My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, while the recent decision of the European Court of Justice in the French tariffs cases helpfully confirms that the competition rules of the treaty apply to air transport, it does not suggest that government approval procedures for air fares are illegal. I understand that the Commission is awaiting the outcome of the 18th June Transport Council before deciding what further steps it may wish to take.

My Lords, I know that the Minister wishes to help, and I do not doubt the good faith of the Government on this matter. However, concerning the Answer that he has just given, is he aware that I have a Question down for 26th June, and that perhaps with that Question we may get a definition of the decision referred to? Referring to the Question on the Order Paper today, does the Minister realise that I asked him whether any further progress had been made in the detailed preparation of possible court cases, of which we were told originally on 23rd January? Can the Minister enlighten us on that point?

My Lords, I appreciate the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, is trying to help the Government in this matter, and in turn I shall do my best to help the noble Baroness. What the Commission said was that unless there was satisfactory progress in the council by June, it would itself take steps to apply the competition rules of the treaty. We must therefore await the outcome of the 18th June council. We shall of course do what we can to speed up things, but, as I say, it is for the Commission to decide what steps it may wish to take.

My Lords, in view of the fact that many of the member states obey the Commission rulings as and when it suits them will the noble Viscount give the House an assurance that the rights of the United Kingdom are thoroughly protected?

My Lords, I can certainly give that assurance.

My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for his reply. It shows what one can do by a little co-operation. May I ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware that Mr. Spicer, at a recent conference in Manchester, said that if real competition in European air services could not be achieved by negotiation, the United Kingdom would be compelled to take the matter to the European Court? In view of his answer may we assume that after 1st July, when we have assumed the presidency of the EC, matters will then move speedily?

My Lords, I am hopeful that when we assume the presidency matters will proceed even faster than they are going at the moment. We already have liberal bilateral agreements with the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, West Germany and Switzerland, and we are continuing our efforts to secure similar arrangements with other countries. We have not been standing absolutely still.

My Lords, reverting to the question of the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, would my noble friend the Minister agree that while the rights of this country are of course of supreme importance they do not include, or embrace, any violations of the rule of law?

My Lords, I should like to say that that is outside the scope of the Question.

My Lords, the noble Viscount referred to the important meeting to be held, I think he said, later this month, following which the Government will decide their own actions. Can we be assured that a Statement will be made on this important issue?

My Lords, I understand that a Statement will be made after the council meeting on 18th June.

My Lords, will the noble Viscount inform his noble friend Lord Broxbourne that he may have his rights under Article 177 of the European treaty, and have his own case stated?

My Lords, I do not think I need to; he has just been informed.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts has already made it clear in another place that the Government see no justification for this action. He has received complaints about 14 library authorities. He has now written to the authorities concerned to ask them whether the complaints are true and, if so, how they reconcile their action with their duties under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. He will consider what further action to take in the light of their replies.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask him first how many of the local authorities have yet replied? Secondly, is he aware that the Minister has substantial powers under the Public Libraries Act 1964, in Sections 1 and 10, and that it is disappointing to some of us that those powers have not been exercised as yet? Finally, is the noble Lord aware that this type of totalitarian behaviour by local authorities in taking newspapers out of public libraries because they dislike the proprietor of the newspapers is wholly unworthy of people involved in local government administration in this country?

My Lords, I think replies have been received from about three of the local authorities concerned. My understanding is that two of the 14 authorities have made clear that this position does not apply to them, and I think that is encouraging. The noble Lord asked whether there were powers under Sections 1 and 10 of the 1964 Act which enable the Government to move in this matter. As I said in my original reply, my right honourable friend has written to library authorities about this matter, and I think that we should consider the position when the replies have been received. With regard to the third point that the noble Lord made, I entirely agree with him.

My Lords, can my noble friend make it clear that in the unhappy event of an unsatisfactory answer from authorities which are behaving as badly as this his right honourable friend has powers to act, or, if he has not powers to act, will take them?

My Lords, there is a power to act. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, under Section 10 of the 1964 Act.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that although personally I have switched from The Times to the Daily Telegraph, many of us are in favour of these papers being placed in public libraries? But in regard to the Morning Star, which is excluded from many libraries, does he not agree that there should be the same right to read it in public libraries, even though we differ from its views?

