been drinking and drivingߞhad decreased by 10 per cent. It indicates that the present approach, although gradual and not completely logicalߞit is not as logical as the random breath testing the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, advocatesߞis succeeding, and in an irrational way probably suits us.
There is no doubt that formal roadside tests carried out throughout the country would offend many people. When public opinion polls show that most people are in favour of random breath testing, I believe that they are thinking of the Christmas time tests which most people accept as reasonable. There is a big risk that offence would be caused and that important police public relations would be stirred up, whereas the present system is accepted. There is a type of convention that it is reasonable that people who are foolish enough to drink and drive at Christmas time should be apprehended.
The Government have the balance of the argument right. What is being done is succeeding, and has succeeded considerably. It is carrying public opinion with it. That is important. The system will continue progressively to achieve the results which we want. It would be a pity further to restrict the liberty of the subject as we should have to do if we were to institute general random breath tests at the roadside by stopping all, or some, vehicles. It would be a pity to go further than we have to if the present methods are succeeding. I believe that they are, and so I shall support my noble friend.
Viscount Caldecote: We all agree that driving under the influence of drink is a serious crime. However, it is always difficult to maintain the right balance between methods of detecting and deterring crime and the reasonable convenience of the public and in this case attitudes to the police. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred to that most eloquently.

893
Recently I had the interesting first experience of being breathalysed when I was driving back from a dinner wearing a dinner jacket. I am glad to say that the test was satisfactory. The policemen concerned were polite and efficient. They warned me, as is necessary under the Road Traffic Act and other legislation. I asked why they had stopped me. They said that the main reason was that my trafficator turning lights had been operating from time to time when I was turning neither to the right nor the left. I believe that that is because the same lever in my car operates the headlamp dipper in one direction and the trafficator in the other. The police stopped me clearly for that reason and I was breathalysed. They were polite and afterwards they waved and said goodnight.
I felt slightly annoyed at having been stopped and it caused me to think about the problem of random breath testing. I came to the conclusion that they were perfectly within their rights to stop meߞI suppose that it was a type of random breath testing. After a lot of thought, as is usual after an occasion like that, I came to the conclusion that the police have adequate means of enforcement. To go further along the lines of the amendment would not be wise. As my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Nugent pointed out, the police have many other tasks to perform. It is a matter of the best use of manpower and maintaining good relations and attitudes between the public and the police.
I believe that to accept the amendment would therefore not make the best use of police manpower; it would not do much good. The present arrangements such as have been described by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, are satisfactory and the best balance that we can achieve. Therefore I shall oppose the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I was chairman of the committee of the Cabinet in 1965 and 1966 which dealt with transport policies under the Wilson Administration. We agonised over this for a long time in the committee. We had a much longer discussion on it in Cabinet probably than on any other subject. In the end, we decided to favour the random test and included it in a White Paper published on a wide range of transport matters in 1966.
The late Tom Fraser was the Minister of Transport at the time. Much to the perturbation of Whitehall, I was chairman of the Cabinet committee on transport policy. The Minister of Transport was not made chairman; nor was the Home Secretary appointed chairman of the Home Affairs Committee in the Labour Government; and nor was the Minister of Agriculture made chairman of the farm price review under the Labour Government. I was the professional chairman of that administration. I was chairman of eight Cabinet committees at the same time and my grasp of the general policy of the government was greater thanߞI was going to say with great respect ߞthat of the Prime Minister himself.
Returning to the serious side of the subject, the two difficulties that we dreaded most about this and had to overcome were, first, relations with the police. It was a long time ago, when we were less certain about the conduct of the police and much less certain about the
894
reaction of the public to greater interference by the police with the freedom of the citizen. We decided that we would have to try to cope with it. I submit now that the relationship between the police and the motoring public on transport matters is much better than it was then. People understand the need for discipline. We have introduced many controls of traffic and imposed duties on the police far beyond anything contemplated in 1965–66.
The second difficulty was the effect of the random test on the public. We could not get rid of the feeling that presidents of the Band of Hope might feel affronted if they were stopped without reasonable cause. They might become a little haughty about their lifelong abstinence from strong drink. I was a member of the Band of Hope. However, we thought that if the public only knew how important it was, they would put up with it. We felt that the question, "Why me?" from people on the road was a response that had to be overcome.
Thus we came to examine the reasonable cause to suspect that a person had been imbibing alcohol to excess. The first thing we had to do was to assure the drinks trade, or at least the proprietors and managers of licensed premises, that the police would not stand guard on the car parks of those premises to find, without much difficulty, motorists who had been imbibing alcohol. The police were given no instructions, but we rather suspected that they would probably not accept the excuse that people had been drinking lemonade for five hours and were still sober.
The presumption that one goes into a pub to have a real drink was so strong that we wondered how to overcome it. Therefore, the police were barred under the policy that was adopted later; it was felt that they should be barred from standing guard over the car parks of public houses. In my constituency when the selective test came in, all the pubs on the moors and in the country villages were emptied almost overnight. All the drinkers in my constituency went straight into the pubs from which people could walk home. That was a good sign of how seriously people were taking the matter, but it was not good for the legitimate trade in the beauty spots in my constituency. We had to overcome that.
Apropos the speech of my noble friend Lord Walton, I thought that any motoring offence for which a policeman stopped a motorist gave him the right to apply the breath test. From memory, I believe that the subject had to be under reasonable suspicion not only of having been drinking. If the policeman stopped a motorist for not having his lights on, he could say, "While we are about it, please breathe into this bag". It probably did not improve the motorist's temper, but at least it was an excuse to administer the breath test.
People understand the gravity of death on the roads. I confirm the hideous consequences which I have seen for myself of accidents through drinking and driving. The mutilation of people, the time they have to spend in hospitals and the disabilities with which they come out are so dreadful that for it to be

895
inflicted not by accident but by sheer negligence in not keeping oneself fit to drive is a crime. We should deal with it accordingly.
The legislation on random testing that was approved by the Labour Cabinet never came to fruition because Tom Fraser ceased to be the Minister of Transport. The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, succeeded him and she complained that the Transport Bill which she was handed was already so enormous and controversial that, with this additional difficulty, it would not be politically desirable, nor could it be accommodated with sufficient parliamentary time to wrangle it all through. So it was dropped, but the selective test remained.
I support the amendment. I wish to make one suggestion, a new idea. Should we, when making regulations, have the power to bring about a selective introduction of random testing? Do we have to include the whole country, or is there any possibility of placing areas on trial and imposing random tests if the ratio of drink driving convictions rises above the average? I suppose that under regulations we would have the power to impose this provision nationally at certain seasons of the year. For example, at Christmas.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that such measures have had a good effect. I doubt whether the Minister is right in saying that the police already have such powers. I do not believe that that is the case; but I may be wrong about that. I believe the police get away with imposing such powers at Christmas because people are willing to co-operate.
I have put forward a few ideas. This discussion is an indication of how long it takes to resolve parliamentary and public opinion on matters which seem relatively elementary and simple. That has been my experience of such matters. This is the first occasion that I have spoken on this subject since the time I finally persuaded the Cabinet in 1966 to agree to breath testing.
6 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: I wish to oppose the amendment. Naturally, I am no less against drink driving than anyone else. However, I think the amendment is totally unnecessary because the police already can and do stop motorists without cause. They do this in my part of the world, although perhaps they do it illegally. At a pub that is situated near my house the police take the licence numbers of cars that are parked at the pub. Recently the publican was driving some customers back to their homes. He passed a police car twice and he was asked to stop. The policeman asked him why he was going backwards and forwards. The publican was not committing any kind of an offence.
I was stopped after I had attended a hunt. It was assumed that I had been at the flask all day. In fact I had not had a single sip. The policeman stopped me for no apparent reason and breathalysed me. At the moment the police appear to be able to stop any motorist without giving any reason for doing so. Therefore it is pointless to establish additional legislative provisions on this matter. The question of co-operation with the police is of great importance.
896
The job of the police becomes more and more difficult as crime continually increases. Co-operation between the public and the police is essential and nothing should be done that may jeopardise that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If the noble Lord will forgive me saying so, I did not understand the logic of his speech. He appeared to be saying that there is no need to change the law because the law is clear on the matter. However, he then said that if the law was changed, it would lead to a substantial deterioration in relations between the general public and the police. I do not understand that argument at all.
I have one or two points to make on this matter. It is not an easy question at all. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, there has been a change in police attitudes on this matter over the past 20 years. At one stage the police undoubtedly were not in favour of an amendment of the kind that has been moved today. However, there has now been a substantial change in attitude on their part, and the reason for that is the clear evidence of the appalling consequences of people driving cars while under the influence of drink.
I again refer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Do we all imagine that at Christmas the police wait for a driver to commit a moving traffic offence before they stop him? I wonder how many Members of the Committee believe that. In some police areas that may be true; but I believe that in the overwhelming majority of police forces chief officers of police take the attitude that at a season when there are national advertising campaigns drawing attention to the dangers of driving when under the influence of drink, the police should stop a substantial number of motorists, some of whom have not committed a moving traffic offence. We should not have to continue with humbug of this kind any longer. There should be a clearly expressed statutory provision which makes it clear what the police powers are at the moment. I do not believe that is the case at the moment, and that is why, on balance, I favour the amendment. I do not believe that the present law is at all satisfactory.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wish to support the amendment. I shall not repeat all the arguments that I made on Second Reading as many different points of view have been put forward today.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the police can stop motorists for any incident. That is true but, technically and legally, there must have been an incident. The police cannot just stop a motorist because they suspect he has been drinking. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, appreciates how much court time is wasted discussing not whether a driver has been over the limitߞthat is clearly shown on the evidenceߞbut whether or not the police had the right to stop the motorist. A lot of court time is wasted on such discussions. A police officer is asked why he stopped a motorist and the client's solicitor or his counsel will go on and on and turn what should be an open and shut case into a whole morning's court hearing.

897
There has been a great deal of comment about police manpower. To listen to that one would think that we in this Chamber had the power to decide how many police should be allocated to this work. Surely that is a matter for the chief police officer in charge of each area to decide. It is up to him to decide whether men can be spared for this work. All that this amendment, if passed, would achieve would be to give the police the legal power to carry out this provision. It would not dictate the number of policemen who should be allocated to this work and removed from their present duties. It would not even determine the season of the year when such testing would take place. All those issues would remain flexible. My noble friend Lord Nugent referred to the matter of how best to use the police manpower. However, that is not our decision. That is for the police to determine.
It has been said that the public accept an intensification of random breath testing at Christmas. I believe the public accept breath testing in general. Those who do not accept it are those who are bound to be over the limit, or the people who are irritated by being pulled up by the police. However, we must consider the greater good. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to excuses used to stop motorists. That is nonsense. It is wrong that such excuses should have to be used to stop motorists. I am very much in favour of the amendment, but I do not like the proposed new subsection (2B) which requires police officers to display signs to inform motorists of the purpose of the check. Surely that is tantamount to advising motorists to take a back route and not pass the sign. If the checks are to be random, they should be genuinely random. The police should not warn people of them. However, that is where my Australian background gives me a different attitude. Australians do not believe the police should give offenders a sporting chance.
Random breath tests have been effective in Australia. Without doubt they make motorists think twice about drinking to excess before they drive. They stop some motorists from doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, made a most interesting point when he suggested that people should think about drinking only when they were within walking distance of their homes. In Sweden when people go out with a group of friends and they know they are likely to drink, one of the group will undertake not to drink so that he can drive the rest home. This is a moral rather than a political issue. I hope there will be a free vote on this matter. I am not sure that I agree with the wording of the amendment; but I certainly support the principle behind it. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I am the president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents which has various committees, one of which is considering random breath testing. The society has consistently disagreedߞand still doesߞwith random breath testing. It has advocated a system which is commonly known as unfettered discretion. That in essence means that the police may test motorists at any time if they suspect that they have consumed alcohol.
898
It is RoSPA's opinion that the results of the scheme which operates in Australia, for example, suggest that people quickly become aware of the places where the police have set up road blocks for the purpose of testing and find alternative routes between their drinking place and home, thus negating the randomness of testing. Unfettered discretion would enable the police to operate road blocks if they so chose and also to stop vehicles if they thought a person had been drinking alcohol. As I said in my Second Reading speech, I am against random breath tests.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I should like to say a brief word, mainly because my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes suggested that there was some doubt as to whether there were adequate powers for the police in existing legislation. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has said that there are. No doubt he had in the back of his mind the comments which his right honourable friend the Attorney-General made in another place on 5th December 1989, which were repeated by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Waddington, now my noble friend the Leader of this House, on 21st March 1990.
There is no doubt that the police have sufficient powers. What has led to the confusion is that for various and different reasons individual police forces apply their powers in different ways. In my view it would be quite wrong to suggest in any alteration to the law that instructions should be given to police authorities as to what they may or may not do in this regard because conditions vary in different parts of the country. For exampleߞand I am sorry for my noble friends who live north of the Borderߞthe record of testing and conviction for drunkenness associated with motor vehicles is much higher in Scotland than it is south of the Border. There is no doubt that there is a greater concentration of police effort, with their existing powers.
My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford mentioned some figures. I would only underline what he said by quoting Miss Barbara Sabey's paper, given at a conference at Essex University in March of last year. Miss Sabey is a recognised authority on road safety and safety-related matters. She was at the Department of Transport and TRRL and is now a consultant in that field. She said that in the 10-year period from 1975 to 1986 road deaths from drink-related accidents have halved. The process has continued. It would be fair to pay some tribute to the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Transport, Mr. Peter Bottomley, who waged a continuous and consistent battle against drinking and driving, and has succeeded. By any measurement, the figures are getting better and better.
At the conference to which I referred, the police, through the voice of Mr. Peter Joslin, the chief constable of Warwickshire and the then chairman of ACPO's traffic committee, said that hitherto the police had been unwilling to seek greater powers because they felt that without adequate resources they might find themselves in some difficulty. They have changed their minds since then. I wonder whether that presumes an increase in resources, which will undoubtedly be required if the amendment were

899
carried into law. At the same time he said that there is doubt and there are inconsistencies. Others say that an improvement could be brought about by a change in the attitude of the courts, which have been too lenient. The Magistrates' Association has taken the matter up and introduced a code relating to punishments. The Govern rent themselves have recognised the problem in alterations to the Criminal Justice Bill. At the end of the day we are moving forward steadily.
By all accounts there remains a hard core of drivers who are convicted of drink-related offences. It is for the police to target those drivers, having identified them through the available statistics. They have the tools to do the targeting. The courts have the tools to punish I hem. When this Bill comes into force, there will be other penalties. I do not believe that there are any good grounds for changing the law in this regard.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As my noble friend referred to me, I must take up some of his remarks, because they were so full of inaccuracies. First, he said that the police have the necessary powers. If they have the powers, why are we debating the amendment now? It is because in this Chamber we are all agreed that they do not have the powers. Even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, explained that the police have to have a device, such as stopping a driver for some other reason. That has come out so clearly in the debate. How can my noble friend say that the police already have all the necessary powers? That is what the amendment is all about.
He went on to say that the courts had a code of practice. I am a magistrate and in my experience if one is over the limit the penalty is mandatory disqualification. There is no such thing as a code of practice. That is why I believe the matter is so hotly debated.
I shall not go into the matter further, but it is so important that we must be accurate and I could not allow those comments to be made in my name.
Lord Foley: I feel compelled to rise and say a few words on this matter and I strongly urge your Lordships not to accept the amendment. I feel entitled to do so for two reasons. First, I have driven a motor car and have held a driving licence continuously for more than 50 years. Secondly, for reasons which do not concern this House, I do not drink alcohol.
My experience of driving a motor car, not only in this country but in various parts of the world, over such a long period has led me to discover that when in control of a motor car the frailty of human nature causes accidents for one reason and one reason only: the exercise of bad judgment.
The exercise of bad judgment may manifest itself in many ways. It may be lack of attention, because of tiredness, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has suggested, paying too much attention to the charming companion sitting next to you, or picking up a telephone and talking to someone instead of watching the road. It could even be the more grievous crime of excessive use of alcohol before or while driving. Those are the main causes of accidents.
900
The law being as it is, the police are entitled to stop you if they believe that you are driving in a careless manner. They do not do so unless you do something abnormal such as driving too slowly, clipping a corner or something which suggests to them that you are not in a normal state. That is all very fine, and that is how it should be. That is the right way to proceed. However, I suggest that to stop people at random merely because they happen to be unlucky is a gross invasion of their personal rights.
The motorist is not the most popular member of the community. Motorists have had a hard time over the past 30 or 40 years. Road tax has gone up, petrol prices have risen, the price of motor cars has increased enormously; more and more restrictions have been imposed in relation to parking, and so on. Motorists feel that they are somewhat hard done by. They are not all as evil as the press and certain sections of the community suggest. To impose a new restriction such as that will have the reverse effect to that which is desirable. I therefore strongly urge the Committee to resist the amendment.
Lord Lewin: My professional training has taught me to have a great respect for the power of deterrence and for that reason I support the amendment. With the greatest temerity, I question the logic of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who seemed to me to look at the problem from the point of view of the sportsman and not of the bird. If the bird knows that within a certain area people will shoot at random, or badly aimed or well aimed, he will avoid that area.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: The noble Lord is quite wrong. The bird would stay on the ground and walk backwards.
Lord Lewin: It would have the same effect. In the present circumstances, if a man goes out to dinner, as I hope to do this evening, has the normal three or four glasses of wine and thinks he is near the limit, he will drive with greater care than usual on his way home in the hope that he will not commit some minor offence and be stopped. On the other hand, if he knew that there was a risk that he would be stopped at random, he would not drink and drive. Surely we are trying to persuade people not to drink and drive. That is why I shall go home by train this evening.
Lord Swinfen: We already have checks on our roads operated by the police for road fund licences on motor vehicles, with regard to commercial vehicles to see whether they are overweight, for traffic censuses and for unannounced radar speed checks. As far as I am aware, those are perfectly acceptable forms of enforcing the law. I can see no difference in having the authority to set up checkpoints to ensure that the public do not drive with excess alcohol. It will probably engender better relations between the police and the public generally if they know that the police are setting up checkpoints rather than their being stopped for some minor offence of which, at another time of day, the policeman would take absolutely no notice.
For those reasonsߞI could go on for hours, but I shall not do so; it is getting lateߞI strongly support

901
the amendment. However, there is one point that we should consider at a later stage; namely, the notice on the side of the road explaining the reason for the check. If there were a long queue of cars waiting for drivers to be checked, it would not be difficult for a driver to change places with one of the passengers. For that reason, I should not want a specific sign saying that it was a check for alcohol.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will be pleased with this evening's debate on the subject. It has been well supported.
All noble Lords certainly agree that drinking and driving do not go together. That is indicative of society's hardening attitude towards drink-driving, which has changed very much over the years since the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was concerned with the matter 25 years ago. There is now a very much harder attitude. I therefore well understand the spirit in which the new clause has been tabled.
However, I have to say again that the existing police powers, which the Government reviewed last year following a period of public consultation, are extensive. I do not believe that they have led to any problems in practice or have limited police enforcement activity. I do not see how assertions of problems can be consistent with the fact that there are now three times more tests than there were a decade ago. As noble Lords said, positive tests have gone down, which says much for the deterrence value of the current approach. I must again remind noble Lords of what my noble friend the former Home Secretary said in another place on 21st March last year and which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham reiterated this evening.
It is lawful for a police officer in uniform to require the driver of a vehicle to stop for the purpose of investigating whether he has alcohol in his body. It is important to note from this that, contrary to popular belief, the police officer does not need an excuse to stop a vehicle on the road. Having stopped the vehicle, it is then lawful for the officer to require a specimen of breath if he has reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has alcohol in his body. It is accordingly lawful for a police officer in uniform to stop vehicles at random for that purpose provided that there is no malpractice such as oppression or capricious conduct by the officer. These are not devices, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, described them.
We have to ask anyway whether formalised roadside checks in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State would provide an effective approach to policing the problem. I acknowledge the safeguards that this approach provides for the protection of the public, but might it not act as a constraint on the police? Why should the police want to administer breath tests where they have no reasonable suspicion that a person has been drinking?
I know that the checkpoint approach has brought about a reduction in drink-driving in some states in Australia to which the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and my noble friend Lady Gardner of
902
Parkes referred. But our approachߞthat of changing attitudesߞhas brought about a greater reduction. The incidence of drink-driving in Australia was, and remains, higher than in the United Kingdom, although comparison is complicated by differences in the legal limit. After an initial large reduction in the number of drink-related fatalities in New South Wales, the level has remained fairly stable, while there has been a steady decline here in the United Kingdom. Indeed, in New South Wales the percentage of drivers and riders killed who were known to be above the legal limit stood in 1989 at 33 per cent. down from 40 per cent. in 1982 when random breath testing was introducedߞa 7 per cent. reduction. In Britain it was 19 per cent. down from 33 per cent. in 1982 ߞa reduction of 14 per cent. Moreover, the New South Wales environment is one where a driver stands a one in three chance of being breath-tested every year and where those powers are coupled with extensive publicity.
Testing at that level would mean a twentyfold increase in testing in Britain. The police could not be diverted from their other responsibilities on the scale which that would require. That point was clearly made by, among others, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and my noble friend Lord Nugent. This could be done only if there was a significant increase in police manpower. It would also mean considerable disruption to law-abiding motorists on our roads, which are much more heavily trafficked than those in New South Wales. That point was clearly made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
In other countries, such as New Zealand and France, where the powers have been taken but no additional enforcement resources have been put in, there has been little or no long-term effect on casualties. They have failed to make the improvements over the last decade that we have. So we should not assume that a similar approach to that adopted in some other countries would be practical or would bring the results that we are looking for. Our circumstances are different and we have different levels of public awareness of the problem.
I acknowledge that the roadside checkpoint approach is a high-profile, deterrent approach. I am all in favour of a high profile in that area. Indeed, it seems to me that it is the profile and the level of enforcement that are most likely to bring results, not the randomness of the tests.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and other noble Lords have criticised variations in levels of breath testing in different parts of the country. Clearly I am keen to see high levels of police activity in that area, but operational decisions of that kind are matters for individual chief officers of police. That is as it should be. I agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes on that point, although not with the rest of her speech. The introduction of a random breath testing power would not change that. There could be no question of obliging the police to carry out checks. Chief officers would properly have to make decisions on operational priorities as they do at present.

903
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the responses to the consultation on breath testing powers. It is by no means clear that the responses to consultation were as overwhelmingly in favour of random breath testing as the noble Lord suggested. What emerged more clearly was that almost all respondents were in favour of more testing.
I conclude therefore that the case for random breath testing has not been made out. I do not see that it would extend police powers significantly in practice. It might indeed give rise to new operational constraints. Hence, I am not convinced that it would be a better approach to tackling the menace of drink driving than the approach we have been pursuing for some years—that is, a substantial campaign to change public attitudes reinforced by police enforcement activity which has been stepped up in response to society s proper concern about this anti-social behaviour. The success of that approach is demonstrated by the reduction in the number of drink-drive fatalities in the 10 years between 1979 and 1988. Fatalities have halved from an estimated 1,790 to 840.
The existing powers of the police provide a proper balance. between enforcement and the rights of the individual. They have been shown to be sufficient for the job of bringing down the incidence of drink driving. I and I am sure your Lordships want to see that continue, and I should like to see the police make full use of those powers. Accordingly, I hope noble Lords will reject the new clause.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, responds, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister could answer the point raised by his noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. I understood him to say that there had been no difficulty in administering the law as it stood. As she rightly pointed out, there is considerable difficulty in the courts, In that excuses are raised on all sides as to why a particular prosecution may not be proper, not because of the presence of alcohol but because of the way the matter was brought before the court and the method of stopping and questioning the accused.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I do not think I can say more than I have just said in clarifying the current powers of the police, which I believe to be crystal clear. The Home Secretary mentioned them in another place only last year and I have repeated them this evening. I cannot say what difficulties may arise in individual cases. However, what I can say is that the potential for difficulties in this amendment, if it was agreed to, would be even greater than under the existing law, bearing in mind all the regulations which would have to be obeyed. I believe that to be a recipe for confusion.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I shall try to be brief in responding to the debate, though not as brief as the Minister. However, I have rather better arguments than the Minister. I should like to thank the whole Chamber for the interest taken in the debate which has certainly been very worthwhile. I thank all noble
904
Lords on both sides of the Chamber who have supported the proposition I have advanced. I think it right also to pay tribute to all those organisations, whether for or against the amendment, who have helped to sustain the arguments of noble Lords, as they supported Members of Parliament in another place. I refer in particular to the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, of which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is a director. He exercised his right to depart from the policy which that organisation strongly espouses, which is to support this new clause.
The arguments deployed against the new clause are various. I shall select the most important ones. They tend to assert that the powers are sufficient as far as the police are concerned and that there would have to be an unreasonable deployment of police forces to deal with the situation. Those were arguments I sought to anticipate at the beginning of the debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, very cogently pointed out, if the powers laid down in the statute book and deployed in practice are all that clear we would not be debating this issue today. The fact remains that the prospects of being stopped, notwithstanding the assertions by the Minister, are about 250 to 1 against. The statistics advanced, which the Minister did not seek to refute, clearly indicate that people have become less concerned about being breath tested.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent (a former Minister of Transport), indicated that the "Christmas" argument was that more people were stopped—and they did not care whether it was on the basis of a pretext or pretence on the part of the police—and breathalysed at that time. I rather thought that was an argument in favour of the proposition for which we are contending rather than one against it.
One cogent argument the Minister did not deal with is that the percentage of deaths caused by drivers over the legal limit is higher now than in the 1960s. We do not appear to have made much improvement on that score. For two days running I have been fascinated by the reminiscences of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. Yesterday we were taken back to the Parliament Act 1911. Today we have had some very revealing accounts of discussions that took place in the Labour Government (which he served so magnificently and in respect of which he chaired more committees than I knew existed). There can be no doubt that the noble Lord speaks with great experience in these matters. I am bound to say that if joining the Band of Hope has done him so much good I am tempted to do so myself. We heard that that Government took the view that there were great barriers to legislation. I believe it is a great pity that that decision was taken, but it is a matter of history.
There has been much argument about what happens in Australia, in particular in New South Wales. There is one thing about the relationship between the police and public that is significant and worth recounting to the Chamber. This measure has always been a popular measure in New South Wales. Based on surveys carried out, there was increased popularity for the measure when random breath

905
testing came into operation. In 1982 a survey indicated that 64 per cent. of respondents gave their support. That support rose to 85 per cent. in 1983, and in 1987 —five years after the introduction of the measure—it had increased to 97 per cent. There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that police public relations have been impaired. The contrary would appear to be the case and that is because people see what is happening. There is a clear indication that other people are being tested and there is nothing unfair in the arrangements being made.
I say in parenthesis that I take the point made by the noble Baroness and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that the detail of the new clause could be re-examined if adopted, but I do not propose to go into it now because I do not want to take up the time of the Committee.
I believe that the argument that police public relations would be more seriously impaired is seriously flawed. People become very upset if they think that they are being asked to take a breath test, in circumstances which the law may or may not permit, when they appear to have been singled out. In fact it has happened to me. A police officer said that I had been speeding. At the time I was accompanied by my wife. There was no possibility that I had been speeding. I could see from 400 yards away the police car that had stopped another vehicle. The police officer admitted that I had been obliged to stop in order to enter the road, so that I should have had to reach the speed that he had indicated of 43 miles an hour—which was the source of his justification—in order to justify him having stopped me. People do get fed up with that sort of conduct. It brings humbug and hypocrisy into the situation and it is that which impairs the relationship between the driving public and the police.
There is this other argument. The average number of breath tests carried out per traffic officer in the United Kingdom for 1989 was—remarkably—only one per week. In New South Wales even the most enthusiastic policy of random breath testing stops each driver—each driver—every two years. I do not consider that excessive.
I end by saying that one of the protections against many of the arguments that have been adduced against this proposal tonight—it has not been commented on at all—is in subsection (2D) of the new clause:
"The Secretary of State shall consult with chief officers of police and other organisations on a code of practice for the detailed operation of roadside checks".
That is a protection which needs to be carried out. It would be done in accordance with regulations which would be set out following the adoption of this new clause.
Every argument has been deployed by the Committee. I fear that I cannot accept the recommendation of the Minister. I too am pleased to see him back in his place but I am not wholly delighted with the arguments that he adduced. I feel that on this very important matter we must test the opinion of the Committee.
6.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 87.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ardwick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Blackstone, B.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L.

Northfield, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Rea, L.

Craigavon, V.

Richard, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Seear, B.

Dormand of Easington,L.

Serota, B.

Falkland, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Foot, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinfen, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Lewin, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Henley, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Hesketh, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hooper, B.

Ampthill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Astor, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Auckland, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Blyth, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Butterworth, L.

Morris, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Nelson, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Orkney, E.

Coleraine, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Colwyn, L.

Peel, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Reay, L.

Cross, V.

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rodney, L.

Downshire, M.

Saint Oswald, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Elles, B.

Selsdon, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Shannon, E.

Erroll, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Feversham, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Foley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Teviot, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gisborough, L.

Thurlow, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gridley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wise, L.

Harvington, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Prescribed limits on concentration of alcohol
."In section 11(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for the words 35 microgrammes" there shall be substituted the words "22 microgrammes", for the words "80 milligrammes" there sh ill he substituted the words "50 milligrammes" and for the words "107 milligrammes" there shall be substituted the words "67 microgrammes.").
The noble Lord said: The measure complements, and would be therefore at its most effective, if we had random breath testing. That proposal has been rejected: by the Committee today. Nonetheless the amendment remains useful in its own right. The objective is to change the legislation on the alcohol limit from 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood. The change is supported by evidence from accident studies and experimental behaviour studies with which I shall not weary the Committee unless I am challenged. I have the details with me.
It emerges that, relative to zero, the accident risk starts to shoot up sharply for most people at about 60 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. There:.s ample evidence now to suggest that the present limit of 80 milligrammes is no longer supportable on technical grounds. The experimental studies seem to confirm that low levels of alcohol are able to impair driving skills very significantly. The legal limit has been set at 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres in Australia, Finland, Greece, Iceland, the Netherlands, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Yugoslavia and some states of the United States. Many countries have discovered that, if introduced with other measures—such as high profile random breath testing —a reduction in the limit is likely to contribute to accident reduction.
There is overwhelming evidence from studies that have been carried out for the European Commission that such a reduction in the limit would be worth achieving. I believe that, when people start out on the road having had some drink, they are uncertain about whether they have gone over the limit. That factor remains notwithstanding all the advice given that people should not drink and drive. I believe very strongly that the amendment is a move that should be undertaken.
Like the other amendment, it requires general improvements in enforcement. I am by no means convinced that we are far enough along that road. The Minister believes that we have gone virtually as far as is reasonable; I do not accept that. If we were to go along t this route we should be adopting a sensible regime which is supported now by powerful studies. If challenged, I shall refer to the details when winding up. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I rise to support the amendment. I wish to reiterate what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Last year the British Medical Association's annual representative meeting passed a resolution supporting the terms of the amendment: that is, a reduction in the legal limit for blood alcohol from 80 milligrammes to 50
908
milligrammes per 100 millilitres. I shall not detain the Committee long. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, it is well over 20 years since the present British legal limit was chosen. However, since that time, Australia, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and some states of the United States of America and Yugoslavia have introduced a legal limit of 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres.
Much research carried out was reported in a seminal paper by Dr. James Dunbar from the University Department of Forensic Medicine in Dundee four years ago. It indicated—I need not go into the details—that there were over 200 scientific papers then in print on measuring reaction time, tracking, concentrated attention, information processing, psychomotor performance and driver performance. The research demonstrated serious decline in those skills at levels of about 30 to 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres. Data from Canada clearly showed that young men under 20 years of age, and drivers over 55 in particular, had an increased risk of having an accident at low alcohol concentrations. Driving experiments on closed courses showed impaired responses to braking and steering in accident avoidance manoeuvres at concentrations of around 30 milligrammes per 100 millilitres.
It is long overdue that we in this country should follow international trends by bringing down the legal limit to the figure mentioned in the amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The present legal alcohol limit for drivers—80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, or equivalent in breath or urine—is scientifically based as being the level at which, in contrast with what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, for most people the chance of being involved in an accident starts to rise sharply. Although he stated that he had the figures with him he did not use them to back up his case; I do not complain about that but it is the case that at present almost half of those convicted of drinking and driving are convicted at or around twice the existing legal limit.
I believe that we shall get the greatest benefit by continuing to target present efforts at those who drink above the current limit. Diffusing those efforts to cover a wider range of drivers would increase the risk that the most serious cases might not be identified. There is little evidence of a significant accident problem among people with blood alcohol levels below 80 milligrammes. So a reduction in the limit might increase convictions without materially reducing casualties.
We remain of the view that it would be premature and counter-productive to alter the present alcohol limit. To do so would detract from the main message, which is not to mix drinking and driving at all. That is the underlying message in our successful campaign against drinking and driving. Without any change in the law we have succeeded in changing attitudes so that drinking and driving is now seen as anti-social behaviour. Over the 10 years 1979–1988, the annual number of drink-drive fatalities has halved; reducing from 1,790 to 840.

909
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, spoke about young people. We are particularly concerned to reduce the high casualty rate among young drivers. For that reason we target that group in our anti-drink campaigns. Introducing a lower limit for young or inexperienced drivers would, however, complicate the task of enforcement. It would also imply that older and more experienced drivers can, so to speak, hold their drink and so undermine the main thrust of the message, "Don't drink and drive".
As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, the amendment was drafted chiefly in order to mesh in with the previous amendment relating to random breath testing. However, he also said that it would be freestanding. I hope that in the light of my remarks the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Renton: I should be grateful if the Minister would give the Committee an idea of the amount of drink that one can consume with 80 milligrammes of alcohol and the amount that one would be allowed to consume if the limit were only 50 milligrammes. Years ago the amount was expressed in terms of half pints of beer, single measures of whisky, glasses of table wine and so forth. It would be of great assistance to be told at this stage of the debate.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I have heard of various measures, having once been an enthusiast, but it is 12 years since I took a drink. The Government prefer not to give such advice because the amount varies from individual to individual and could be misleading.
Lord Rea: Can the Minister explain his logic because it has escaped me? He said that lowering the legal limit to 50 milligrammes would dilute the general message that it was wrong to drink and drive. Can the Minister explain that statement because I believe that the change would accent the position?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I suppose that it depends upon how one looks at the situation. I believe it to be self-evident that if one is changing the emphasis one is changing the message which has been so successful; that is, do not drink and drive. Because it has been so successful, we wish to stick with it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The logic of my noble friend's comment escaped me but I found the Minister's answer singularly unimpressive. I see no logic in it whatever. The Minister and several of his noble friends have said that we are making slow but good progress. Approximately 1,200 people are killed each year as a result of drink driving. The Minister shakes his head and I shall be corrected. Approximately 5,000 people are killed on the roads every year, but we are dealing here only with cases of drink driving. The progress is not fast enough. This amendment— and the amendment unfortunately rejected by the Committee—will make a valuable contribution towards speeding up the process of saving lives.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I said that we should have more convictions but fewer results. I believe that the noble Lord's figures are wrong, but I did not shake my head. From 1979 to 1988 the annual number of drink-drive fatalities halved from 1,790 to 840. That must be regarded as satisfactory progress.
Lord Clinton-Davis: According to the Minister's logic progress would be even more remarkable if he were to agree to adopt my proposal. He merely asserts that certain things are happening and therefore we should stick with 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. There is no evidence whatever —indeed, such evidence as there is would appear to point the other way. In 1985 a review of experimental studies was carried out by the New South Wales Traffic Authority. It came to the clear conclusion that any relaxation in its 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres limit could only lead to an increase in traffic crashes, injuries and deaths. Analysis after analysis rejects the conclusion that the Minister has made. We should be in extremely respectable company if we were to agree to the change.
I should be stretching the bounds of credulity if I were to say that I shall consider the Minister's reply with great care. However, I shall reserve the right to return to the matter in due course, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee meets again not before five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Welfare of Animals at Slaughter Bill
7.7 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is very straightforward; it is to improve the welfare of animals at slaughter. That is a matter of professional and personal concern to me and one which is worthy of your Lordships' whole-hearted support. It is the fruit of an initiative which the honourable Member for Holland with Boston began in another place. I must pay tribute to him, to Compassion in World Farming, to the RSPCA and to the British Veterinary Association for all their help in this matter. I should also like to take the opportunity to thank the Government for the considerable resources that they have made available to help progress this Bill.
The Bill is entirely uncontroversial. The new provisions stem from the Government's commitment to implement some 59 of the recommendations from the Farm Animal Welfare Council's 1984 report on the welfare of livestock (red meat animals) at the time of slaughter.
The Bill amends the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 which covers England and Wales. Essentially the

911
provisions in this Bill are concerned with the way existing law on welfare at slaughter is enforced and complied with.
Clause 1 refers to recommendation 46 in the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report. It adds to existing regulationߞmaking powers for securing humane conditions of slaughter to enable the Minister to require occupiers of slaughter premises to secure compliance with any provisions of such regulations.
Classes 2 and 3 add to and strengthen the Minister's powers on the licensing and training of slaughtermen by extending the category of person eligible to supervise a trainee slaughterman. They make clear the types of qualifications which may be required before a slaughterman's licence of any class is issued and allow the prescribing of the form of the licence and the information that it must contain. In the context of these clauses your Lordships will note that they encompass recommendations 43, 44, 45 and 47 of the council's report.
Clause 4 requires local authorities responsible for executing and enforcing legislation on the welfare of animals at slaughter to arrange for the supervision of slaughter premises in their district by officers holding qualifications prescribed in regulations and to comply with directions given to them by Ministers concerning the arrangements for supervision. That clause refers to recommendations 1 and 2 of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report.
Clause 5 deals with a substantial number of the council's recommendations by making provisions for Ministers to prepare, issue and revise codes of practice giving guidance on the practical application of the law on the welfare of animals at slaughter. A breach of any such code would not render a person liable to prosecution but would be capable of being used as evidence tending to show contravention of the law.
All the new provisions introduced by the Bill require further action through regulations, codes of practice or ministerial directions before they come into full effect. I hope that the secondary measures can be expedited.
These measures are intended to ensure adequate compliance with legislation with particular regard to conditions which are stressful to animals at slaughter and affect their slaughter, such as the unloading of animals, the lairaging when animals of different social groupings are mixed, handling, marking, weighing and taming and during the pre-slaughter treatment in the approach races and in stunning areas.
A good welfare practice at slaughter results in more wholesome and profitable carcasses. Hence, the proposed regulations are in the interests of the industry.
Noble Lords may ask why the Bill has not covered all recommendations in the council's report. The simple reason is that its proposals are deliberately uncontroversial to the extent that it received wholehearted support in another place. I should caution your Lordships against the temptation to introduce amendments of a more controversial nature. This is a Private Member's Bill and for it to succeed it must be pleasing to all sides of the House. I understand that the Government are to address the
912
council's more contentious recommendations in a government Bill which they intend to bring forward as soon as parliamentary time permits.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is an admirable Bill. The sooner it reaches the statute book the better.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior.)
7.12 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, with his unrivalled knowledge and great experience, has taken on the task of seeing this small but useful Bill through your Lordships' House. I hope that he does not suffer the same fate as I when I introduced a very complicated Bill to reform the whole of the legislation about the welfare of deer. I took that through your Lordships' House and had to put it through in three Sessions before it finally became law. That Bill was much more complicated than this and we had to battle hard. I hope that we shall resist the temptation, strong though it is, to table amendments to the Bill so that it can go through broadly as it stands.
As the noble Lord said, the Bill has full government support and, I suspect, the support of every noble Lord who is to speak in the debate this evening. Nevertheless, I should like to offer a few words of strong criticism of the Government in this matter. The Farm Animal Welfare Council issued three excellent reports on the welfare of animals for slaughter in 1982, 1984 and 1985. The second report in 1984 dealing with livestock provides the basis, as the noble Lord said, for the animal welfare improvements proposed in the Bill. That report was published in 1984, seven years ago. Is that not a totally inexcusable delay in improving animal welfare?
I drew the Minister's attention to the Notice of Motion No. 853 on the Order Paper of another place on 17th July 1984 and the amendment to it. Let us look at that Motion. It was an all-party Motion in another place headed by leading Conservative Members. It commends the Farm Animal Welfare Council report and looks forward to:
"its early implementation by the government".
That was in 1984.
More interesting is an amendment added by another Conservative Member, Miss Janet Fookes, and other Members from all parties. That amendment stated:
"is appalled by the conditions in many slaughter houses revealed by the Report; and demands that the Government implement the recommendations as a matter of urgency and without shilly-shallying".
That was the Motion and the amendment to it in the other place some seven years ago. We have been waiting ever since for something to be done.
Now, with great respect, what we have is not very much. As the noble Lord said, it is a handful of non-controversial proposals mostly dependent on subordinate legislation and codes of practice, which, it is a fair guess the Government have yet to draft. How much longer must we wait?