My Lords, I hope that the choice of reading of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, does not mean that he is veering dangerously to the Right. The noble Lord's second point is a very important one. Perhaps I may say on behalf of the Government that we deplore any attempt to ban from public libraries particular books or newspapers for which there is a demand.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the position of the Labour Party on this matter? The local government committee of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party sent out an advice note to local authorities in February. It was sent to all Labour groups and affiliated trade unions and it said that keeping the papers from public libraries was undesirable censorship.

My Lords, I think we welcome the news which the noble Baroness has given in that question.

My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, join the rest of the House in expressing the hope that the 14 Labour-controlled councils which have been involved in this practice will listen to what their own national executive has to say?

I do, my Lords.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the festival organisers have worked closely with regional and national tourist agencies to ensure that the festival becomes the main feature in Staffordshire's tourist calendar of 1986, and hope to attract up to 4 million visitors. On closure in October, it is intended that one-third of the site will remain as permanent open space for public use, retaining some of the features of the festival.

My Lords, in thanking my noble friend the Minister for that pleasing reply, may I ask him how he thinks it will be best for the remains of the beautiful garden to be used to attract both tourists and jobs?

My Lords, the festival site extends for 180 acres, that is 73 hectares. It is intended that the site will be given over some one-third to public open space, a further third to housing and a further third again to commercial development.

My Lords, can my noble friend say how many jobs have been created by this desirable activity? In view of the very popular and somewhat overcrowded Chelsea Flower Show, on the understanding that already a quarter of a million people have already attended this festival, is there not something to be said for repeating this idea again in other parts of the country during the summer? It would bea supreme attraction not only for local people but to overseas visitors who look to England for the gardens and what they produce.

My Lords, as a professional horticulturalist, I most certainly understand and welcome the last part of my noble friend's supplementary. So far as his substantive question goes, during construction there were about 500 people on site at any given time and there are now on site some 13,000 people, including 1,000 Manpower Services Commission operatives involved with the operations of the festival.

The Stoke garden festival will be succeeded by one in Glasgow in 1988, Gateshead in 1990 and Wales in 1992.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, preliminary reports show losses averaging some 40–50 per cent. in England as a whole but there are regional variations. Losses were highest in the North of England averaging 50–60 per cent. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is continuing to monitor the position.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Have the Government any plans to aid the recovery of the national beehive? Secondly, is it their intention to relax or to maintain the rules relating to the import of queens and bees?

My Lords, we do not have any plans to relax import controls. So far as the impact of bee losses on pollination of crops is concerned, I am advised that the reports for the prospects of flowering and fruit set of top fruit crops are excellent. At present it is unlikely that pollination may be inadequate because of the losses that have been suffered in the bee stocks.

My Lords, is the Minister not aware that in the North of England there is evidence at hand to show that for some beekeepers whole colonies of bees have been wiped out and that these people are facing bankruptcy? Will the Minister cast his mind back to two or three winters ago when, because of severe snow falls, farmers in various parts of the country received Government assistance to save them from such bankruptcy? Could this type of financial assistance for people who are facing financial ruin be extended as suggested by the noble Lord who put the Question on the Order Paper?

My Lords, I very much sympathise with those who have suffered losses in their bee colonies. But I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that the financial assistance which was given last winter was given to those whose livelihoods were most seriously affected and who we thought could not continue in the livestock sector unless a special package of aid on a very limited basis was provided; and that was a once-and-for-all emergency.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the beekeepers of Britain deserve the utmost support? There is no great publicity or parliamentary lobby of beekeepers. Nevertheless, they are, and have been for 2,000 years, an esential part of life in this country. Would the noble Lord say whether he or his right honourable friend have met representatives of the Society of Beekeepers in Britain and what case they have made? Is he aware that it is true that some of these beekeepers are on the verge of insolvency as the result of the winter described by his noble friend?

My Lords, I have not met beekeepers in their professional association. I have, however, replied to a very large number of letters from beekeepers and members of another place making representations.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is possible for beekeepers to insure against a natural disaster of this sort and, if it is so, how many of them do so?