913
The 1984 report contained 51 recommendations for legislation, 11 recommendations for better enforcement, 25 recommendations for codes of practice and 9 recommendations for more research. This Bill scarcely makes a dent in the catalogue of essential improvements needed in the welfare of animals at slaughter.
My criticism is blunt. I ask the noble Baroness—and I have given her notice of this—why we have had to wait for seven years for a minimal start. Secondly, when can we expect to see more government legislation on the main and more controversial recommendations? The noble Lord will forgive me if I smile when he says that he is happy because the Government will bring forward these more controversial changes when parliamentary time permits. I have been in one or other Chamber for 40 years. I have heard that refrain so often that I no longer take any notice of it. That legislation will not be introduced unless we continue to fight very hard for it and offer blunt criticisms when it does not appear. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not be satisfied but will join with the rest of us in saying that this is not good enough and is only a very minimal start.
Which of the main recommendations in the report do the Government not accept? Let us know where we stand. How hard does the battle need to be to get the remainder of the recommendations into law? How many of the 117 recommendations do the Government wish to see implemented and which are to be shelved? We should know that after seven years. The Government have had long enough to make up their mind.
Animals continue to be subject to unnecessary suffering in slaughterhouses. There is no doubt about that. I am sure that with his great experience, the noble Lord will agree with that. It is not a good record either as regards general legislation or the Government's implementation of the recommendations for reform.
To echo the words of the amendment to that Motion in the other place, the Government have been shillyߞshallying now for seven years. We bluntly have to say so. We have to ask equally bluntly how soon something really deliberate is going to be done to put into force the main recommendations of the 1984 report.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, for having presented this Bill. I also thank the noble Baroness for very kindly having sent me a brief about it. It is most helpful. I welcome the Bill but I cannot help feeling some sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has said. When I read the Bill and the brief I wondered why they had not gone further. In particular I wondered whether, as stated in Clause 2(2), "a person" with the appropriate qualifications will be sufficient to exercise the necessary supervision. Is "a person" going to ensure that the intentions of the Farm Animal Welfare Council are put into practice?
I preface my brief remarks by saying that it must be inevitable that anyone who works in a slaughterhouse
914
becomes hardened to the distasteful things they see happening every day of their working life. I have been told that many people, if they saw what happened in a slaughterhouse, would never eat meat again. But it is a job. In the same way, a surgeon obviously has to be hardened to the distasteful sights that he sees, such as the blood and the intestines when he has to slit open a person's stomach. I am so squeamish that I could not be a surgeon any more than I could be a slaughterman. But it is a job that has to be done. At the same time the risk is that this immunity from natural squeamishness may lead to an insensitivity towards cruelty.
At the moment I believe that each abattoir has a governmentߞappointed veterinary inspector. But he cannot be everywhere at once. I have been told that there is a risk that, when there is a rush of animals and the abattoir is busy, with people in a hurry, short cuts may be taken. One example is that it is necessary for the ear tags to be removed from cattle before they go for slaughter. The staff have the equipment to remove them painlessly but from time to time they are just ripped off causing the animals unnecessary pain and additional stress. Another example during a rush is holding animals close to the point of slaughter.
That leads to the question of the design of abattoirs. It is essential that animals awaiting slaughter should be held in an area which is well separated from the point of slaughter. The animals can smell the blood and sense what is going on. That causes additional stress and on occasions causes the animals to panic. That is the only reason why an otherwise docile beast can go berserk. If an animal escapes, as happens from time to time, it goes charging out and has to be rounded up. It may have caused damage in the meantime. That is an indication of the terror that can be inflicted on animals when they are too close to the point of slaughter.
Also pertinent to the design of slaughterhouses is the holding box in which the animal is held while it is being stunned. Animals are of course of different sizes. Therefore the design of the box should be such that the stunning equipment should be 100 per cent. effective the first time. Similarly, the inspector, the properly trained person to do the job as suggested in the Bill, should be responsible for checking the stunning equipment on a regular basis and also for checking that the operator is fully competent to use it.
In the case of the captive bolt I am told that examination of carcasses reveals that on occasions four or five attempts have had to be made before the animal is properly stunned with the captive bolt equipment. Similarly, where electric tongs are used, if the voltage is not up to the fully appropriate level the animal can receive a severe shock without being rendered unconscious. There should be a trip switch to ensure that a shock is not administered unless there is a full voltage of electricity available to ensure that the animal is rendered unconscious the first time without having to endure suffering because of several attempts being made.
I wish the Bill well. Like the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's

915
Government will pursue the matter and fulfil the other requirements of the Farm Animal Welfare Council with the, minimum of delay. I welcome the Bill.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I do not possess the detailed knowledge of the slaughter industry held by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. I am a farmer and stock-keeper, now partially retired. I greatly welcome the Bill introduced in such a simple and understandable manner by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior. The great delay that has occurred since the Farm Animal Welfare Council reported on what should be done is to be deplored. Now we are at least taking a step on the road to adopt in due course the majority, if not all, of the recommendations. I shall not dwell on the fact that it may be very difficult for the Government to decide what to do about some of them. In some cases there may be no answer.
We have to ensure that the Ministry gets parliamentary time and that each year we take a few more steps along the road so that when we are fully in the EC our standards are better than theirs. Then we shall feel independent. The Ministry won a great victory some years ago in preventing the export of live horses by the simple imposition of a price structure. It is to be hoped that in future methods can be found of equal efficacy which do not haul us into the European Court.
There is a problem looming, if it is not here already, which is well known to the Ministry and my noble friend. Enormous difficulties have been caused in the knackering and rendering trade by the discovery of BSE. Previously in the traditional knackering industry one rang up, the van came, the animal was taken away and, if you were lucky, you got a small cheque. If you were unlucky you got nothing, but you never got a bill. Now the reverse is the case. The knackers may not be there. Inevitably that will lead to the illicit and I believe illegal practice of slaughter on the farm by unlicensed slaughtermen.
There are all kinds of nasty ways to do it. One of the ways to discourage, or at least to mitigate, the effect of this is for the captive bolt pistol which although it has shortcomings is quite easy to use, to cease to be categorised as a firearm. To obtain such a device one has to produce four photographs and pay a large fee. It is surely better to consider widening the availability of these implements in cases where the knackering trade has collapsed. Indeed my noble friend told me earlier that his establishment, which must be of the very highest repute, is allowed only three. They have to be treated as if they were made of solid gold in order to comply with police regulations. I exaggerate, I fear, about the solid gold, but that is the feeling. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will consider that as a looming problem in agriculture. I know it is not within the scope of this Bill but I am quite sure that the problems with the rendering trade will affect a wider and wider field; and it is but another part of the slaughtering trade.
I should also like to see transport dealt with but I must not dwell on that. Transport has great problems. I am glad to see the Bill. I hope that the noble
916
Baroness will be able, in Cabinet or elsewhere, to defend the living animals as robustly as she defended that mythical animal, the haggis, yesterday. I wholeheartedly support the Bill.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, and all seven of us present for the debate, welcome. I am sure that it is a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, making his maiden introduction of a Bill in your Lordships' House and also to hear the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, whom we heard for the first time two days ago. It is nice to hear him again.
I do not know why it is that on this subject of animal welfare we debate under a guillotine. This is the only guillotine imposed on your Lordships' House; that of the supper interval. We have a Motion that the House resume at five minutes past eight. I am almost in the mood to make sure that it does not resume until five minutes past 10. However, I have had my share of the time of the House this week and I must not make a nuisance of myself; not this week. Quite honestly, it is too bad that it is animal welfare and animal matters that come under this restraint. It is not right.
The introduction of any Bill at Second Reading usually gives the opportunity for a wider survey on some of the issues relating to the subject of the Bill. But when we are under this kind of timetable we have to stick to the Bill. We do not have the opportunity to make a few philosophical remarks about how human beings are treating the animal kingdom under modern conditions of commercial and population pressure. I am always protesting against that but it makes no difference. The usual channels are deaf or blocked to appeals to give the House the opportunity to debate some matters free of this limitation on time.
There are many occasions when on this kind of attendance your Lordships' House, in Committee, legislates. If it can do that, surely it can spare some time, even though the attendance may not be up to the usual standard, to discuss animals. The reason for the sparse attendance at the moment is that our colleagues and other noble Lords and their guests are busy having refreshment. That is an added obstacle to the work of the House on this subject.
Before I go on to be very rude indeed, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, a former president of the British Veterinary Association whose prestige in the veterinary profession and his long service to animal welfare are well known, that it is a great honour to have him introduce this Bill. He is the first veterinary surgeon in your Lordships' House; and now that we have one, we have a notable one. I pay him my great respects. I am sure that we envy the noble Lord the pleasure of introducing a Bill that we shall welcome and of which we shall say "It is long overdue and does not go far enough".
If we are to have a debate in the supper break, it is also a good thing that we have a topic—the welfare of animals at slaughter—which is very appropriate for a supper interval. My only regret is that when noble Lords go to their refreshment along the corridor we do not broadcast live the proceedings in your Lordships'

917
House. I am willing to offer £1,000 towards the cost of installing in the dining rooms of the House live television, or at least live sound, of the debates during the supper intervals so that they may pause when eating their meat to consider how it got there and interrupt conversation on less important matters to listen to what this slaughter business is. Perhaps they would then insist on the supper interval being free of intervention from people who welcome unpleasant subjects to give them indigestion. For this Bill we should have to provide sick bags in the dining rooms if we were to broadcast this subject live. They would all get up and not come back. It would be a wonderful opportunity of ramming home the importance of this subject to this House. However, I must not take more time than is proper at the moment. I resent the conditions under which we discuss the subject. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for whom I have great affection, for any incursion on her time.
I shall do no more now than say that in the background to this Bill is still the ritually slaughtered animal. I shall not dilate on the subject but I am bound to draw attention to the fact that it is a growing industry. As the Moslem population increases, then the need for the ritual slaughter of animals will increase too. It will be intolerable if this country is divided into two sections of slaughter policy; one the secular section where we regard it as essential to have pre-stunning before killing an animal, and one where there is no such condition. I do not think that a nation divided in that way between one religious community and others will be at peace. The many aspects of the matter which arise on selling and labelling and putting ritually killed meat into the normal run of the wholesale and retail trade are deeply worrying. One day many people will rise up and say, "It has to change". That is all I am going to say on that subject. That day will come and I hope to be there. We shall have to have a full debate at a suitable moment on where we are going on this subject of ritually killed animals. We want animals to be killed and treated in other respects as we have laid down in the law and not have immunities, which were granted under entirely different circumstances, widely extended because of a complete change in the composition of our community.
I have nothing but approval for the Bill. Of course it has taken too long to arrive; indeed, they all take too long. We do not interfere with the conditions of animals in those circumstances unless they become a scandal. But at that stage it is very late in the day. Moreover, very frequently, enormous sums of capital have been invested in slaughter house equipment which people plead would be uneconomic to replace, except in the long term.
The next piece of legislation which will come before this House will concern the tethering of pigs. It will raise similar issues. Those concerned want eight years to carry out the reforms which we intend to make. There are already signs that, as the Bill is a Private Member's Bill in the House of Commons, it may get
918
blocked for lack of time and it is possible that other problems lie ahead. It will be a great shame and scandal if that proves to be the case.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, in his stress upon oversight. One person may not be enough for the purpose. Indeed, one named person was certainly not enough in the laboratory where Professor Feldberg was at work on animals under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I know that those who are doing the job do not like someone looking over their shoulder to check that they are doing the right thing. However, we are dealing with the lives of other sensitive creatures and we must respect that fact. We cannot proceed as if they do not matter because they jolly well do. Enforcement is the key to this as it is the key to everything in animal welfare. I hope that a watch will be kept on the effectiveness of the supervision which is carried out.
Where do we stand in regard to the EC on the matter? I have already passed a note to the noble Baroness on the question. I understand that there is a proposal passing through the EC which will deal with the matter on a European basis, although it may be wider in its full effect. The process of policy making in the EC involves more circumlocution than here. It has to go through all the nations, and so on. The officials and the commissioners do not have the same relationship as Ministers and civil servants have in this country.
From what I hear Sir Leon Brittan, who is one of the British commissioners, has put a spoke in to stop something happening. Moreover, I heard today that another commissioner has added his spoke to the wheel. Why are these spokes being put into the progress of this work? Why does one of them come from a British commissioner? I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, that we must try to be in advance of Europe and not slither around waiting for them to set our pace. This has a European dimension and it is a very important one. We must be provided with more information about what is happening in Europe than we receive at present. I say that because Europe is probably settling things for us. We need to know what is happening.
I do not think I have impeded the progress of the House sufficiently to interfere with what the Committee wants to do when its Members return well fed to the Chamber at five minutes past eight.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on these occasions. He is a great animal lover and does much to help the welfare of animals generally and in the industry. It is an equal pleasure to have had the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, to introduce the Bill, as he is a former president of the British Veterinary Association.
Over the past five years a great deal of legislation has been enacted which has been beneficial to the welfare of animals. While recognising the fact that long delays have taken place, much animal welfare legislation has been introduced. The Government may rightly feel proud of their record to date. I believe that

919
the noble Baroness has done a great deal both through this House and elsewhere. Reading my Horse and Hound magazine, I never cease to see her pictured smilingly attending either sales or some seminar. I am now very familiar with what she looks like in print.
However, whether the legislation coupled with the regulations is enforceable many people who look after animals doubt. It would appear that we have before us sound legislation embodying a code of practice which is both easy to follow and, I suggest, enforceable.
I have to admit to being a layman as regards certain techniques of slaughter used on different types of animals. But, having witnessed the slaughter of pigs both in this country and West Germany, I know that our techniques are generally much better than those of our European partners. I believe that the technique of slaughtering animals is not a simple one. It needs to be studied and improved upon. Indeed, I would go further and say that I believe different animal types require different techniques.
In that connection, I question whether there should be emergency provisions within the Bill for the slaughter of animals which have been involved in traffic accidents or similar incidents. I recall the IRA bomb attack in Hyde Park on 20th July 1982 when 16 horses, 3f the Household Cavalry were killed or fatally injured and had to be quickly destroyed. I wonder whether we should put a provision into the Bill to ensure that there is some kind of emergency regulation.
Clause 3 of the Bill amends Section 16 of the 1980 Act in regard to the training, examining and testing of slaughtermen. Much has already been said about the single person, but I believe there is an important need for uniform training and testing, possibly before licences are issued or renewed. Furthermore, licences should reflect the type of animals to be slaughtered within particular slaughterhouses. That should be covered within the small print of the licence.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has already mentioned the issue of ritual slaughter. However, I believe that could be omitted from the Bill. A provision for the slaughter of animals on accepted spiritual or religious grounds needs to be included. Having had the honour on several occasions of attending the Gurkha religious ceremony of Dashera, I admit to being concerned that that type of ceremony could be. debarred under this legislation. It is possible that the noble Baroness may wish to say something about that in her reply.
The Bill will go a long way to improving the welfare of animals by removing their pain and suffering. It will ensure that slaughtering techniques and procedures are correctly carried out. As one who cares about animals, I too support the Bill.
7.48 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Bill and all that it implies. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, on the very clear way in which he introduced the legislation. The background
920
against which the Bill is set has been clearly outlined by noble Lords who are much more familiar than I with the details of the slaughter of animals.
It seems to me—although this point has not been mentioned by other speakers—that one of the concerns which strike a layman is that, like many other businesses, slaughtering cannot be a very profitable business whether it is done by private or local authority slaughterhouses. Indeed, margins must be fairly narrow. I should have thought that, as is the case with most businesses these days, there will always be attempts to get a better throughput in order to achieve the necessary profitability to keep the business going. That causes some concern. For example, if the business going through the slaughterhouse is being speeded up, there will be more than a temptation to cut corners and not do the job properly.
Against that background, the Bill provides for the designation of officials to be responsible for animal welfare and the nominating of slaughterhouse staff to look after the welfare of animals. Most importantly, it provides for the proper training of slaughtermen. I do not believe that any noble Lord has mentioned this point, though I may be wrong, but, if we accept the scenario I have described as regards the need for profitability, it is likely that there will be bigger slaughterhouses which are further apart. That will mean that animals will have to be transported further and therefore that the stress they will suffer before they reach the slaughterhouses will be increased. That again emphasises the need for proper handling when they finally arrive.
Like many types of learning which are characteristic of this country and which will have to change, learning on the job in slaughterhouses is unacceptable. It may be acceptable for golf caddies and even, if I may say so in the Minister's presence, for trainee stable staff to learn as they go along —although in that area people probably need expert training—but there is a tendency for people to tag on to a man who knows what he is doing, watch him and learn. Bad practice can often be perpetuated in that way. People need proper training in theory and practice.
The Bill reinforces the excellent orders which have been introduced by the Government and which we welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, spoke about television in our Dining Room. It was an interesting point. I do not know whether it will be accepted. Two sessions of hearing about animals being slaughtered may have a detrimental effect on the economy of the Dining Room of your Lordships' House, but I take his point. I shall be serious about his point on ritual slaughtering. That subject needs a debate in your Lordships' House. What he said has serious implications which should be addressed. I go along with him entirely on that.
I agree too with the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby. Different animals require different methods of slaughter. That reinforces the need for proper training.
Other countries in Europe have similar problems in respect of slaughtering. I guess that some countries are much worse than we are. I hope that when there is uniformity in Europe we shall lead the field in

921
slaughterhouse practices. Some countries now joining the EC have practices which we find unacceptable. That applies also to some countries nearer home. There was a recent newspaper article which described the killing of pigs in south-west France. The French authorities allow a departure from normal standards where pigs have been traditionally killed by the family. Leniency is shown. Although the work is done efficiently, it struck me that the animal and its welfare might not be the prime consideration.
We welcome the Bill. It probably does not go far enough, but it will be a useful addition to the legislation on the subject.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, like others, we regard this as a useful Bill, and consequently we fully support it. I have already written to the Minister and told her that it is not our intention to table amendments to the Bill at any stage, because we agree with its promoters that we want a speedy passage for it into law, and amendments would not contribute towards achieving that objective.
Because of our support for the Bill, and our desire to see it on the statute book, we have no intention of raising tonight or at any time during its passage wider issues as to the future of slaughterhouses in general, and the thorny question of when Her Majesty's Government might find time to implement all the FAWC recommendations in this area, which, as we know, require primary legislation. That said, I endorse the comments made by my noble friend Lord Northfield as to the delay in that respect.
Other speakers have covered most aspects of this short but important amending Bill. The House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, for his lucid presentation of the Bill, and to the Minister for sending me details of the Bill's provisions ahead of this Second Reading.
I understand that none of the Bill's substantial provisions can be brought fully into effect without the making of regulations, ministerial directions or codes of practice. I also understand that there will be full consultations with all interests on proposals for any such measures. Thus, the desire for speedy implementation of the Bill's provisions must be reconciled with the commitment to consult.
In the meat trade generally the consultation process can be protracted, but a recent and welcome development in training for the industry should expedite at least part of the discussion process. I refer to the establishment of the Meat Training Council under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Vestey. That council includes major elements in the industry and is supported by the Meat and Livestock Commission. The certification body in the council is the Institute of Meat. Here I must declare a non-pecuniary interest as a past president of that excellent training body. The Institute of Meat standards of achievement scheme would be an ideal medium to establish a national standard for licensing slaughtermen, and it covers all species. I shall not develop that point in greater detail as I promised
922
myself a brief speech, and the Institute of Meat has sent to the meat hygiene division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food details of what it is doing, and what it can do, in that important area.
The public has an ongoing interest in the welfare of animals at all times, and not least at slaughter. Various organisations have written commending the Bill. They, like myself, hope that it will soon be law, but even more, they hope that its provisions will be speedily implemented throughout England, Wales and Scotland. I also hope that corresponding legislation will be introduced in Northern Ireland, a point about which the Minister was kind enough to write to me. I fully support the Bill.
7.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Government are most grateful to my noble friend Lord Soulsby for sponsoring the Bill. It covers a subject which is of as great a concern to the Government, as I know it is to your Lordships' House. I want to make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that if I have not finished answering the questions by 8.5 p.m.—tough luck to the transport boys!
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said how difficult it is to get a Private Member's Bill through both Houses. He referred to the delays in implementing the FAWC's recommendations on the welfare of red meat animals, as did several other noble Lords. The Government agreed in principle to implement 104 of the council's recommendations —a substantial programme of work. Seven recommendations were immediately included in the ministry's research programme on stunning and slaughter; and 30 recommendations were implemented last year in new regulations and guidance issued to local authorities. The Bill will let us implement at least 59 recommendations, most in codes of practice. We intend to bring forward a government Bill to implement other recommendations from this and other council reports. My department is currently preparing a list on the stage reached in implementing each of the recommendations made by FAWC in its reports on welfare at slaughter. This will shortly be placed in the Library of the House. I also remind the noble Lord that in 1984 we updated the law on the welfare of poultry at slaughter through the Animal Health Welfare Act in order to enact yet another of those recommendations.
The Bill before your Lordships today therefore represents a most welcome opportunity for the Government to give effect to a number of significant but uncontroversial FAWC recommendations. To answer one of the points kindly put to me in a letter by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, I can inform your Lordships that in anticipation of the successful outcome of the Bill the Government are preparing three codes of practice. We fully intend to discuss provisions for new regulations and codes with interested parties before their publication.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, I refer to Clause 2 concerning Section 4(2) on trainee

923
slaughtermen. The noble Lord asked simply why "a person" in that clause should supervise. Part of Clause 2 concerns the person eligible to supervise a trainee slaughterman. Through regulations we intend to make sure that that person is suitably qualified and apprised of welfare requirements.
The noble Lord spoke eloquently on conditions in abattoirs. Local authorities at district council level are responsible for enforcing the extensive legislation which already exists to provide for the welfare of animals at the time of slaughter. Officers of the state veterinary service also visit all slaughterhouses to monitor standards and give advice. Conditions are generally satisfactory. It is up to local authorities to see that standards are maintained. The agriculture department immediately investigates any reports of poor welfare standards that reach them. I hold the same feelings as the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and just as strongly as he does.
The noble Lord asked what action would be taken following research which showed faulty stunning that would cause pain. The Government commissioned research in this area because of concern expressed by the Farm Animal Welfare Council about the accuracy of stunning. We have the research results, which support the need for the use of head restraints to improve accuracy of stunning and which drew attention to inadequately powered pistols. We have accepted the need for head restraints, and the requirement is now included in the new regulations. We are including other findings of the research in the codes of practice.
My noble friend Lord Cochrane spoke about the knacker industry. The only effect this Bill has on that industry is to ensure that knackermen deal with live animals humanely. My noble friend will recall that we fought successfully against considerable opposition from other member states to safeguard the knacker industry during the negotiations on the EC directive on the disposal of animal waste. The Government are to be congratulated on their stand and on the fact that we have kept knackers going on a derogation. My noble friend Lord Cochrane also spoke about disposal of stock. As he made clear, the disposal of stock has nothing to do with the Bill. He may know that there will be an opportunity to discuss the issue in full on 15th May.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will be aware that his point about EC proposals has nothing to do with the Bill. However, I understand that the Commission has been working on proposals for the protection of animals for slaughter. These have not yet been submitted to the Council of Ministers. I assure him that the Government are as anxious as he is to see progress made on these measures. We shall continue to encourage the Commission to bring them forward as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, made an assertion concerning two commissioners. Quite frankly, I would rather not comment on speculation.
Both he and the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, were concerned about religious slaughter. As they are aware, we discussed this fully in June last year when the Government introduced important new measures
924
to safeguard the welfare of animals being slaughtered by these methods. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, spoke about the Pig Husbandry Bill. As he knows, that Bill was withdrawn on 26th April. The Government will bring forward their own regulations at an early date and the draft regulations reflect exactly the provisions of the revised Bill. Mention was made of slaughter of the type used by the splendid —though not in this context—Gurkhas. But that is outside the scope of the Bill. The legislation we are amending applies to slaughter in slaughter premises. The noble Viscount also mentioned the slaughter of animals in traffic accidents. I am afraid that that is also outside the scope of the Bill.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made a most peculiar series of comparisons to which, as a golfer, I took great exception. He said that learning slaughter on the job was not good enough, but some very good caddies have become great champions. The Government intend to bring forward proposals on training slaughtermen as soon as possible, but I cannot give a date at this stage. I should make clear that we intend fully to discuss the provisions of any new regulations with interested parties.
I think that that about wraps up all the questions that I was asked. I have not done too badly. I wish to assure my noble friend that his Bill has full government support and we wish it a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps she would be kind enough to answer.one further question which I put to her. She kindly answered us all at great length and we appreciate the trouble she has taken. However, I asked her to make clear whether the Government reject any of the major recommendations of the 1984 report. If so, we know what we must press for. Will the report that will be put in the Library, for example, indicate clearly whether the Government reject any of the major recommendations of the 1984 report?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord waits until the report is in the Library, when he can come back to me. It is my understanding that no major issue in the report is to be rejected.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, first I thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for his generous remarks about me. With no disrespect to him, I wish to correct one point. The presidency to which he referred was of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, not the British Veterinary Association. I say this because my colleagues may take me to the slaughterhouse if I let it pass.
I have listened carefully to the views expressed during the debate. My noble friend the Minister of State answered points which were raised during the discussion and I am grateful to her for that. I am much encouraged by the positive points that were raised during the debate and the way in which the Bill has been received by noble Lords. The Bill has attracted the backing of all sides of the House. As has been said, the Government are in complete agreement with it. I

925
commend this Bill to your Lordships' House in the sincere hope that noble Lords will give it the welcome and the support it clearly deserves. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Road Traffic Bill
8.10 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 5 [Disapplication of sections 1 to 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for authorised motoring events]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 15, after ("be") insert ("included among those").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara I shall move Amendment No. 7 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 8. These are both technical amendments to the clause which disapplies Sections 1 to 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, for authorised motoring events in public places. Authorisations will be given by bodies prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.
The first amendment puts beyond doubt that, although the regulations may specify conditions to be included in authorisations for such events, there is nothing to prevent authorising bodies from imposing further conditions of their own.
The second amendment clarifies the position on payment of fees in connection with applications for authorisation. The Secretary of State has power to prescribe application fees, but he need not do so. The amendment provides that he may instead simply prescribe the person who should set such fees, which would normally be the body authorising a particular event or class of events. These amendments simply provide for smooth operation of the system of authorising off-road motor rallies and similar events.I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 20, after ("amount") insert ("(or the persons who are to determine the amount)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No.9:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Authorisation of motoring events on public highways
.—(1) Regulations made by the Secretary of State in the exercise of his powers under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1969 shall require the Royal Automobile Club, before authorising an event under the provision of paragraph 6 of the Motor Vehicles (Competitions & Trials) Regulations 1969, to refer applications to the chief officer or officers of police (in Scotland the chief constable or constables) of any police area in which the route of the event on a public highway lies partially or wholly for their consent.
(2) Without such consent no authorisation shall be made under paragraph 10 of the aforesaid Regulations.
(3) This section shall be brought into force by regulations to be made within twelve months of the passing of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 9 concerns motor rallies. Since I joined this Chamber I have never heard this subject debated. The regulations that I seek to have amended date from 1969. At that time some attempt was made to regulate the use of public highways for the purpose of motor rallies. At that time lengthy statutory instruments were issued which divided rallies into several different categories. The instruments conferred rights to hold certain rallies which are a familiar occurrence in the motoring agenda. In dealing with rallies generally, the Royal Automobile Club was involved in the supervision of the rally programmes to a surprising degree.
The regulations provide that those who wish to use a highway for motor rallies should send their applications to the RAC. That body is under a statutory obligation to consult. Among those it must consult are the chief police officers of the districts through which the rally may pass, either wholly or in part. That gives the chief police officers the opportunity to comment on the suitability or otherwise of the rally that is proposed, and to advise the RAC of any special conditions which the police feel should be taken into account. However, the final decision rests with the RAC.
I must now declare an interest because over many years I have suffered at different times from motor rallies. I now seek to impose the overriding authority for granting applications for motor rallies upon chief police officers. The conditions on our roads have changed enormously since 1969. The volume of traffic on our roads day and night is much heavier nowadays. In my experience when a rally is to be held a person calls at my house and leaves a courteous note which states that such and such a motor club wishes to hold a rally which will pass through my area. Incidentally, the motor clubs may come from outside my district. They can come from another county or from another area. The rallies that I have suffered have been instigated by clubs based in other areas. The note that the clubs leave tells one roughly how many vehicles will pass one's house, and at about what time of night that will occur. The rallies all occur at night.
I usually find that at between 12 to one o'clock early on a Sunday morning, or a little later, about 60 cars will pass my house. The road is so narrow outside my house that two vehicles cannot pass. Therefore, traffic coming one way has to give way to traffic coming in the opposite direction for courtesy to prevail. However, when 60 cars come past in one direction, the traffic coming in the opposite direction is in difficulty. In 1969 the dead of night at the weekend may have been a deader night than it is now in terms of the volume of traffic. Nowadays, many people travel by car at night over the weekend.
The police have been fully informed of local feeling. The police let the RAC know those feelings. On one occasion a rally was allowed to continue and on another occasion it was abandoned. A further note was left at my house. It came from an entirely new source a long way away from my house. The note

927
stated that the motor club wished to hold a navigational rally. Presumably the rally was aimed at people who wished to learn to navigate around the countryside. Those whose house the rally was to pass could not obtain the whole route of that rally. Householders were merely informed that the rally would pass their houses. On one such occasion the police became interested in a rally because a public protest took place at one point on the route, and that concerned the police greatly.
My gall rose to such an extent on one occasion that I threatened to block the road and put up with the consequences. It was intolerable that people could select a lane which was built some hundreds of years ago for horses and carts and use it for a stream of 60 cars. I sat up all night to time them and the interval between one car and another as they went by. I noted what gear changing was necessary because of the level of the lane. I made my views very well known to the police and others.
I have received nothing but courtesy from the RAC. I am not grumbling about that. The police have been apologetic about having no power, though they think that something should be done. Their only powers are those that they have in the course of their duty in relation to traffic control or threats to the peace, for example. They are not in charge of the rally.
The chief police officers know the traffic and road conditions. On behalf of the citizens in their area, they are in a position to exercise the authority to say that a rally is unsuitable for a particular time or area, and to refuse to give permission for it to take place. That is not an irksome request. Who is to be in charge? It is certainly not the RAC, which may not know the route. I have sometimes wondered whether the people who authorise rallies know the roads on which the cars will travel and the congestion that may be caused because of the bends of the road, the camber of the road and the banks on each side of the road. If a car goes off a single-track road it goes into the bank and traffic is held up in both directions. I have experienced such delays.
I am not complaining only about my own interest in the matter. Other people have suffered too. Therefore I want the regulations to be amended to require the sanction of the chief police officer of the area concerned, as stated in the current regulations; their consent must be a condition of the granting of the application. I do not desire to interfere, but there is a limit to the way in which roads can be used for purposes other than normal traffic and communication by car.
I conclude with another example from my area. There is a road which goes through a little countryside and a little woodland. It is a well laid road with road lines and everything. There is nothing wrong with it; it is a good road. I noticed tyre marks on the road which indicated braking. Every now and then there was a long run of scorched surface along a mile of the road. I wondered what had happened; had a drunken driver gone down the road with a lorry? Do you know, my Lords, what I discovered? The local fire brigade were testing the brakes of fire engines on that road. That is all very well, but those tyres were not doing the
928
road any good—and we pay for the roads as well as for the fire engines. I made my representations to a suitable quarter and that nuisance seems to have stopped. Where they are testing the brakes of the fire engines now I do not know, but they are not doing it on that road. To make such obviously unsuitable use of the road reflects badly on the fire authority.
I have stated my case. I do not think that I am being unreasonable. I am bringing the matter before the Committee years after my interest was first involved. I am not complaining about anything that has happened recently because the last event from a Hampshire centre avoided the route that I had complained about.
Who else is suffering throughout the country? It is true that the number of rallies authorised has diminished. The RAC authorised 254 and 253 motor rallies in 1988 and 1989 respectively. The number of authorisations issued has fallen steadily since the peak of 765 authorisations in 1970, which was just five years after the regulations had been brought in. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I should perhaps begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for missing the first minute of his speech. However, I do not think that I missed any of the substance of what lies behind the amendment.
I remind the Committee that I am a member of the Royal Automobile Club's public policy committee. I do not think that that falls technically within the scope of our rules and regulations, but I thought that the Committee should know that.
I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who, as he described, may very well have been disturbed on a number of occasions as a result of rallying. However, he will know, perhaps rather better than I, that the control of rallies has devolved upon the RAC in this country, and the FIA in Europe, as a result of legislation. That control has rested with the RAC, by virtue of regulation, since 1969. That regulation was amended in 1976 and confirmed. So far as I am aware there have not been a great number of complaints concerning the RAC's stewardship of that responsibility.
The amendment states that:
"Regulations made by the Secretary of State in the exercise of his powers under Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1969 shall require the Royal Automobile Club",
whereas the Bill before us states at line 10 of page 3 that:
"Regulations under this section may in particular—
(a) prescribe the persons by whom, and limit the circumstances in which and the places in respect of which, authorisations may be given under the regulations".
It is strange that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, should have picked out and should wish to name in primary legislation an organisation which is controlled by regulation, whereas the Bill speaks only of the prescription of certain persons without particularising any organisation.
It seems to me that since the regulations to which I referred—those of 1969—have been amended several times without a great outcry, either within Parliament or outside it, there is no reason why the noble Lord's amendment should be agreed to. Essentially, the noble

929
Lord seeks to alter that which has obtained since 1969 under the provisions of paragraph 10 of the Motor Vehicles (Competitions & Trials) Regulations. Under the terms of the amendment, the RAC, which has been responsible for organising, stewarding and supervising rallies in this country, would have to notify the chief officer of police to obtain consent. I cannot see the point of going back prior to 1969 and altering that which has obtained fairly satisfactorily.
The noble Lord said that there had been changes of road usage. Of course that is acknowledged. He said that, whereas previously he perhaps received a courteous note advising him of what may happen in the area, he has not done so. I shall certainly take that point back to the RAC Public Policy Committee and ensure that it notifies people who may be affected. As I said, I am sorry that the noble Lord has been upset from time to time.
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has proved that the primary legislation before us tonight and the supplementary regulations should be altered. It is not unreasonable to recall that motor sports draw about £600 million of income and employ some 50,000 people. It is not worthwhile to subject them to additional constraints, which I do not believe will make any difference in the long run to the organisation and stewardship of rallies. What has obtained since 1969 has worked fairly well. I can see no good reason for making any alterations and I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: I intend to deal with the matter briefly, but everyone will agree that my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby put up a good case for his amendment. Obviously, we must take heed if there are cases of grave danger to the public. However, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with his knowledge of the RAC, I recognise that the rallies have provided opportunity for great improvements in car engineering over the years. Nevertheless, if there is danger to the public, we should take note of it.
I should like to ask two questions. I am not particularly conversant with the details of the 1969 Act and regulations. Do the highway authorities come into the matter at any stage? Are they consulted? If there is no mandatory requirement for them to be consulted, do the police consult them before they make a decision on any application? In the event of the police deciding that an application should not be approved, is there any opportunity for either the highway authority or the RAC to join in consultations with the police before a final decision is taken?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: This new clause suggests that motoring events on the highway should not be authorised by the Royal Automobile Club without prior approval from the police. Let me first point out that the RAC does not have any powers to authorise any events on the highway as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, recognised, which involve a race or trial of speed. We are talking about events such as timed events, the movement of vehicles
930
from one off-road competitive stage to another and treasure hunts. Drivers taking part in such events are subject to road traffic law at all times as well as the additional requirements imposed by the regulations themselves. The RAC is already required to notify the police that an authorised event is to take place.
Events of these kinds were first regulated in 1965 and the regulations introduced were based on the recommendations of the Motor Rallies Advisory Committee. It saw its task as striking:
"a balance between the interests of a sport which is enjoyed by considerable sections of the public … and the interests of the public at large, to whom in some cases rallying activities have proved an undoubted nuisance."
Its objective was therefore:
" … to ensure that motor sporting events take place only in such a manner as not to cause an unreasonable disturbance or annoyance to road users or members of the public generally or danger on the roads".
In 1969, new regulations relieved the police of the burden of authorising what the advisory committee called minor events, so that all events requiring authorisation are now handled by one controlling body, the RAC. Complaints are few. When considering applications, the RAC will consider whether the standard conditions laid down in the regulations or any additional conditions imposed are observed; whether the event might prejudicially affect the safety, amenity and convenience of the public; the number of events held or planned on a route; and the suitability of the route.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will be reassured by the offers of help from my noble friend Lord Lucas. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about the highway authorities. They are not statutory consultees. It is up to the police whom they consult when they are notified.
In general, the present arrangements are working well. The police have not indicated that there have been any problems with these authorised events and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I cannot agree that we should seek to place this additional burden on them.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I take that to be a rejection. I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment in order to study the drafting. It was my amateur attempt to get an amendment within the framework of a mixture of statutory authorities and regulations. I was not sure how to do it, but the Public Bill Office put it in better shape and put it down for me.
On the second point, which is much more important, I shall consider not only what has been said, but the principle of allowing a private organisation to have the right of authority over the use of the roads. Such organisations may not be accountable. I shall not go into the matter now, but there is a principle here. It may have been suitable in 1965 when the prestige of motoring organisations stood high and the class of road user was mostly in the RAC class. Other people did not have cars. People do not realise that few people had cars in 1965 compared with the number of road users now.
I also want to look at the legal aspect of what happens if unilateral steps are taken by citizens to stop a nuisance on the roads and they either take the law

931
into their own hands or take proceedings. I shall consider all those matters before the next stage of the Bill. The hour is late and I have taken up enough time and am becoming weary of your Lordships' Chamber just now, so you will forgive me if I let it go at that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Causing danger to road-users]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, leave out lines 22 to 23.
The noble Baroness said: This simple amendment proposes to make the new Section 22A of the Road Traffic Act apply to footpaths and bridleways. As drafted, the section applies to roads over which vehicles may be driven, whether those are busy dual carriageways or quiet unsurfaced country byways used mainly by walkers and horseriders. It also applies to paths where people walk by permission of the landowner, but without any right to do so.
The reason for this is that the term "road" is defined in the Road Traffic Act as meaning any highway and:
"any other road to which the public has access".
Bridleways and footpaths are defined in terms of the public's rights. Therefore, a permissive footpath is a road but not a footpath and the proposed new section will apply to it. It is anomalous that the public should be protected when walking by permission but not when a path is being used by right. The public need that protection. It is not unknown for objects to be placed on footpaths and bridleways so as to cause danger to the public. That is particularly important to horse riders. If the Government believe that the safety of horse riders and walkers is as important as that of motorists, I hope that they will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I well understand the concern of the noble Baroness, but I should explain why it is right that footpaths and bridleways should not be covered by the offence of causing danger to road users. The aim of the new offence is to catch people who obstruct roads where vehicles, their occupants and other road users are endangered largely because of the consequences of the speed they travel. That is not true in the case of obstruction either of pavements or rural bridleways and footpaths. I am not for a moment suggesting that such obstruction is defensible, but it does not normally cause danger and other powers exist to deal with the problem. It is not property a matter for road traffic law. However, the offence of causing danger does apply to cycle tracks which fall within the Road Traffic Act definition of "road" and are not specifically excluded by subsection (5). That is as it should be as there is a real risk of danger there. On the basis of that explanation I hope that thy, noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps the noble Lord will assist us by letting us know the other powers protecting people to which he referred.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My understanding is that those powers come under the rights of way legislation.
Lord Underhill: Before my noble friend replies, I should also like to ask the noble Lord a question. Perhaps I should have notified him that I was going to put this point. I understand that in the Committee of the other place the Minister said that the definition of "road" covered footpaths and bridleways but in this clause it does not include a footpath or bridleway. He added that the provision would not relate to a remote cycleway which was not analogous to a bridleway. Does this mean that if one has a cycleway not alongside a main road but running through the countryside it would not be covered at all and would be excluded in the same way as footpaths and bridleways are being excluded? If that was the situation it would be a serious matter.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: At the moment I am not in a position to answer the question with precision. I am advised that all are covered by legislation. I will make a point of finding out the position. If the indication I have given is not correct, I shall be pleased to let all noble Lords know.
Baroness Nicol: I am grateful for the care with which the Minister answered the question. The amendment was instigated by the Ramblers' Association which had looked at the present legal situation with care. It is usually accurate in these matters. However, I should like to study what the Minister has said. If he is replying to my noble friend's question, perhaps he could let me have a copy of it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Restriction of delivery for sale by persons on motorcycles
. After section 23 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted—
"Restriction of delivery for sale by persons on motorcycles.
23A.—(1) No person shall be engaged or employed for reward for the purpose of delivery of articles for sale by motorcycles unless he is the holder of a full driving licence granted as a result of a test of competence to drive.
(2) "Articles" in subsection (1) above shall include despatches, papers, packets and hot food (delivered for consumption by the purchaser in domestic or other premises) for sale.
(3) If a person is engaged or employed in contravention of subsection (1) above then the employer and the employee shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) A policy of insurance granted in contravention of subsection (1) above shall be of no effect."").
The noble Lord said: I raised this matter during the Second Reading debate. In that connection I drew attention to the fact that irresponsible drivers with the characteristics of despatch riders engage in rather aberrant behaviour from time to time, which most of us would recognise: for example, weaving in and out of static and moving traffic. In particular, I drew

933
attention to holders of provisional licences. It is in that regard that the amendment is tabled. I say at once that the amendment is tabled in order to obtain some understanding of the Government's position in relation to this. Certainly, it is not something I am proposing to press at this hour.
I have a number of questions that I would like to put to the noble Lord in the course of moving the amendment. Following the tabling of the amendment, a report appeared in the London Biker of April 1991. On behalf of the Despatch Association the chairman, Mr. Steven Smith, said:
"It would be the best thing that could happen for the industry if learner despatch riders were banned. Too many cowboy companies are prepared to take advantage of young riders, and this would put them out of business".
According to that report, I understand that the pizza delivery companies, which rely on a high turnover of young riders, might take a different view, but perhaps that is not the best source of reasonable ideas as to whether or not this proposal, or something like it, should be adopted. Perhaps the Minister can say how effective the courier code is, which the Department of Transport issued some time ago in conjunction with the Despatch Association, and whether or not it is working. Among other things the code says that inexperienced and/or learner drivers and riders should seek appropriate further training and qualifications including full licences, before engaging on courier work. That is very explicit. I am sure it is the experience of all of us that all too often despatch riders, or those engaged by pizza delivery companies and the like, are holders of provisional licences—at least those open and honest enough to display L plates. Heaven knows what others do. I hope that there is not conduct of the kind that I suspect may occur in a minority of cases. Clearly, the good despatch companies want to see the courier code working.
Another difficulty is the question of enforcement. The conduct to which I referred earlier is very much worse if it is undertaken by the holder of a provisional licence engaged in despatch riding. It occurs and it seems to be quite rare that people are apprehended for the sort of driving I described earlier. Yesterday I received a letter from the Association of British Insurers in which they express some concerns about the proposal I am making. Frankly, I believe those concerns are worthy of consideration by me. I would certainly want to cogitate further on what they have to say.
One of the points they make is that insurers are strongly opposed to the proposal that a learner motorcyclist's insurance policy should be invalidated if he undertakes despatch work. That could be in direct conflict with the statutory third party bodily injury and property damage cover required under Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It is known that under the current procedures insurers meet all third party claims even where policy conditions have been breached, although they retain right of recovery against the insured. That is a good point, but I do not think that it is a point that is impossible to overcome with some redrafting of the clause.
Other points are made. One is that rider schemes are very popular among motorcyclists and operate with the minimum of formalities. To accommodate the changes which I envisage would involve insurers in very considerable costs which will be reflected in the premiums. I do not think that that is a good point. Clearly if there is a mischief which needs to be cured and if it were to result in increased premiums (it is not said by how much) it needs to be addressed. Without going into all the arguments that are adduced, I should want it to be put on the record that I certainly want to consider their representations carefully before the matter is taken any further. I welcome their invitation to a meeting.
I return to the fact that I should very much like to hear what the Government have to say in answer to the specific points that I have put to them. I beg to move.
The Viscount of Falkland: As a motorcyclist and one who uses his motorcycle almost every day of the year, I am somewhat sensitive to the overall reputation of motorcyclists—which I think is unfair—as a dangerous group of people. I suggest that motorcyclists fall into broadly three groups. There is the young inexperienced motorcyclist whose experience covers less than perhaps five years. Thanks to the pressure of groups who are interested in improving safety and the Government which have helped to improve and make compulsory learning schemes, casualties have fallen in that area.
The second group consists of the experienced motorcyclists with something over five years' experience. They are generally enthusiastic, safe and ride defensively. In fact, that is the group which is responsible for the quite dramatic fall in accidents with motorcycles that has taken place. It has brought them well ahead of the target set by the Government for the year 2000.
The third group consists of the dispatch riders. I am sensitive about dispatch riders. Every time I rise to speak in this Chamber about motorcyclists, there is always one noble Lord who rises to his feet rather angrily and asks, "What about the dispatch riders?" I have to fall back with a sigh and agree with him, if not vocally, that dispatch riders are a problem, as are those who ply their trade on motorcycles of whatever power, whether it be a small or a large motorcycle. That is the area which has not been dealt with effectively.
The amendment put before us goes a long way to assist with that problem. Against a background of accidents and the evidence that we see every day when we go out on the roads (whether or not we are motorcyclists) of the way in which those who deliver and carry ride their motorcycles, it is quite wrong that an inexperienced rider with a learner plate should be allowed to carry. It does not matter what is being carried, whether it is a pizza or a package. Indeed, I understand that later in the Bill there is an amendment to increase the use of bus lanes for certain categories of motorcyclists. If the Government agree to that amendment, I urge them to exclude those who ply their trade, whatever power of motorcycle they use.