My Lords, I do not know the answer to that supplementary question. I apologise. I will find out and write to my noble friend.

My Lords, have the Government any plans to help beekeepers with the price of sugar for their winter feeding? I understand that they are having to pay £400 a ton, which is the EC price, whereas the world price for sugar is £150 a ton. Is there any way in which they can be helped during the winter months?

My Lords, cheap sugar would not have repaired the losses in the bee colonies. We do not have any such plans.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that of all the honey consumed in the United Kingdom over 70 per cent. is imported from abroad, as is the case in Europe itself, and that his own experts, considerable experts in his own department, are of the opinion that this is partly the result of the fact that we have no national bee-products policy or, indeed, a bee policy?

My Lords, I think, that, uncharacteristically, my noble friend is being a little less than fair. The Ministry of Agriculture provides a free diagnostic service and advice to beekeepers in this country and we make sure that bee health is preserved by very strict import controls, which means individual scrutiny of any imports coming in, being carried out again by Ministry of Agriculture officials. We really do quite a lot for this particular sector of the agriculture and horticulture industry.

My Lords, could the noble Lord inform the House whether there is a special title and item in the EC budget in relation to aid to beekeepers? I know that there was for some time during the period that I was there and that most of it seemed to go to Bavaria. Would the noble Lord find out whether there is now such an item and, if so, whether some of it might be diverted to the United Kingdom in view of the fact that the United Kingdom pays for most of anyway?

My Lords, I shall certainly have a look at the relevant regulations.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in 1985 we exported £2 million worth of honey compared with importing £12 million worth? Would he consider encouraging greater production after the recovery of the stock and perhaps ask his noble friend the Secretary of State for Employment whether he would get the MSC to teach youngsters how to keep bees and help them to set up their own small industries?

My Lords, I think that my noble friend is on to a good point; but pouring Government money into assisting rural industry is something which we need to look at and I shall certainly look carefully at what my noble friend is saying on this particular point.

My Lords, could the noble Lord also let us know what the effect of the hard winter has been on the British native birds? Before he answers that this is not the same Question, may I say to him that I have always understood that there is quite a relationship between the bees and the birds.

My Lords, nonetheless, it is another Question.

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Gas Bill will adjourn at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1986 and the Second Reading of the Health Service Joint Consultative Committees (Access to Information) Bill will be taken.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 103A:

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for tabling this amendment because it gives us an opportunity to talk about the very important subject of safety. In this Bill we are strengthening the whole gas safety regime by bringing it into line with the general requirements of health and safety legislation. This means that the Health and Safety Executive can enforce those requirements with the wide range of powers available under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Among other matters, this provides for the possibility of prohibition orders and custodial sentences for their breach. Indeed, specific obligations are being tightened: the maximum response time for reported leaks of gas is being halved, and the obligation on British Gas to make safe reported leaks is being extended for the first time to the customer's side of the meter.

British Gas have an extremely good safety record and fully recognise their obligations to their 16 million customers and the public in general. They have made clear publicly, and to their employees, that safety will continue to be a priority after privatisation and will continue to be fundamental to the future success of their company, and I am sure they will recognise it will be in their own best commercial interests to honour that commitment. They have a very strong interest, after all, in promoting gas as a safe fuel, and in this spirit have also made it clear that they will continue to provide the first half-hour of work associated with a repair free of charge.

Our basic approach to the question of which obligation should be placed on a public gas supplier directly by the Bill and which should be imposed through the authorisation has been to place those obligations which will apply to all public gas suppliers in the Bill, and those which may need to vary according to the circumstances of a particular case in the public gas supplier's authorisation. This is the approach which we have accepted in relation to gas escapes. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 5 to the Bill impose obligations which will apply to all public gas suppliers. Under paragraph 13 a public gas supplier is subject to a criminal offence if he fails to prevent his own gas from escaping within 12 hours of being informed of that escape. It is clear from paragraph 13 that the public gas supplier must so prevent the gas from escaping without charge. That, then, is the basic obligation on all public gas suppliers in relation to escapes of their own gas.