935
I am not absolutely certain about the insurance aspect of the amendment. The noble Lord has already touched on that point. There are some concerns which need to be addressed about third party liability. It is a clever and ingenious way to implement the main drift of the amendment but perhaps there are some technical difficulties which do not make that possible. Having said that, I agree absolutely that it does not do for small motorcycles with L plates to go buzzing around our roads. They are a danger to pedestrians, cyclists and other motorcyclists. They give motorcycling a bad name and quite markedly increase the chance of accidents, particularly in bad weather in urban areas. I support the amendment absolutely.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for having raised this subject, as at Second Reading he indicated that he would do. It seems to me that we are not necessarily complaining about L plate holders or young drivers. We appear to be talking about abuses by certain sections of the motorcycling fraternity, loosely called the dispatch rider. It is a long time since I rode a motorcycle and I defer greatly on this matter to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. However, I believe that we should seek other ways to bring perhaps a little more orderliness into the commercial use, if I may call it that, of the dispatch rider.
That can fall into two areas. First, the ultimate employer should engage only those companies which have a high reputation and so perhaps ease out what are called the cowboys. If we go too far, it may be that we deny youngsters most notably—pizza carriers have been brought into the conversation and they tend to run on the lower powered type of vehicle— both experience and work opportunity. I do not believe that an amendment of this kind is helpful to them. The amendment has a good basis but we should seek to put right what is seen as wrong by means other than this blanket refusal.
The Viscount of Falkland: Before the noble Lord rises, I omitted to say when I spoke last that the danger aspect with young riders is that most of them ride to i deadline. They have a limited time in which to deliver the pizza or the package. The more pizzas or packages that they deliver, the more money they earn. That is one of the main problems with regard to learner riders. They have an incentive to drive quickly and to take short cuts, often going round the wrong side of bollards or islands in the centre of the road. They just do not have the necessary experience.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I can well understand the sentiments of this amendment to ban learner riders from working as dispatch riders or from delivering fast food. As the noble Viscount said, concern about the behaviour of some of those employed in the courier industry has been voiced several times recently in this Chamber. While I share the noble Lord's concern, I am not convinced that legislation along the lines of this amendment is necessary in the interests of road safety.
Last June, the Department of Transport developed a leaflet jointly with a company involved in the
936
delivery of hot food. The leaflet Bike Sense aims to teach some basic road safety to those employed in the delivery of hot food. The leaflet was also aimed at their managers. In September, with the Despatch Association, the department launched the Courier Code, a voluntary code which again had the aim of improving safety on the road. Firms abiding by the code must ensure that riders and drivers are properly trained and hold a full licence before being engaged on normal courier work. In December 1990 the Government introduced compulsory basic training for all those who become entitled to ride a motorcycle or moped as a learner. These are important initiatives that I think should be given time to work.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked how the initiatives were progressing. I think it is probably too soon to say, as they have been in operation for less than six months. Obviously we shall keep a careful eye on the situation.
We must also remember that legislation, even if it were desirable, is of no practical benefit if it cannot be properly enforced. If an offence of the kind proposed by the amendment were to be enacted, there is no doubt that dispatch riders and others engaged in the business would fail to display L plates or trade identification marks on vehicles used for leisure as well as delivery purposes. In order to enforce the law effectively, the police would have to stop and check motorcyclists' licences on a widespread basis. In the absence of evidence of a threat to road safety, this would be a poor use of police resources and could have an undesirable effect on police/community relations.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is rightly concerned about the riding behaviour of some couriers. The introduction of new legislation along the lines suggested in the amendment would not necessarily address the problem and would be difficult to enforce. The initiatives I referred to earlier will help to do so.
Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the amendment is unnecessary and that we should wait to see what effect the new courier code will have in practice on problems before seeking to impose further statutory restrictions on motorcyclists.
9 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for that reply. One point that it is necessary to make with regard to the proposal is that employers hold a responsibility. The amendment addresses the question that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, raised about the pressures under which dispatch riders—pizza riders, or whatever they are called—continually operate. Young people—people who are in need of money—are all too often exposed to such unfair pressure.
I hope that the courier code and the leaflet on hot food will work. However, driving to the House as I do almost every day does not give me much room for optimism. I still see the most appalling driving. I hope that in a few months' time the Minister may be able to reflect on what is happening. Perhaps we shall have the opportunity to find out whether there have been

937
prosecutions for such riding. Such prosecutions are few and far between. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Construction and use of vehicles]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 16, at end insert:
("() In section 41(2) of that Act, at the end of paragraph (6) there shall be inserted—
"(1) for the fitting of inflatable restraints in motor vehicles."").
The noble Lord said: The amendment proposes that a new section be inserted in Clause 8, the effect of which would insert a paragraph in Section 41(2) of Part II of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The paragraph deals with construction and use regulations, with particular reference to the fitting in motor vehicles of inflatable restraints commonly known as air bags. There is a small misprint in the amendment on the Marshalled List. The paragraph referred to should be (1) and not (m). I hope that that does not make the amendment ineffective.
My purpose in proposing the amendment is not to confer on the Secretary of State a power that he does not already possess to make regulations as to the construction and equipment under which motor vehicles may be used on the road. Under the 1988 Act the Secretary of State may make a regulation providing for the fitting of air bags in motor vehicles. A specific reference to air bags in the 1988 Act will, it is hoped, bring to the attention of the Committee, to manufacturers of motor vehicles and to the public at large the important contributions that air bags can make in reducing the incidence of fatalities and physical injury caused by motor vehicle accidents.
Perhaps I may first explain to the Committee what an air bag is and how it operates—I hope without employing technical jargon. The air bag is a safety device consisting of a gas generator, a fabric bag, and one or more crash sensors designed to protect front seat occupants of the motor vehicle. The air bags for the driver are stored in the centre of the steering wheel, and in the facia for the passenger. In the event of a motor vehicle sustaining a frontal or front angle collision, sensors located in the motor vehicle set off a gas generated mechanism which fills air bags with nitrogen gas. The air bag contains vent holes which allow the nitrogen gas to escape as the bag is compressed by the occupant of the motor vehicle. The whole operation happens with lightning speed. The bag is inflated in 1/300th of a second. The vent holes allow the bag to be deflated in 12/100ths of a second. Air bags can either be full-sized bags which may be as large as two and a half feet and 12 inches deep. They are designed to provide full crash protection for a belted or unbelted occupant. Alternatively, bags which pad the steering wheel are designed to limit head and neck injuries which occur in higher speed crashes even when a seat belt is worn.
What are the benefits of air bags? Common sense tells us that, given a choice, we would prefer to have
938
our faces and bodies hit with some energy-absorbing item such as an air bag rather than the steering wheel or facia of a motor vehicle.
I wish to tell the Committee what has happened abroad. Research which has been carried in the United States supports common sense. A recent report by the US National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration indicates that if all passenger cars in use in the United States of America were equipped with front seat driver and front passenger air bags, more than 9,000 lives would be saved each year and more than 625,000 injuries prevented. It would therefore not be unreasonable to expect over 1,000 lives to be saved in the United Kingdom, and a substantially reduced proportion of other serious injuries.
What savings does that entail for the National Health Service and emergency services? Although the air bag technology has been available since the early 1970s, the introduction of them in motor vehicles in the United States initially met with strong resistance from various quarters, including the car manufacturers themselves. However, over a phasedߞin period beginning in 1986, in the United States all passenger vehicles must be fitted with an air bag to protect front seat occupants; or a passenger restraint system which automatically clamps the belt around the front seat occupant. What has happened in practice is that the United States motoring public has come to recognise the significant safety benefits of air bag protection. The American press is now reporting the saving of lives and the reduction of serious injuries in hundreds of motor accidents in which the air bag has operated.
In 1989 Chrysler took the industry lead in safety by installing driver seat air bags in all its passenger cars manufactured in America. Ford and General Motors also recognise the benefit of selling safety and now offer the air bag as standard equipment on many of their passenger cars. By 1995 the great majority of new passenger vehicles sold in the United States will be installed with driver and passenger air bags.
As regards European car manufacturers passenger cars manufactured by Mercedes Benz, BMW, Porsche and Volvo which are exported to the United States provide the air bag as standard equipment. Japanese manufacturers also provide the air bag as standard on their luxury passenger cars exported to America. They plan to offer similar protection on their lower range and smaller motor vehicles. It is worth noting that the Japanese Government have requested Japanese manufacturers to provide for the Japanese market levels of protection equivalent to those offered on vehicles exported to the United States. The manufacturers have agreed to implement that request.
What is of particular interest is that, while some of the motor cars exported by Jaguar to the USA are fitted with the air bag, that safety feature is not currently available in the United Kingdom market. The cost of fitting air bags would not be prohibitive. The industry target cost in the USA for driver and passenger air bags is approximately 300 dollars in volume production. The equivalent sterling figure is £170.
There is no suggestion that the air bag should replace the seat-belt; it should be a vital supplement. According to the United States Department of Transport the air bag, or combination of air bag and seat-belt, provides better protection at higher speeds than does the safety belt alone. It will provide better protection against fatalities and serious injuries, including brain damage and spinal injuries. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I do not doubt that air bags have the advantages enumerated by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, However, is it not the case that they also have grave disadvantages? I understand that if an air bag inflates when the windows of a car are closed —in our climate that is most of the time, particularly as most cars are fitted with fans or airconditioning—the sudden pressure change can break the eardrums of every passenger in the car. No one would deny that that a considerable disadvantage despite the obvious benefits that may result from minimising injury impact. The air bags can inflate at a low impact, below the speed at which injuries would normally occur. If that is correct it may nonetheless be reasonable for people to fit air bags voluntarily. However, I suggest that it is unreasonable to force people to have air bags in their cars if when operated their eardrums are likely to be broken.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: The noble Lord, Lord Monson, raises an interesting point. However, my noble fiend has illustrated a provision that might well be desirable. I am disappointed that, since seat-belts were introduced as a compulsory fitment in cars, the manufacturers have failed to improve their construction an I use in any significant way. For many people seat-belts remain uncomfortable, unadjustable and, as regards locking and unlocking, a matter of fear. Rather than introduce further legislation, I suggest that my noble friend's department should urge seat-belt manufacturers to spend a little more time and money on research and the development of seat-belts which are more acceptable to more people.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Section 41 of the Road Traffic Act already provides sufficient power for a requirement on the fitting of inflatable restraints, which are generally known as air bags, as my noble friend described them, to be included in construction and use requirements. To that extent, my noble friend's amendment is not necessary.
My noble friend Lord Teviot sounded almost as though he were making a commercial for air bags, although I am sure that he has no financial interest whatever in their introduction. Air bags are growing in popularity in the United States, where seat belts are less widely worn than in this country. In Europe, air bags tend to be optional extras in luxury cars. They are effective in frontal crashes, whereas seat belts are also effective in rear impacts and when a vehicle rolls over. Also, seat belts are cheaper. Therefore, air bags should be seen as supplements and not alternatives to seat belts.
The Government support all improved safety measures. They recognise the potential offered by air
940
bags. We announced in another place that we have commissioned research to monitor development into such devices.
I was interested to hear the statistics quoted by my noble friend as regards the advantages of air bags. I wonder whether those statistics are in addition to the compulsory wearing of seat belts. I was interested also in the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, as to the possible disadvantages of air bags and in what my noble friend Lord Lucas said as regards improvements in the manufacture of seat belts. However, I must say to my noble friend that I have noticed considerable improvements over the years as regards the latter. My car has adjustments at shoulder level, which I did not have previously.
My noble friend's amendment is not necessary because the powers are already available under the Bill. As I have indicated, a great deal more research needs to be done—and it will be done—before we take this matter further forward.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Teviot: It had completely escaped my attention that the power is already in the Bill and that my amendment is unnecessary. If that is true, it is splendid.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, talked about the disadvantages and I have not heard about those. I am sorry that I sounded like a commercial, but when one is introducing an amendment one must take trouble to get it right.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I do not wish this to be made law but I wish it to be put on the list of matters to be considered by the Secretary of State. This will be the 14th such matter and there are many other items on the list. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for mentioning the lack of progress as regards the manufacture of seat belts. That was hotly denied by my noble friend, or at least it was tepidly denied. He believed that there had been some progress.
Air bags have saved lives. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, mentioned the weather in the United States. The Americans are rather more careful about their health than the stoic Brits. They would not use air bags if they did not believe them to be safe. There have been awards for spinal injuries and brain damage exceeding £1 million, which is a great drain on the insurance industry. That in turn must be paid for by the man in the street.
However, I shall read what my noble friend has said. I shall be delighted if the amendment is unnecessary. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have given notice of a question which I wish to ask. There is a problem for drivers as regards the need to harmonise instruments and controls, particularly on motor cars, in the interests of safety. If one moves from one vehicle to another, instruments and controls may be in a

941
completely different place. It is then difficult to adjust easily to the new situation. Has the European Commission made any progress in dealing with that problem? If there has been progress, what is the projected effect as regards imported cars, particularly from Japan? Will they be required to comply with the provisions if they come to pass?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall try to deal briefly but comprehensively with the noble Lord's question. I am grateful to him for giving me notice of it. The EC and member states are working on a scheme to develop a European whole vehicle type approval. That will enable manufacturers to seek type approval in any member state on the basis of harmonised standards. That will take some time. There is no specific timescale for reaching agreement. At present all mass produced motor vehicles whether made in this country or overseas must comply with national type approval standards. These are based on standards agreed in the EC and other international organisations. Therefore, imported cars would have to comply with those standards. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's point.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Vehicle examiners]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 35, leave out ("he considers necessary") and insert ("are required").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment which I can take very shortly. We welcome the Minister's idea. I would like to know what he has in mind as regards numbers. For example, I know that the AMA will support moves to ensure the establishment of a vehicle inspectorate which relates to the numbers required to provide an effective level of service. That is what I have been told by that organisation and it is a view which I share. I would like to hear from the Minister on that point. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The decision as to how many vehicle examiners are necessary must be for the opinion of the Secretary of State. That is what the law says now and that is how we propose to leave it. The amendment would not tell us how to determine how many vehicle examiners were required. That decision will always have a subjective element because a great deal of enforcement of vehicle standards is carried out by the police. I can however assure the noble Lord that we are satisfied that there are sufficient vehicle examiners in post to carry out their functions under the Act, both for annual inspections and for road-side checks. I do not deny that the number of examiners has decreased slightly in recent years, but productivity has improved. I am sure that Members of the Committee would not object to that.
We must also remember, so far as road-side checks are concerned, that output is not simply to be judged by the number of prosecutions for construction and use offences. Prohibition is very practically as much an alternative as a supplement to prosecution. Overall therefore I am fully satisfied that the vehicle inspectorate is fully resourced to carry out its
942
important responsibilities in relation to defective and overloaded vehicles. At present there are 440 vehicle examiners in the vehicle inspectorate. There are 220 traffic examiners who are appointed as vehicle examiners but who carry out largely non-technical work. With that assurance I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister appears to be saying that present numbers will suffice. I am not at all happy about that situation. I would not wish to comment about that proposition in too detailed a way at this hour. I worry about the number of people engaged in this kind of pursuit and many others who are there to invigilate adherence to the law. It does not happen sufficiently in a number of areas and I am not satisfied that it is happening here. The Minister has told us of the current position. He has also said that the Secretary of State has the power to increase the numbers but it looks as though he will not wish to exercise it for the time being. I shall look carefully at what he has said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Inspection of vehicles]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 8, line 1, leave out ("(not being more than five miles from the place where the requirement is made)") and insert ("(not being more than five miles from the place where the requirement is made in the case of goods vehicles and not more than two miles from the place where the requirement is made and with a maximum delay of thirty minutes at the place of inspection in the case of public passenger vehicles)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment gives new composite power to inspect public passenger vehicles and goods vehicles. My amendment asks for the testing to take place at a place which is not more than two miles away and for,
"a maximum delay of thirty minutes at the place of inspection in the case of public passenger vehicles".
The reasons for this amendment are plainly obvious. It is essential that a coach or charabanc—call it what you will—carrying passengers should be delayed for the minimum time. I say that for the following reasons. The coach may well be on a tight schedule, to catch a ferry or make a connection. Delays could affect, in particular, elderly passengers —many elderly people travel by coach—as well as young children if the coach is sent to a testing place which is unlikely to have facilities. A delay could take a driver out of his driver's hours limit. A considerable delay could then follow before a replacement driver was found, thus causing maximum inconvenience by ruining holidays unnecessarily.
Recently I visited the headquarters of the Vehicles Inspection Funding Agency at Bristol. I was very impressed by the way that establishment is conducted. It was a very fruitful visit. I gather that no vehicle has ever been taken more than one mile. I am therefore not too worried about that aspect. However, for the reasons I have stated, I feel strongly that my noble friend should give the utmost consideration to the time limit of half an hour. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has made a very good case for his amendment. I noticed that he continually referred to the position of a coach whereas his amendment refers to public passenger vehicles, whether coaches, buses or whatever. That point should be noted. There is nothing in the amendment which changes the position with regard to heavy goods vehicles. That point should be noted by the Committee. The amendment seeks to impose tighter limits on the distance a vehicle examiner can require PSVs to travel in order to have them inspected. The noble Lord also includes a time limit.
I regard this as a quite reasonable amendment. I hope the Government will accept it. However, one point must be made absolutely clear. In the case of PSVs this provision should apply only when the vehicle is in service. It should not apply when the vehicle is not carrying passengers. The cause for delay does not then arise and the concern about safety will not be so great. It is when vehicles are in service that we war t them confined to this shorter distance and for the time limit to be imposed. I do not know whether that point can be dealt with at a later date. Perhaps the Minister will have some remarks to make on it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I understand and accept my noble friend's wish to minimise the delay and inconvenience to the travelling public by limiting the distance over which public passenger vehicles can be diverted for inspection and by limiting the time taken for an inspection. However, I do not believe that this should be allowed to detract from the primary task of ensuring that such vehicles are roadworthy. Clause 11 of the Bill replaces the existing separate provisions for goods vehicles and passenger vehicles with new composite powers of inspection. It is quite reasonable to allow for vehicles to be diverted to a place at which a proper inspection can be carried out.
Rather than impose one or two restrictions in the primary legislation, I believe the needs of passengers would be better taken into account by a code of practice on the arrangements for inspection of passenger carrying vehicles. The code could cover the maximum time to be taken for an inspection, and the arrangements for providing passengers with waiting facilities. It would have the advantage of being more flexible, or covering a wider range of matters and it could be revised, if necessary, in the light of experience. The department intends to develop a code for discussion with the Bus and Coach Council and the police.
It could also take into account the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I hope that my noble friend will agree that that will provide a more flexible and responsive approach. I therefore invite him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teviot: Obviously I am very pleased. A code of practice is exactly what I hoped my noble friend would suggest. The matter must be gone into in much more detail. However, I must take up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. It is true that I referred to coaches rather than buses. But there again, buses do not normally have to meet the same deadlines as coaches. Of course it is possible that they do, but as
944
for the dear old things that I used to drive, there was usually another one following within 10 minutes or half an hour. The thrust of the amendment concerned coaches. Nevertheless, I take note of the noble Lord's point.
As regards empty coaches, it could be a case of someone simply going home; but it could be a feeder and, therefore, most important. I do not want to exclude that possibility without further consultation. However, I accept what my noble friend said and look forward to reading the code of practice. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Seizure of Heavy Goods Vehicles
. In the Road Traffic Act 1968, Part V, there shall be inserted after section 60 new sections as follows—
"Seizure of Vehicles.
60A. A vehicle used in contravention of section 60 of this Act shall, on the laying of information of such use by an officer before a licensing authority and on the subsequent direction of that licensing authority, be liable to seizure."
Interim Disposal of Seized Vehicles.
60B.—(1) Any vehicle seized by an officer in pursuance of a direction made under section 60A of this Act shall be delivered by him to the local authority in whose area the place of seizure is situated according to such arrangements (including the sharing of expenses) as may be agreed between the local authority and the licensing authority or, in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Secretary of State.
(2) While any vehicle seized under section 60A of this Act is in the custody of an authority in pursuance of this section it shall be the duty of that authority to take such steps as are reasonably necessary for the safe custody of that vehicle.
(3) In this section "local authority"—

(a) in relation to England, means the council of a county, a metropolitan district or London Borough or the Common Council of the City of London;

(b) in relation to Wales, means the council of a county;

(c) in relation to Scotland, means the local highway authority."

Ultimate Disposal of seized Vehicles.
60C.—(1) A vehicle seized under section 60A of this Act shall on an application made for the purpose by its registered keeper or its owner to the licensing authority who authorised the seizure be returned to its registered keeper or, on proof thereof, its owner within one year of its seizure and provided at the time of such application it shall be—

(a) an "authorised vehicle" as defined in section 92(1) of this Act, or

(b) on proof thereof, a vehicle the declared use of which is exempted from the provisions of section 60 of this Act,

and provided that any expenses aforementioned in section 60B(1) of this Act arising from the safe custody of that vehicle or any fees arising therefrom as from time to time be determined by the Secretary of State have been paid by the applicant.
(2) If not reclaimed under the provisions of subsection (1) of this section a vehicle seized under section 60A of

945
this Act may be disposed of after one year from the date of seizure in accordance with instructions as may from time to time be issued by the Secretary of State."
Right of Appeal.
60D.—(1) Where a vehicle is seized under section 60A of this Act and within six months of the date on which it was seized no person has been charged since that date with an offence in relation to that vehicle under section 60 of this Act and that vehicle is still detained, a magistrates court shall, on an application for restitution made for the purpose by the registered keeper or, by the owner or, by the person from whom the vehicle was seized or, by an officer, make such order respecting the disposal of the vehicle and award such reasonable costs as the court may determine.
(2) Any proceedings in Scotland under this section shall be taken by way of summary application in the sheriff court; and in the application of this section to Scotland references to costs shall be construed as expenses."
Interpretation.
60E.—In section 60A, section 60B and in section 60D of this Act an "officer" means an examiner appointed under section 68 of the Road Traffic Act 1968 and any person authorised for the purposes of the aforesaid sections by the licensing authority for any area."").
The noble Lord said: We welcome the legislative changes projected in the Bill. We certainly hope, as does the Minister, that they will lead to an improvement in the way in which vehicle and motoring offences are enforced. However, the Minister will know that licensed operators of commercial vehicles have expressed considerable concern that there is no provision in the Bill which would have the effect of containing the activities of those who operate heavy goods vehicles for hire or reward and who operate on their own account illegally. Official authorisation to operate goods vehicles is required by the Transport Act 1968, as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1974 and the Transport Act 1982. There were further regulations in 1984 which are also relevant.
The fact is that bona fide operators are worried because they know that the operations of the cowboys —all too often illegal operations—prejudice public safety. They have a bad effect on the environment, they avoid proper vehicle inspection and they distort fair competition. Those are very serious matters. They want to see a level playing field—to use that awful term which is imported into every argument about the European Community. However, that is what they want and it is something which they do not have at present.
One of the problems is that a vehicle operator who behaves in that sort of way and who chooses to ignore the requirements of the law may be able to operate for gain almost indefinitely. The problem was the subject of the BBC television programme "Watchdog" only recently. Moreover, the process of law for road traffic offences is very slow. There is an extended delay first between the commission of the offence and then between the procedure of bringing the person or company involved to court and the final appearance in court. In the interim period illegal operators are able to continue to trade and they may even do so after a
946
court appearance and sentence, despite the fact that there may be irrefutable evidence of their status held by the traffic area offices.
There is a loophole. We are anxious to hear from the Minister how it may be closed. The extent of the problem was graphically illustrated by the traffic commissioner for the metropolitan traffic area. He became aware of the worrying extent of the problem back in 1987 and reported on the situation in his 1987–88 annual report. I shall quote briefly from that report. He said:
"It does appear to me from talking to the police and traffic examiners and examining prohibition notices that there are a substantial number of heavy goods vehicles operating outside the law. Many are located in the East End and engage on muckaway work".
I represented an East End constituency in the other place for 13 years, and I know that that is only too true. He continued:
"Some are relatively large companies whose O licences I have removed. They are well known to the police and my traffic examiners. Acquiring the evidence and serving summonses is not easy, and even when successfully prosecuted, fines often seem to go unpaid or are not a deterrent. We need to be able to impound the vehicles".
In the traffic commissioner's 1988–89 report he said:
"There are still many people operating lorries within my area who do not have an O licence, and several others who continue operating with impunity, despite having had their licences removed. Indeed, I am aware of one operator who has had three separate O licences revoked. I am left with the impression that the construction industry in particular is pretty cavalier about whom it employs if the rates are right. It is perhaps not surprising that we have the blight of fly tipping in London. There is a need for a concerted effort to deal with illegal operators".
The trouble is that no one has done anything about that problem. In October 1989, the traffic commissioner arranged a check of 5,500 vehicles in the East End of London. The remarkable thing is that that check showed that approaching 10 per cent. of vehicles were not displaying O licences. There were subsequent checks at the demolition of a large site in Horseferry Road—that is just an example—right under the eye of the Minister's department. It showed that 30 per cent. of the tipper trucks engaged were operating illegally. That is a serious state of affairs. I do not hold the Minister responsible. I do not expect him to venture outside Marsham Street to engage in such an operation. Though why not? It would be a useful effort, but I do not expect him to do it.
People choose to operate without an O licence to avoid the quality controls that the system imposes. Illegal operators tend not to maintain their vehicles adequately, and it is road safety that suffers. Fifty out of 100 vehicles given mechanical safety checks in October 1989 failed. It is also true to say that having decided to break the law in one regard, such people break it in so many others. They are likely to fly tip, to abuse the rules on drivers' hours, fail to tax their vehicles and so on. They are frequent offenders. They are recidivists, and that casual attitude is unacceptable. Legitimate hauliers, as well as the general public, are the people who suffer from such activities.
There is a clearly identified need to be able to strike at the illegal operators' pocket with the minimum of bureaucracy. The only viable way is for licensing

947
authorities to be given powers to impound vehicles similar to the powers of confiscation which HM Customs and Excise exercise. The financial penalty of losing one vehicle could be a real deterrent. In addition, if the law were to get round to imposing such a message it would get round to the illegal operators. The deterrent effect would be real.
The powers should be used only in the most flagrant cases and those which are repeated frequently. In order to ensure that justice is done, a right of appeal is provided in the new clause. There is an overwhelming case for action to be taken. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and, as I said after he spoke on Second Reading, I have a good deal of sympathy with what lies behind the amendment. He accurately described the current situation. He described who flouts the law and the other offences committed by them; for example, no road fund licence, probably no insurance, no test certificate, and so on. All this is wrong, as the noble Lord says. The commissioner's report he referred to is replicated, but not always in print, by other traffic commissioners up and down the country. I have some doubt about whether the remedy he offers by virtue of the amendment is right. It seems just a little severe. Going down this road of confiscation of property, in parenthesis I wonder whose property it is—whether it is that of the driverߞoperator or a financial leasing company. However, that is a detail. Whoever owns the property, to confiscate and impound it and, after certain procedures have been gone through, to dispose of it seems wrong.
It is evident from what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, that in inverted commas, "something has to be done". I wish I could offer a solution this evening. I ask my noble friend the Minister to take the matter seriously. If he does not like the amendment, which appears at first sight to be complicated, perhaps in his answer or at some other time he could tell us how the department will consider removing this scourge from the haulage industry. It is unfair. It will benefit neither the employers of such hauliers nor the public if the practice is allowed to continue. In that regard, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord. However, I am not sure that I totally go along with his solution.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to Marsham Street, which causes me to rise to my feet. I have seen the vehicles being clamped or locked by the police and taken away. To save my noble friend muddying his feet every day, as I do, walking down Marsham Street, I confirm that these lorries are being taken away. It is not my subject, but they are removed by the police on a fairly regular basis.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said about the unfairness and potential danger of unlicensed operations. I assure him that the Department of Transport is taking action to deal with
948
the problem. I can see the site to which he referred in Horseferry Road from my office window, although I must say in my own defence that since I have been back in the Department of Transport the site has been cleared. Only the vehicles involved in construction rather than demolition are currently involved. I suspect that they are of a different nature. However, that does not alter the fact that we take the matter seriously.
Special checks are currently being undertaken by the department's traffic examiners in co-operation with the other enforcement agencies. The idea is to target operators running their vehicles illegally and in the first place to prohibit any vehicles which are found to be overloaded or with safety defects. I should explain that a prohibition cannot be ignored; the vehicle is held at the place where it has been checked until the defects are corrected. Such checks are already being mounted in London, Birmingham and Manchester.
We are also looking at ways of making these checks even more effective by combining the information available to the different enforcement agencies and targeting them against rogue operators. Many unlicensed operators are in the waste disposal business. A new registration system is being introduced to control carriers of waste substances. We are exploring ways of linking this register with the computerised goods operator licensing system. We are also developing closer liaison and co-operation between the enforcement agencies, and this will in due course be supported by a computerised enforcement system of information to which all the agencies will have access under strict security rules.
Some of the abuse could be prevented through the co-operation of those who employ goods vehicle operators on contract work, for example, at construction sites. The department is itself a major employer of contractors on road construction work. Much work at building sites is subcontracted to operators, including some who are known to operate without licences. We are seeking the co-operation of the major civil engineering contractors in helping to stamp out this practice and to eliminate the problem of illegal operations.
There remains the proposal put forward in this amendment of providing powers to impound unlicensed heavy goods vehicles. I would not rule out this possibility in the longer term. We would, however, have to be very clear that the sort of measures that I have just described and the action already in hand are not proving adequate to deal with the problem. The power to impound and forfeit vehicles is a much more draconian measure, as my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out. I believe we need to be sure that all other measures which can be taken within existing powers have been taken before we can consider whether impounding is necessary.
The problem described by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is very real, and we are determined to tackle it. But in view of what I have said and the assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall certainly examine with great care what he has said. However, the problem is that time is of the essence and I am not really convinced that the measures the Minister is undertaking will have the effect that is desired within a reasonable time. While we are in difficult economic circumstances the time for urgent action becomes more marked than ever. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said the action that is proposed is too draconian. After all, the action has been recommended by the traffic commissioner for the metropolitan traffic area. There is no more authoritative source than that. The commissioner has become convinced that other measures will not work. That is what gives rise to my scepticism about the Minister's remarks. After all, there are similar powers of confiscation, draconian though they may be, exercisable by Customs and Excise. However, as I have said, I will examine with care what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("HGV front underrun guards
. In section 41(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted after "In particular, the regulations" the words "shall make provision for the fitment of front underrun guards to such vehicles as the Secretary of State may prescribe and".").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to bring forward construction and use regulations to fit front underrun guards to heavy goods vehicles. The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety has advised me that no fewer than 300 car occupants are killed in Great Britain every year in accidents involving heavy goods vehicles. Research conducted at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory indicates that 195 of those—that is 65 per cent.—are killed in collisions between the fronts of cars and trucks travelling in opposite directions. These accidents are particularly severe for several reasons and comprise the type of accident where seat belts can provide little protection. The council has furnished me with technical arguments stating why these accidents are so severe. However, I shall not read out those arguments now as time is rather short.
Protection for car occupants in these impacts can be achieved by lowering the front structure of the truck. Front underrun bumpers are relatively inexpensive to produce and can be readily fitted to most trucks. As the Committee will be aware, rear and side underrun guards are already a mandatory requirement on all United Kingdom registered vehicles. Therefore, a national performance specification could now be devised for front underrun protection. This amendment would make a significant contribution to road safety. I believe it is an amendment that the Government could readily accept. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I have added my name to this amendment because I have some sympathy
950
with its aims. I have taken the matter up with my colleagues at RoSPA. I am informed that experimental studies at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory show that an energy absorbing truck front underrun guard with a ground clearance of 300mm can protect seat-belted car occupants from fatal and serious injuries at closing speeds up to approximately 40 miles per hour. I hope that something can be done. It might take a little time to bring in regulations but in the long term I hope that that can be done. I have considerable sympathy with the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I too have sympathy with and understand the noble Lord's desire to see heavy goods vehicles fitted with front underrun guards. We agree that there are potential road safety benefits to be gained from such a requirement. However, I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the figure that I have is not as high as his. My information is that an analysis of 1988 road accidents involving heavy goods vehicles indicates that it is possible that about 80 lives could have been saved if all HGVs had been fitted with satisfactory front underrun guards. That would be a very useful figure to achieve.
As the noble Lord will be aware, there are international standards for vehicle manufacture, and we are therefore pressing hard to reach agreement in the relevant international organisations on this issue. We have made a proposal to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which sets the standards for new vehicles. The subject is under active discussion there and, I am glad to say, has received strong support from other countries. It is too soon to say when a proposal might be agreed.
The amendment is not, however, necessary. Section 41 of the Road Traffic Act already provides sufficient enabling powers for the introduction of such requirements in secondary legislation. As I have said, we are working towards an international agreement. I hope that we shall be able to achieve that soon. If we do, we shall not hesitate to bring forward regulations under Section 41. I hope that in those circumstances the noble Lord will realise that the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Underhill: I am delighted to know that the Minister has genuine sympathy with the principle behind the amendment. I shall not argue about figures except to say that the figures which I quoted are those of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory.
It is interesting to know that there are already powers for making regulations. However, I cannot understand why we have to wait for an ECE regulation. I know that it would be helpful if all the ECE countries worked together, but we are dealing with vehicles registered in the United Kingdom and the saving of a considerable number of lives. While I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment, I hope that the Government will consider that it is possible now, as the Minister has said, to introduce secondary legislation to put into effect the intent of the amendment. I do not think that we ought to wait for general European agreement if we are in a position to

951
apply this by regulation now for United Kingdom registered vehicles. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
Seat belts in minibuses
(". In section 41(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted after the words "In particular, the regulations" the words ''shall make provision for the fitment of seat belts in minibuses and".").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord adverted to this issue in response to a point that I made in this regard at the Second Reading of the Bill. He said then that,
"The Government would also like to see good quality, easy to use and retractable seat belts being fitted to all seats in minibuses and coaches. Indeed, seatbelts have been required to be fitted to all front seats on new minibuses and to exposed forward facing seats on new coaches since 1st October 1988". —[Official Report, 18/3/91; col. 477.]
He went on to say that the Government had been pressing the Commission for some years to amend the relevant directive to allow seat belts to be fitted on all seats in minibuses and coaches.
I think that the Minister has been misquoted as saying:
"As a result of that pressure, the Commission has requested that proposals should be put forward by the end of 1991".
I presume that that should read, "the Commission has been requested". I assume that that was what was requested at the Council. As Transport Commissioner from 1985 to 1989 I cannot recall, though I could be mistaken, that the Government were pressing for that then, but, be that as it may, I am glad to hear that the Government are now pressing the matter.
However, minibuses are used in this country rather more than anywhere else, as I understand the position. They are used particularly in relation to the conveyance of handicapped people and children, in connection, for example, with taking children to and from school, and handicapped people to and from places where they are able to work. To that extent, I should like to know why we are not able in those circumstances, as it is essentially a British problem, to apply that kind of policy, giving notice to the European Commission, here and now in this country.
I should have thought that it was necessary with regard to new minibuses. As regards older minibuses, perhaps it is something about which we can think again, but I hope that the Minister will use this vehicle to introduce a proposal of this kind as he clearly supports it in principle. Is there a Community reason which prevents that from happening? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: I should like to raise one query. I have every sympathy with the desire to have seatbelts in minibuses because a large number of casualties are caused throughout the country by minibus accidents. Minibuses are now frequently used in stage carriage work in and out of towns. Presumably the definition here w mild not apply to those kinds of minibuses which are used as small, what we used to call, corporation buses. The measure would probably need
952
some amendment even if the Minister was minded to accept it, which, as in the case of most amendments tonight, I do not think he is.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I wish that I could accept the amendment because, as I said on Second Reading, we very much sympathise with its objective. We should like to see the compulsory fitment of seatbelts in all new minibuses. Unfortunately, however, the current EC directives dealing with the fitment of seatbelts make no provision for such a requirement. It would not therefore be possible at present to enforce any domestic regulation to that end as we could not prohibit vehicles which were in compliance with the directive. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, regrettable though it is.
We have, however, pressed the European Commission for some time on this issue. Our aim is that the relevant directives should be amended to permit compulsory fitment. As a result, it has been agreed that the Commission should bring forward proposals with a view to possible amendment of the directives by the end of the year. We hope that they will provide what both the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, seek.
I should add that, once the directives are in place, we would not need to amend primary legislation to enforce seatbelt fitment in all minibuses in the UK. I hope, with that explanation and our wishes that the Commission will proceed expeditiously, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: One of the reasons why I tabled the amendment was because it might help the Commission to take account of the fact that Parliament is concerned about the issue. I hope that will help the Government in the representations that they are making which we fully support. I hope that they will use their best endeavours to ensure that the Commission adheres to the timetable that has been set. The Minister will be delighted to know that I do not propose to bring this matter back on Report, so that is one item out of the way. I thank him for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Power to prohibit driving of unfit vehicles]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 8, line 33, after ("authorised") insert ("and qualified").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 to 22.
Clause 12 states that police constables should be authorised to prohibit the driving of vehicles deemed to be unfit. My amendment seeks to ensure that the constable is qualified. I must be careful. I am terrified about what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said about the last amendment, so I shall be careful how I couch my words.
It is felt, at least by the bus industry, that constables should have special training. I discussed that subject with the VIFA which provides courses for its own staff. I understand that it is ready to provide the same for policemen in the appropriate authorities. That authorisation for constables to prohibit is new. The

953
Committee will be aware that the total job of police officers is not that of vehicle inspection. There is no reason why they should not do it but they should be trained to do so. I gather that there are consultations taking place with the VIFA and the police authorities.
I would very much like to listen to the comments of my noble friend the Minister on the subject of the inter-relationship between the VIFA and the police. I hope he will take my point in all seriousness. Traffic policemen are very well trained to deal with motor vehicles, but in the case of a PSV (I will not stipulate the type lest I should get a rocket) inspection requires special training. I am sure that there are ways of doing it. It would be very nice to see written into the Bill a provision that policemen should be qualified rather than simply authorised. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I echo the view of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. By this amendment he seeks to ascertain from the Government precisely what provision they would make to ensure that constables engaged in this work are properly qualified and the training to be given to them. The noble Lord the Minister is always very good at sending correspondence. I am sure he will not mind my referring to a letter dated 27th March which he sent to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, in which he said the following:
"The police have their vehicle examiners and can call on the Department of Transport Vehicle Inspectorate where necessary".
Therefore the police already have trained examiners of their own. There will be no difficulty about those examiners being used where necessary, or appropriate training being given to constables. As the amendment says, it is important not only that constables are authorised but that they should be properly qualified.I hope that the Minister can give some information on the Government's attitude.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As regards the qualifications of authorised constables, I agree with my noble friend that constables who are given powers to issue prohibition notices should be properly trained and qualified for the task. That is a matter being discussed between the Department of Transport and representatives of the police service. I am confident that suitable arrangements will be agreed to ensure that only constables with relevant knowledge and experience will be authorised for this purpose. I believe this is a matter which should be left to the chief officers to determine, and that in the light of their discussions with the department it will not be a matter where a specific reference in legislation is necessary. I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teviot: I will do exactly what my noble friend says. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I am very grateful for what he said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 22 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 23:
954
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
Testing condition of used vehicles at sale rooms etc
(1) Section 77 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (testing condition of used vehicles at sale rooms etc.) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsections (1), (3) and (4) after the words ("authorised examiner") there shall be inserted ("or authorised officer").
(3) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
"(6A) In this section "authorised" officer means an officer of a local weights and measures authority who is duly authorised by the authority to enforce in their area the provisions of this section."
(4) The following section shall be inserted after section 77—
"Functions of local weights and measures authority.
77A.—(1) The functions of a local weights and measures authority include the enforcement in their area of sections 75 and 77 of this Act.
(2) The following provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 apply in relation to the enforcement of sections 75 and 77 above as in relation to the enforcement of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, that is to say—
section 27 (power to make test purchases);
section 28 (power to enter premises and inspect and seize documents);
section 29 (obstruction of authorised officers);
section 30 (notice of test and intended prosecution);
section 33 (compensation for loss, etc. of goods seized under section 28).
(3) Nothing in this section shall be taken as authorising a local weights and measures authority in Scotland to initiate proceedings for an offence.".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 23 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 and 51. These amendments stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Ezra, who would certainly have moved them much better and more comprehensively had he not been called away and the date of this debate had not been moved from the earlier date agreed upon. In fact the amendments relate to the provisions of the Bill that the noble Lord put through this Chamber last year entitled the Motor Trade (Consumer Protection) Bill. The difference with these amendments is that they do not include clocking; that is to say, turning back odometers which, noble Lords will remember, is a matter on which we spent some time last year. That is not included because they are not directly related to safety, although I believe that there are safety aspects involved and the problem has not gone away.
However, the amendments before the Committee deal with unroadworthy vehicles. They do not seek to introduce any new offences. They help to provide for the enforcement of the adequate offence which exists in Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. That section is used by trading standards officers to prosecute traders who have sold unroadworthy vehicles.
There are two difficulties which militate against effective enforcement and the first and second amendments seek to deal with those problems. The first difficulty relates to lack of effective enforcement. At present specially trained police officers and Department of Transport inspectors are authorised to examine vehicles on garage forecourts but trading standards officers are not so authorised. I understand

955
that the Department of Transport can show no instance of any prosecution for an offence and it is clear that the only occasions on which vehicles have been examined have been at the behest of trading standards officers.
The anomaly is that as soon as a vehicle has been sold and defects are brought to light, the trading standards officers can start to act, but they are not allowed to act before then. That seems to me to be a curious anomaly. Surely it would be in the interests of safety for such checks to be made before the vehicle becomes a danger to the new owner.
Noble Lords will perhaps have heard on the radio this morning the results of a survey that was recently completed. Trading standards officers and vehicle examiners visited 108 garage forecourts and tested 267 vehicles. The results were quite appalling. Sixty-five per cent. of vehicles of what might be described as MOT age on garage forecourts were described as unroadworthy and 79 per cent. of those were a danger to drivers and other road users.
To deal briefly with some of the figures that came out of the survey: in Lothian region 92 vehicles were examined and 89 per cent. of them were unroadworthy; in mid-Glamorgan 87 per cent. of the vehicles were unroadworthy; and in Humberside 64 per cent were unroadworthy. As an average for the whole area covered, which involved 108 premises and 267 vehicles, 65 per cent. were unroadworthy. The survey broke down the term "unroadworthy" into three separate categories: extremely dangerous, very dangerous and potentially dangerous. Extremely dangerous—defined as, "Do not drive your car in this condition. You will be breaking the law and risking your life and the lives of others"—accounted for 52 per cent. Within the category very dangerous—"May be illegal. Put right immediately"—there were 11 per cent. The other 2 per cent. might be illegal.
The vice-chairman of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration's Quality Standards Committee is quoted as saying:
"We have been raising our concerns about these issues for many years and now is the time for action to improve the protection for car buyers and road users".
I am sure that the Committee agrees with that.
As I suggested, it cannot be right that trading standards officers should have to wait until those dangerous vehicles are on the road before they can take action. The first amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend would extend their powers to allow them to carry out such inspections. In case anybody is worried about trading standards officers without due competence carrying out those inspections, it should be said immediately that they themselves would not examine the vehicles but would employ consultants who are competent to do so.
The Department of Transport has said that its examiners are expert and that therefore the two inspectorates should co-operate. That of course happens. However, experience has shown that the vehicle inspectorate cannot always respond to requests as quickly as is necessary. Nor can it always compete in terms of price. That seems a curious situation. It might be considered slightly strange that
956
a vehicle inspectorate, authorised to do such work, should consider charging another body to do its work; but that apparently happens.
The amendment enables comprehensive enforcement of regulations on garage forecourts to take place and thus to make better use of resources and prevent dangerous vehicles from getting on the road and jeopardising the community.
The second amendment requires those who wish to sell unroadworthy vehicles to put a notice on the vehicle to show prospective purchasers that the vehicle should not be used on the road until that vehicle is safe. I am pleased to say that since the provision was first introduced, the Government have recognised the need for that loophole in the existing law to be closed. At present, dealers who offer vehicles for sale which are unroadworthy can avoid prosecution by saying that all faults would be repaired before sale. In many cases, if you believe that you will believe anything!
There are situations when an honest dealer may wish to sell vehicles in an unroadworthy condition. I refer to sales between traders or to the public for use as spare parts. The amendment does not seek to interfere with what is a perfectly legitimate trade. It seeks to inform the potential purchaser that the vehicle he is buying is liable to be dangerous to him and to the public. The Government proposal requires that the trader shall take all reasonable steps to make the customer aware of that fact. However, that is a somewhat imprecise phrase. The amendment suggests what appears to us to be a reasonable step: to put a simple and uniform notice on the vehicle. In Committee in the other place, at col. 809 on 26th February, the Minister stated that this was one step that could be taken. It seems that the merits of the argument have been generally accepted. I hope that we can proceed with that.
Another concern with regard to new Clause 16 is that the seller of an unroadworthy vehicle is not required to have made it clear in a document of sale that the vehicle was in that condition. The amendment requires the seller also to give to the buyer a document indicating that the vehicle is unroadworthy and should not be used on the road.
The third amendment deals with those vehicles that have been written off by insurance companies. It reflects the views of assistant chief police officers. It contains three proposals. It ensures that motor vehicles which have suffered serious change pass a stringent safety check before being allowed back on the road. We are all aware that vehicles which have been very severely damaged may be cannibalised and welded together with parts of other vehicles and that that can be a very dangerous practice. The amendment also proposes that the registration document of such a vehicle should be surrendered to the DVLA and that the registration document should then be marked with the particulars of any rebuilding. The result prevents registration documents from such vehicles being used to hide the identity of a stolen vehicle. That sometimes happens and I believe that the practice is known as ringing. One learns all the time in this Chamber about matters of which we were not previously aware. As a

957
result of a voluntary scheme involving the police and the insurance companies such vehicles are recorded at the DVLA.
However, vehicles that are insured third party, including large fleets, are not recorded and therefore the records are incomplete. The same can be said for a scheme run by a firm called Hire Purchase Information Ltd. Insurance companies provide information about such vehicles which can be checked by subscribers. However, that company has decided that vehicles can be removed from the register providing that they pass a safety check. The fact that vehicles are tested for safety is laudable but the removal of information from the register means that informed choices cannot be made by potential customers. It is argued that if a car is properly repaired its previous history is of no consequence. We suggest that that is not the case and that the new purchaser should be aware of the full history of any vehicle that he purchases.
When a severely damaged vehicle is disposed of it is usually accompanied by the registration document; that is the piece of paper that the car thief needs and can acquire when he purchases a wrecked car from a scrap yard. The provisions in the amendment would prevent that by requiring insurance companies to surrender registration documents of seriously damaged vehicles to the DVLA.
In 1985 the Automobile Association found that one in eight accident-damaged vehicles were immediately unsafe and that 50 per cent. had defects. The hire purchase information scheme, which tests vehicles prior to deregistration, although in its infancy, is also finding a high proportion of vehicles to be unsatisfactory.
The amendment does not directly change the law but it gives the Secretary of State the power to carry out all the recommendations of the Association of Chief Police Officers supported by the Office of Fair Trading working party. The regulation-making power is included because many problems of definition must be resolved, together with ownership of the salvage and the safety check.
I have spoken at length because the issue is complicated. It is necessary that the Committee should address itself to the matter. The danger of unsafe vehicles has been illustrated by the survey published this morning. Many Members of the Committee and of the public will have heard about it to their considerable consternation. I hope that the amendments will go some way towards improving the situation. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill: I am pleased to indicate that the Opposition will support the three amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I am pleased that he has covered the ground fully and I intend to refer to only one or two matters. I have reread the excellent speech made on 18th March at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. In reply, the Minister took the view that the Government's provisions in the Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 were sufficient. The
958
noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. He considered that, despite the amendments, the proposals in the Bill require further strengthening.
The amendments were also debated in the Standing Committee of another place. Although the Minister appeared to be sympathetic to the points raised, he considered that it was unnecessary to extend the powers of trading standards officers. At col. 431 of the Standing Committee the Minister said that the Government saw no need for duplication on the matter. He added that local authority trading standards officers already had enough on their plate and were not skilled in vehicle inspection.
I am prepared to accept the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the issue because he is extremely competent and fully informed. He stated that the Department of Transport vehicle examiners and the police are not able to devote any significant resources to inspecting cars on dealers' forecourts. He added:
"Trading standards officers … spend much of their time dealing with the problems of used cars". [Official Report, 18/3/91; col. 431]
In drafting the Bill, I wonder how far the Institute of Trading Standards Administration has been consulted. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to today's report. There may be attempts to rubbish that report. However, information in the report is backed up by what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said on Second Reading and backed up further by the very detailed discussions which took place in Standing Committee. I believe that the Government should consider very seriously these three amendments and should be prepared to accept them.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: It will come as no surprise to Members of the Committee that I shall oppose all three amendments. Basically, that opposition stems from the discussions which we had when the Private Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was before us. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will agree that it is a pity that we reached this very important series of amendments at this late hour because I do not believe that the Committee will welcome any long discussion on them at this time.
Perhaps I may try to encapsulate my objections as shortly as I can and we shall see where we go from there. I take the same view as the Government with regard to the powers which Amendment No. 23 seeks to give to the trading standards officers. I am not prepared to accept allegations that neither the police nor the Department of Transport examiners have not the resources to undertake the work required of them. Indeed there are facilities outside those two bodies for competent examining engineers to be engaged.
Amendment No. 23 subsection (2) states:
"after the words ('authorised examiner') there shall be inserted ('or authorised officer')".
Later in the amendment there is a description of what is an authorised officer:
"'authorised' officer means an officer of a local weights and measures authority who is duly authorised by the authority to enforce in their area the provisions of this section".
That seems gobbledegook to me. The examiner is either competent or an officer with competency in that area. Let us have no other nonsense about that.

959
Examining authorised trading standards officers have an immense volume of business. On numerous occasions we have had discussions in this Chamber on consumer affairs when the Opposition and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in his capacity as president of the association, have claimed that trading standards officers need more resources to undertake their duties in consumer protection legislation. I recall that particularly as regards safety of toys. Therefore, that argument does not wash.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to the survey. I read that. I have seen hundreds of surveys over the past 20 years or so. What the noble Lord did not say—perhaps because he did not have the opportunity to do so—was exactly what constituted unroadworthiness. It is quite unreasonable to expect traders to bring to a particular standard motor vehicles which they offer for sale which may end up on the scrap heap if they are not sold after 12 weeks or so. It is an unreasonable burden to expect legitimate traders to put on new windscreen wipers, new tyres and to repair trafficators. The trader may eventually scrap the vehicle, sell it into the trade or sell it for spares. So I do not believe that the second of this series of amendments is reasonable.
Who, selling a piece of furniture claiming it to be antique, or selling a used lawn mower or a car, says: "The piece of furniture will not stand on its four legs. It will fall over. The lawn mower will not cut any grass until you do this, that or the other. The car will not drive d awn the road unless you put on a new battery, four new tyres, fit a new gear box and back axle and a new engine". It is absolutely ridiculous to expect any trader to say, "This is not any good at all and you should not buy it".
Perhaps at this late hour one might amuse oneself and the Committee a little by referring to an eminent chairman of a very large company who so described his own goods at the Institute of Directors conference. I do not think that his remarks gave much confidence to his business. I do not think the requirements of Amendment No. 24 will give much confidence to the motor industry. Even when I was engaged in that industry I always maintained that there were enough people to give advice to potential buyers. I have in mind the motoring organisations and independent engineers.
One may have a motor car on a forecourt with tyres which re not as good as one might expect. It is not unreasonable that the replacement of those tyres should be part of the negotiation over the sale and purchase of the vehicle. I see no reason to stick notices on windscreens. The practicality of doing so is impossible. One may buy 100 vehicles in an ex-fleet disposal. One can contract to have those vehicles delivered to one's premises, which almost certainly will be in the open air. The vehicles are delivered. If it is held that purely by being on the forecourt the vehicles are on offer for sale, then someone will have to go round quickly and stick 100 notices on the windscreens saying that they are not for sale but, even if they are, they are unroadworthy. That is absolute
960
nonsense. I do not like the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has framed the amendment to deal with what he considers to be an impost.
I have some sympathy with Amendment No. 51. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, spoke about ringing. I shall speak about the practice known as the cut and shut job—the front end of one vehicle and the back end of another being joined together and never mind where the document goes in between. There are plenty of vehicles that have been in serious accidents which are most competently and properly repaired and which can represent good value. There are others that do not. That is not the responsibility of the motor industry but of the insurance company. Not four months ago I had a total loss claim. It was dealt with as a total loss because the insurance company would not agree to what I considered, as a licensed engineer, needed to be done; namely, the replacement of the steering gear. I suspect that that motor car will be repaired and go on the market without the steering gear being replaced.
That is not the motor trader's fault. The vehicle could be repaired anywhere and offered for sale. It is the responsibility of the insurance company. I suspect that the total loss claim was agreed to save hassle. As regards the document to be surrendered someone has to say, "This is a serious accident and a serious piece of damage and the repair must be certificated". Who is to do that? Who is to bear the cost of that? Ultimately, it will be the purchaser. If the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and his noble friend Lord Tordoff have grave concerns about this matter, we must find a different answer. The answer lies with the insurance company.
I see problems with all three amendments. I can understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for which I have some small sympathy. But I do not think that these solutions are the right ones for that problem.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Unlike my noble friend I have a good deal of sympathy with Amendment No. 51. I received a letter from the ABI which referred to four amendments. It rejected all but one; obviously, that of my noble friend on the Front Bench. My noble friend Lord Lucas knows far more than I do about cars. However, I believe it is scandalous that cars that have been almost written off should appear for sale on the street. If one gets behind such a vehicle one can see that the back wheels are out of alignment with the front ones. Although I have not consulted RoSPA on this matter I should have thought that it would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that for safety's sake it must be right that a written-off car is a written-off car.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for giving such a detailed explanation of the three amendments. I shall try to deal with them as best I can.
Section 77 of the Road Traffic Act already gives power to the police as well as to vehicle examiners to enforce the law on the sale of unroadworthy vehicles.

961
I am not convinced that statutory powers should be given to a further group of people—a group moreover whose expertise lies in consumer protection rather than vehicle safety. The department's vehicle examiners are fully qualified to inspect vehicles, whereas many local authority trading standards officers are not—they would need to take another person along with them. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, recognised that point.
The Vehicle Inspectorate can and does already co-operate with trading standards departments in joint checks on dealers' forecourts. I do not suggest that such checks are immensely frequent. But there was a series of joint checks in March this year involving Vehicle Inspectorate examiners at Cardiff, Grimsby, Stoke-on-Trent and Edinburgh, during which 251 vehicles were inspected. There are of course resource issues here. A new nationwide power for trading standards departments would certainly have to be weighed against other competing financial priorities for local authorities.
Moreover, it is important to note that the purpose of Sections 75 and 77 of the Road Traffic Act is to ensure that vehicles in use on the road are in a roadworthy condition. The aim is road safety. It is quite proper that this responsibility should lie with the Vehicle Inspectorate, along with its responsibilities for a wide range of activities aimed at enforcing vehicle safety standards, such as routine checks on MOT garages and annual testing of commercial vehicles. But it is also right that the inspectorate should prioritise its work according to the road safety benefits. It is not clear that the abuses which trouble the noble Lord constitute a major road safety problem. It seems to me that the powers which the noble Lord is seeking for trading standards officers relate essentially to the protection of consumers. That is quite properly dealt with in separate trades descriptions legislation. I do not think it would be appropriate to introduce these provisions into road traffic law.
I turn now to Amendment No. 24. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, the Government have already brought forward an amendment to Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 dealing with the sale of unroadworthy vehicles. That was in response to the concerns expressed in another place that it is too easy to avoid conviction for these offences using the existing statutory defence.
The existing defence is that the seller has reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle would not be used on a road in Great Britain or would not be used until it had been put into a lawful condition. We have accepted that there was a problem. I am not convinced, however, that introducing specific requirements about the prominent display of notices in windscreens and prominent notes in sales documents are either necessary or desirable. I do not think that notices are the only way in which a seller can discharge his responsibility. Indeed there are some kinds of transaction where it would not be appropriate. My noble friend Lord Lucas has mentioned some. Moreover, we do not wish to encourage protracted
962
legal arguments about the meaning of "prominent", and the size of the letters used. It is by no means clear precisely what the notices would be expected to say. I do not think that this approach would work sensibly in practice. It could provide a field day for lawyers.
I am also not convinced about the need to make special requirements where a vehicle has already been sold. The problem with the existing statutory defence is with offers for sale, where a salesman may argue that the state of the vehicle would have been made known to the purchaser before the deal was completed. There is no evidence that a salesman can, under the current law, retrospectively avoid his responsibilities where a vehicle has already been sold. It is highly unlikely that he could demonstrate reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle would not be used on the road without having made clear to the purchaser that it was unroadworthy.
We believe it is more appropriate to have a general requirement on sellers. That is why we introduced in another place what is now Clause 16 of the Bill. That puts on sellers a clear responsibility to ensure that an unroadworthy vehicle offered for sale would not be used in its present condition, by requiring them to take all reasonable steps to ensure that a prospective purchaser is aware that its use would be unlawful. I believe that the words "all reasonable steps" constitute a term which is quite frequently used and understood in legislation. I feel that that approach is the best one in the interests of road safety.
I turn now to Amendment No. 51. The proposed new clause would enable regulations to be made introducing new systems of controls over damaged vehicles where there is no evidence to show that it would make a real contribution to reducing the toll of death and injury on our roads. I appreciate that recent reports suggest that vehicles repaired after accident damage may represent a threat to road safety. But we would need to think very carefully before justifying the introduction of new burdens on the insurance industry and the extra costs for government agencies.
Similarly, the new clause would not catch—and this is the real problem—all accident damaged vehicles, especially if the damage had not been notified to the DVLA or to an insurance company. That would probably, or might, be the case with a vehicle insured only for third party risks. No doubt some unscrupulous persons would go out of their way to conceal the previous history of vehicles. The result could be a hit-and-miss statutory provision which left motorists in an uncertain position. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that this is not an area into which we should jump unthinkingly. However, we shall keep the position under review.
I know that the police have identified a particular problem where stolen vehicles are given the identity of written-off vehicles. The DVLA and the insurance companies are voluntarily co-operating in a scheme to give information to the police which will help them to target these vehicles. Insurers notify the DVLA of the identity of vehicles which are most likely, later on, to be disguises for stolen cars. The DVLA makes that

963
information available to the police. I understand that the scheme is working well. I see no need for a new statutory requirement on that matter at this stage.
I have given a fairly lengthy reply to the amendments. I know that it is late at night and that the noble Lord will no doubt wish to read in Hansard what I have said. In my turn I shall read what he has said. In the meantime, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Before the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, replies, I wonder whether my noble friend will look again at Amendment No. 51. The Government seem to be in close agreement with the ABI over certain other matters that I shall deal with shortly, and about which they disagree with me. Can they not come to a firmer agreement about written-off cars to ensure that they do not appear on the roads, with the log books either having been burnt or sent back to Swansea? It is a major issue and one which was discussed in the corridors of power just a few minutes ago. We must look into the matter of cars which have been in serious accidents reappearing on the road.
I should like my noble friend to reconsider the matter and consult the ABI. The association is scratching the Government's back as regards drinking and driving, so perhaps both parties can now scratch each other's backs for a change.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I do not propose to respond in great detail, even if I were capable of doing so. I am here very much as a surrogate mover of these amendments. Nevertheless, I feel strongly that there is much to be commended in the amendments or, at least, in what lies behind them.
I am slightly worried by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, totally rubbishing the survey that was published this morning. Clearly, there are serious problems which the amendments are designed to address. However, to compare a broken down motor vehicle with an antique with a leg missing or a lawn mower.hat does not cut the grass to an adequate level is bizarre. We are talking about putting on the road vehicles that can kill and maim.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: If the noble Lord will forgive me, will he say how many fatal and serious injury accidents have occurred in the past, whatever period he cares to choose, as a result of mechanical failure?
Lord Tordoff: The noble Lord is well aware that I cannot give him the figure just like that. I dare say that the Department of Transport could not give him a figure. We all know that it is dangerous to put cars on the road which are in an unfit condition. Otherwise we should have no legislation on these matters; we should allow people to drive all over the place with bald tyres and bits hanging off vehicles. We would not bother with any construction and use regulations. I cannot follow the noble Lord down that line of argument.
At bast the noble Lord agrees with me on Amendment No. 51, which will be some comfort to my noble friend Lord Ezra when he reads the debate
964
tomorrow. I listened to what the Minister had to say. There was a great deal of it, for which I am most grateful. His suggestion that trading standards officers are concerned with consumer protection and not road safety may be slightly unfair. If we can use that additional agency to improve road safety, we should do so. It is clear from the figures in the survey produced this morning that the existing agencies cannot deal with the problem in the way that it should be dealt with.
It was suggested that the trading standards officers are not competent to do those jobs as the Minister acknowledged I dealt with that point to some extent —but they are accustomed to using other agencies. For instance, they check on the prices at the petrol pumps in garages. They do not do those jobs themselves; they employ other agents to do them for them. They are capable of doing that.
We are dealing with serious matters. I do not propose to go any further on this point tonight. My noble friend Lord Ezra and his advisers are much more competent to deal with the subject than I am. I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Physical fitness]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 13, line 37, at end insert:
("() In subsection (2) of section 96 of that Act (driving with uncorrected defective eyesight) after the word "above" there shall be inserted the words "or that he has committed a traffic offence whilst the vehicle was in motion, or that he was involved in an accident owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road,").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed essentially to support police powers contained in Section 96 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Committee will recall that the Act provides that drivers should be able to read a number plate with figures and letters 31/2 inches high from a distance of 67 feet. That obtained in the 1987 regulations. Before that drivers were required to be able to read a number plate with letters and numbers 31/2 inches high at a distance of 75 feet. That requirement was set down in 1935. No one is clear why that configuration was arrived at in 1935, and, with the one change that I mentioned, it has remained unaltered ever since.
However, there is evidence to suggest that even with that minimal test of the acuity of drivers, about 4 per cent. (1 million drivers) fail the test. The ophthalmic institutions, with the co-operation of some police forces, have undertaken surveys, and the police have indicated that there are grounds for concern. When pressed to ensure that such a test is carried out at the scene of an accident or perhaps at another place rather more convenient, some police authorities have suggested that the powers in the 1988 Act are not adequate.
This small and simple amendment seeks to underline that the police have the authority and powers to have a test conducted at the scene of an

965
accident or some other place that may be more convenient, at another time. Then we shall be able to establish whether the non-scientific, but nevertheless fairly responsible surveys are accurate. It is hoped that they will lead to an international research programme which will establish the scientific basis for eyesight in relation to drivers' ability. I do not believe that this is a controversial issue. I trust that the Government and your Lordships' Committee will see fit to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: On the face of it, this seems to be a reasonable proposition, but having regard to some arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, this evening, I begin to doubt whether I should accept it at first sight. I am only teasing the noble Lord. He said that there seems to be a problem, but is there any evidence that a substantial or significant number of accidents have resulted from drivers suffering from defective eyesight? I should like to ask both the Minister and the noble Lord that question. Is it felt that a provision of this kind would act as an incentive to people to persuade them that their eyes should be tested regularly?
I shall not embark upon the controversial issues that were raised in Question Time earlier today about the costs and the Government's policies; it is much too late. Those are reasonable questions. Incidentally, following an accident in Hampstead the other day, of which I happened to see the afterߞeffects, the alleged offender told the police officer that he ought to have an eyesight test. However, that is another matter.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I put my name down to my noble friend's amendment with which I have even more sympathy. Although there is little evidence available in the UK linking poor or defective vision with accidents, there is information from the USA which indicates that about 15 per cent. of all drivers who have been involved in a road traffic accident have defective vision. The vast majority of road safety practitioners agree that there would be an advantage in tightening the regulations which govern the level of required vision prior to issuing a driving licence.
A prime example of this is the issuing of authorisation to drive an invalid carriage. I am told by RoSPA that all that a disabled person requires in order to be permitted to drive such a vehicle is a letter from the GP. RoSPA told me of a case where a stroke victim who had lost 25 per cent. of the vision of her right eye and 50 per cent. of the left eye had been permitted to drive such a vehicle on the road. RoSPA has said that it would favour a further amendment; namely, the testing of the usable vision of all drivers who have been involved in a road traffic accident or, at second best, the testing of all drivers who have been involved in an accident where injury has been caused. Thus we would begin to build up a really useful data base to prove the efficacy of a better required usable vision standard. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's reply.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I appreciate my noble friend's concern about the potential risks taken by drivers with defective eyesight. The amendment seeks to widen the circumstances in which the police may require a driver to submit to an eyesight test so as to include those who have committed a moving traffic offence or been involved in an accident, whether or not the police suspect them of having defective eyesight.
The powers of the police to require a driver to submit to an eyesight test are already very wide. It is a criminal offence to drive with uncorrected defective vision. Under Section 96(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 they may test whenever they suspect a driver of being unable to meet the statutory eyesight standard —that is, the ability to read a number plate at 20.5 metres. In practice, committing a moving traffic offence or being involved in an accident may well give a police officer cause to suspect the driver involved of having defective eyesight, in which case the power to test the driver's eyesight applies.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, there is no evidence that defective vision is a significant factor in road accidents. Indeed young drivers, who might be expected to have the best eyesight, have the worst accident record. I do not believe, therefore, that any extension of existing police powers to test the eyesight of drivers is necessary. I would not wish to place an additional burden on the police by giving wider powers which would raise expectations of a higher level of testing. With that explanation I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his response. I confirm what he has just said in reply to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I have no evidence that bad eyesight is a significant contributory factor to accidents. However, the point is that one is trying to establish whether there is such evidence. I had not envisaged that my amendment would widen police powers and I have no great wish to place any greater burdens on the police than they already have. I should like to give further consideration to what the Minister said in regard to an effect that I had not intended. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Exception from requirement of third party insurance
. —(1) Section 144 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (which removes the requirement for third party insurance or security where £15,000 is kept deposited with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court) for "£15,000" there shall be substituted "£500,000".
(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted —
"(1A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a greater sum for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (1) above.

967
(1B) No order shall be made under subsection (1A) above unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord 13rabazon of Tara I wish to move Amendment No. 26 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 27 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Teviot. This new clause responds to concerns expressed in another place about the provision of the Road Traffic Act which permits sums to he deposited with the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court as an alternative to taking out motor insurance or a security in respect of third party risks. Under this scheme depositors are required to meet third party claims from their own resources. The provision and the deposit of £15,000 have remained unchanged since the scheme was introduced in 1930. At the time £15,001) was sufficient evidence of the depositor's ability to meet third party claims and bore some relation to the highest level of claim resulting from a road accident.
The replacement figure of £500,000 seeks to reflect the intention of the scheme in today's terms. The proposed sum of £250,000 does not adequately reflect the original intention of the deposit. The figure of £250,000, despite being a major increase on the current figure of £15,000, also fails properly to reflect the high levels of compensation now awarded by the courts in some cases. The new clause also permits further increases in the deposit by order subject to affirmative resolution.
The new clause is needed for the protection of road accident victims. I hope that the Committee will accept the government amendment as tabled and reject the amendment to it. I beg to move.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 26, Amendment No. 27:
Line 7, leave out ("£500,000") and insert ("£250,000").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 27 I take note of every word that my noble friend said. I agree that the figure of £15,000 was very much out of date. However, it is the strong view of the Bus and Coach Council and the Freight Transport Association that £500,000 is rather a bitter pill and is too great a sum to be locked into. They feel that £250,000 is a more realistic figure.
I cannot speak for the Freight Transport Association, but the bus industry considers that it would he more practical, and cheaper, to make its own arrangements for insurance. It would also take out other insurance cover for calamities.
I shall listen to what my noble friend has to say. One does not want inflation. Inflation may go up, and that is a situation that neither the Government nor any one else wants. However, I am sure that the Committee will agree that a 33-times increase is too great. I hope that my noble friend will listen to what I have to say. I am sure that he will not agree with it, but I do not believe that there will be any takers —or very few takers —for the new arrangement. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I am astonished. If he were able to
968
justify the increase I should certainly go along with it, but an increase since the 1988 Act from £15,000 to £500,000 cannot reflect the change in economic circumstances.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: It is an increase since 1930.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am sorry. However, the sum included in the 1988 Act was £15,000. The amendment reads:
"Section 144 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 shall be amended as follows".
The figure was satisfactory to the Government in 1988. The thought that must go through everybody's mind is, why has there been such a change to £500,000? It appears that the Government had not thought of making the change until Report stage in the other place, when an amendment was put down by two Conservative Back-Bench Members of Parliament. The amendments were not called for debate and the Government thought again about the matter. It is a surprising omission that they did not deal with the matter in the Bill without prompting from their Back-Benchers, and then the figure jumped to £500,000.
I do not propose to oppose the amendment, but I should like to hear a closer explanation of the position.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I understand full well the difference. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked why the matter was not considered in the 1988 Act. The answer is that the 1988 Act was a consolidation Act.
Lord Teviot: I am very glad of the support of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I have listened to what my noble friend had to say, but it is too late to do anything about the matter this evening or to take it further. Therefore, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 26 agreed to.
Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Prohibition on insurance against certain offences
. —(1) Any clause in a contract of insurance purporting to accept liability for loss sustained by the insured as a result of disqualification under section 34 or 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 shall be null and void.
(2) No person shall provide, or offer to provide, a contract of insurance purporting to accept liability for loss sustained by the insured as a result of disqualification following the commission of an offence against the provisions of section 34 or 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
(3) If any person contravenes this section he shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.").
The noble Lord said: I have no intention of pressing the amendment tonight. It prohibits the provision of insurance policies offering protection

969
against the consequences of disqualification for serious traffic offences under Sections 34 and 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
I and others believe that this availability diminishes the impact of the penalty and respect for the law. The Road Traffic Law Review saw disqualification as the major tool for dealing with serious road traffic offences, as I know to my cost when, many years ago, I was banned for a year. Not only is it very inconvenient, but it also makes you realise what a fool you were. It makes you very conscious not to do it again because the second time hurts more than the first. So compensating the offender by that means would do much to lessen the impact of the penalty. A driver's advance knowledge that a serious offence could be committed without adverse consequences removes any deterrent which the law may have.
I understand that, in 1988, the ABI and the DTI announced that insurance policies which protected the driver from the consequences of disqualification for drink or drug offences were undesirable and should be ended. However, I am told that that voluntary agreement did not extend to all serious driving offences and even the new offences replacing reckless driving in the Bill would not be covered by that agreement. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I share the noble Lord's concerns about the availability, even on a limited scale, of insurance against the consequences of disqualification. However, I am not convinced that the new clause would solve the problem. In considering the North Report's recommendation, we considered the possibility of legislation to deal with this, but we were not convinced that the legislation could be rigorously enforced. That is why we accepted the industry's offer of voluntary agreement, on behalf of all the insurance companies operating in this field, to bring an end to the worst aspects of these policies; namely, the cover they provide against drink and drug-related driving offences. I believe that the voluntary agreement, under which no new policies were offered after 31st December 1988 and all existing policies were phased out after 31st December last year, offers the most effective way of tackling the problem.
I do not believe that simply declaring such policies null and void would have any significant effect in practice. Enforcement would rarely be an issue and it would usually anyway be in the interests of both parties to abide by the agreement. I am not convinced that it would prevent such policies being offered and it would not be practical to create a further offence of entering into such a contract.
For those reasons we think it better to continue to rely on the agreement with the industry. I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that he does not intend to press the amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I am grateful for my noble friend's reply and I shall study his comments with interest. As I said with regard to Amendment No. 51, I hope that the Government and the industry come to a serious agreement about the effect of cars. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Information as to identity of driver etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 32 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Speeding Offences etc: admissibility of certain evidence]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 17, line 39, after ("device") insert:
("including a tachograph which shall be sequentially numbered").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 35. I am sorry to have to go into detail on this amendment, but it is an important amendment. I must confess that I feel like going back to Amendment No. I dealing with driving when fatigued. That may be the state after the House rises. Clause 22 deals with the admissibility of certain evidence of measurement of speed by radar. Subsection (4) reads as follows:
"A record produced or measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be admissible as evidence … unless … the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State, and … any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied".
The amendment proposes that the possible device shall include:
"a tachograph which shall be sequentially numbered".
A similar amendment went before the Commons Standing Committee. Attention was drawn in that Committee to a previous Commons debate on the matter on 9th November 1990 in a Committee on Statutory Instruments. Mrs Ruddock quoted a speech by the then Minister, Mr Robert Atkins. I quote from col. 4 of the report:
"The idea of putting serial numbers on cards is a good one. I have not heard of it before and I confess that I had assumed that such a practice was already automatic. My officials advise me that we can consider the matter again, and we shall certainly do so. I shall take a personal interest, because serialisation on the cards seems only logical".
Mr. Atkins left the department. Mrs. Ruddock said that in December last (a year after that Committee debate) she received a letter from the current Minister, Mr. Christopher Chope. That turned down any move towards serialisation. The new Minister explained that the matter had been further considered by the department and for a number of reasons the serialisation of tachographs was considered not worthwhile. Those reasons are set out in col. 99 of the Committee report. It was pointed out that sequential numbering of tachographs was a practice in various European countries.
The Transport and General Workers Union is strongly in support of the proposal. It may be recalled that at Second Reading I referred to the importance of enforcing the law on tachographs. The union was concerned with the question of drivers' working hours and rest periods. This is of vital importance not only in the interests of drivers but from the point of view of road safety. The Minister agreed that there were some businesses in Britain which had adopted this practice, and he confirmed that serialisation was followed by the National Freight Corporation. It would be very interesting to learn from the Minister the department's

971
current thinking and whether or not there is any possibility of the European Commission adopting a directive on the issue.
Amendment No. 35 is a simple but important amendment which seeks to make a further condition as set out in paragraph (c). Once again, a similar amendment was considered by the Commons Committee, along with the amendment on tachograph serialisation. Whether or not serialisation is adopted, the issue in this further amendment is very important and should be a desirable procedure. Unfortunately, on reading the Standing Committee's report, I cannot see the second amendment being referred to specifically by the Minister. Therefore, in addition to comments on Amendment No. 33, I seek particular observations from the Minister with regard to Amendment No. 35. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Evidence from tachograph records or work records can in the normal way already be submitted in road traffic cases where it is relevant. That is the position at present and there is nothing in Clause 22 which would alter that position. However, I cannot see how the special provisions in Clause 22 are expected to work in relation to such evidence. First it would not be appropriate for the police to submit such evidence on the basis of a signed certificate because, unlike evidence from approved devices, it would not speak for itself. On the contrary, it would be not speak for a person to speak to the record and explain to the court the significance of the information it contained. Another point made in the other place when the EC tachograph regulation was implemented was that the information from tachographs could not be used to calculate precisely where a vehicle was at a particular time.
On the question of serialisation of tachograph charts, the Government recently announced its decision that on balance it would not be worthwhile. It would cause extra costs both to the industry and the department's enforcement staffs for virtually no gain, since enforcement officers can already detect the ploys which are used to circumvent drivers' hours requirements. It would put an extra unnecessary burden on operators to have to introduce new procedures for issuing and checking charts. Manufacturers' costs would be increased because sequentially numbered packs of charts could be guaranteed only by checking and making corrections at the time of issue. That would also delay the issuing process.
So far as concerns the employers' liability, it is already possible to lay charges of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring a speeding offence. There would of course have to be substantial evidence linking the employer to a specific act of the employee. I am sure that is right. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will agree that simple assertions that the?Fender was speeding because his employer expected him to do so should not be sufficient to secure a conviction.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Underhill: I shall study very carefully what the Minister said about the legal aspect, on which, not being qualified in the law, I shall need to have advice. The Minister has not explained why the National Freight Corporation sees no problem at all in handling the matter of serialisation on the tachographs that it uses and why certain Continental countries find that this is necessary. This is a matter to which we shall have to come back on Report. On that occasion we may have further useful advice from my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, who is well aware of the history of this matter in the European Commission. It was not always helped by British transport Ministers trying to get an undertaking.
I notice that the Minister nods his head. Therefore I say to my noble friend that we shall be on very sound ground when we come back at Report stage.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I can say only that the Commission was not always helpful in getting what the British Government wanted in some of these matters either.
Lord Underhill: That is sometimes because the British Government ask for the wrong thing or oppose the right thing. Naturally I shall not go further with this matter tonight. I give notice that this is undoubtedly a matter to which we shall return on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 17, line 42, after ("approved") insert ("in regulations made").
The noble Lord said: My comments about fatigue earlier seem more true than ever. In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 36.
The Committee may recall what I said in the Second Reading debate. I shall not quote it. I referred to a situation which arose a few years ago when, discussing a transport Bill, we considered the use of radar speed equipment. I said that I hoped that we would not find ourselves in the same position as we had done on that occasion. We endeavoured to move an amendment at Committee stage but the Government would not listen. At Report stage the Government would not listen. But eventually at Third Reading the Government brought forward a somewhat watered down amendment which we were very happy to see.
In his reply during the Second Reading debate to which I referred, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, mentioned the quotation that I had used and said that he could assure me:
"that the Bill already provides that the equipment used to detect speeding and red light offences will have to be type approved". —[Official Report, 18/3/91; col. 480.]
But one must look at the wording in the Bill. Subsection (4) says that:
"evidence shall not be admissible … unless … the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State".
Then in subsection (9):
"In this section 'prescribed device' means device of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
Surely there must be general agreement in the Committee that this provision is woefully inadequate. The terms of the amendment which I ask the Committee to approve are much more explicit. On this matter the Royal Automobile Club has stated that it is in agreement with the use of the new technology — I quote from a statement which it issued —
"provided the equipment is regularly tested and approved to establish that it meets standards of accuracy and reliability".
That would be greatly assisted if the Committee were to accept my amendment. Frankly, I can see no reason whatever why the Government should not do so. They obviously agree that there should be a specified device —the one approved —but the provisions in the Bill are weak and those in the amendment are far more definite and explicit. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for raising the important question of the setting of standards for type approval and operation of these devices. It provides me with a useful opportunity to explain the proposed type approval process.
The proposed type approval process is a necessarily protracted one to ensure that the device is properly tested. It is based on the process already in operation for radar speed detection devices. We expect that it will involve the individual manufacturer demonstrating the device to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), and if they are potentially interested practical assessments will be carried out by one or more police forces. Those results would then be assessed by ACPO and if satisfactory, the manufacturers referred to the Home Office who will arrange technical testing for the device by an independent laboratory. The testing would be against the standard laid down in the relevant Home Office specification handbook drawn up by the Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB). The speedmeter handbook uses British Standards in various of its requirements; it also follows international standards set by OIML (the international organisation of legal metrology). The specification will be subject also to approval by the EC. The results of the independent testing of the device are assessed by PSDB and a report will then be submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration of type approval. If type approval is agreed to, it is envisaged that the manufacturer will be required to sign a formal agreement which among other matters requires him to ensure the specification is not changed. Type approval will be finally given by the Secretary of State signing an order specifying the particular device. Once type approval has been given, evidence from the device is admissible in proceedings.
Noble Lords will appreciate from what I have said that we already envisage a rigorous testing process against high standards. The processes and standards involved are to be set out in handbooks relating to the specific types of device concerned and where British Standard specifications exist for elements of those requirements they are expected to apply. Moreover the handbooks will follow the international OIML standard and be approved by the EC. I do not therefore think there can be any doubt about the
974
standards required for the type approval process. And these will be openly available. The first handbook on speedmeters is expected to be available in draft to interested manufacturers shortly. It is subject to EC approval.
In putting down his amendment the noble Lord has also suggested that conditions should be prescribed about the operation and maintenance of approved devices. I can assure him and the Committee that we wish to ensure that the devices are used within their technical and operational capabilities. That is one of the reasons why we have introduced this type approval process into the Bill. However, we do not consider that reliance on manufacturers' instructions alone is sufficient. Operational standards are matters to be set by the police in consultation with the Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) and these will be drawn up within the limits of manufacturers' instructions. The Bill already provides for the Secretary of State to give his approval subject to the conditions as to the purpose for which and the manner and any other circumstances in which the device is to be used. This provision ensures that the Secretary of State has the specific authority to tailor his requirements to the particular device concerned. I can assure the Committee that the Secretary of State will be looking most carefully at applications for type approval in the light of that power. I do not therefore think that this amendment is necessary as we shall be setting high standards in an open way which can be applied to particular devices and take account of the latest developments.
I hope that with that rather detailed explanation of how we have set about this matter, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply, which was very encouraging. However, when one compares it with the provisions in the Bill, one can understand the anxiety underlying the amendment. Nothing in the Bill gives the encouragement that I have received from the Minister's reply. If the amendment achieved nothing more, the Government's intentions will now be down in black and white.
We shall read carefully what the Minister said. At this time of night one's brain is not entirely clear. I still cannot understand why the Government are shy about dealing with a British Standard specification. It appears in Amendment No. 36 but the Minister made no reference to it —
Lord Brabazon of Tara: When the noble Lord reads my reply he will see that the words British Standard are used frequently. Where there is a standard we shall adopt it.
Lord Underhill: That proves that my mind is becoming blank. I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply and shall read it in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past eleven o'clock.