It is, of course, implicit in paragraph 13 that the public gas supplier must maintain an effective service for the receipt of complaints so as to enable him to fulfil his obligation to prevent the escape. But we do not consider it to be appropriate to specify the precise nature of the emergency service that should be provided in the Bill itself because we consider that this must be a matter for the authorisation, so that there is sufficient flexibility to tailor the obligations that are imposed to the circumstances of a particular public gas supplier, to the needs of the customers which he supplies and to the time at which the authorisation is to be granted. What is appropriate now in relation to emergency services may not be what is needed in 25 or 50 years' time.

I cannot therefore accept the noble Lord's amendment. But there is yet another reason why the amendment is unacceptable, and that concerns the obligation that the amendment would place on a public gas supplier not only to prevent the gas from escaping free of charge (which is, as I have explained, the effect of paragraph 13 as it is presently drafted, and which Condition 11 of the draft British Gas authorisation requires British Gas to make clear to its customers) but also to carry out 30 minutes' repair work free of charge. We can see no justification whatsoever in imposing such an obligation on a public gas supplier. While British Gas do at present carry out 30 minutes of repair work free of charge, and have publicly stated that they will continue to do so, we do not consider that the statutory obligation on a public gas supplier should be to do more than to prevent the gas from escaping. Thereafter it is a matter for the consumer to make such arrangements as he considers appropriate to have any necessary repair made, which may of course involve the public gas supplier or any other competent gas fitter, as the customer thinks fit.

I hope the rather lengthy explanation that I have given will satisfy the noble Lord. Having given my reasons for not being able to accept the amendment, perhaps I can persuade him to withdraw it.

I find it difficult to understand why the Government should, neither in the Bill itself nor in the proposed authorisation, put in place what the existing British Gas Corporation are doing and are saying that they wish to continue to do. They have shown the way for good practice by undertaking this extra half-hour of repair work without charge. Why do the Government feel that this excellent example should not be enshrined either in the legislation or in the authorisation?

I tried to deal with that very point which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has raised in my concluding remarks. I explained the intention of the British Gas Corporation—which will be by far and away the largest supplier of gas and which in the eye and the mind of the public will still be the principal distributor of gas—but we do not consider it necessary and we do not believe there is any real justification for imposing such an obligation on any public gas supplier. We believe that in the case of the statutory obligation it is not reasonable to write this into the legislation. It is of course in the best interests of any gas supplier to ensure safety, and indeed the British Gas Corporation have publicly stated that after privatisation they will carry on just as before. But we do not believe it is necessary to write it into the legislation itself.

Before the noble Lord sits down, would he mind answering a question? He said that it is not the present intention of British Gas to do anything other than what they are doing now. Will the noble Lord therefore give a Government guarantee, particularly since there is to be privatisation, that the board of directors of British Gas plc will remain there in perpetuity?

I think the noble Lord is very well aware that I simply could not give any such guarantee: of course not. However, I would remind the noble Lord, with his experience of private sector companies, that he would perhaps be the first to acknowledge that a private sector company which is worth its salt will always adopt the methods which are likely to bring it the greatest success; and in the distribution of gas the private sector company which does not observe the very highest safety standards is unlikely to prove popular with the public.

May I ask the Minister (who I thought spoke very clearly and simply about this, and so the fault must be mine) one question? When he was talking about this I thought he said it would be up to the consumer to make what arrangements he or she thought necessary in the event of the gas supply failing or escaping. Does his answer mean that the consumer will have to pay for that?

Perhaps I could go over that part of the answer which I originally gave and which I think covers this point. I said that we saw no justification in imposing such an obligation on a public gas supplier. I went on to say that while British Gas at present carry out 30 minutes of repair work free of charge and have publicly stated they will continue to do so, we do not consider that the statutory obligation on a public gas supplier should be to do more than prevent gas from escaping. That certainly is a statutory obligation. Therefore it must be a matter for the consumer to make such arrangements as he considers appropriate to have any necessary repair made, which of course may involve the public gas supplier or any other competent gas fitter, as the customer thinks fit.

My answer to the noble Baroness—and I fully recognise her very great concern for the consumer—would be to say that the consumer might be responsible for repairs to his own appliances, but as far as work on the supply itself is concerned it must be done by British Gas, who will have control of the distribution system. So far as the question of payment is concerned, this reverts to the provision for the first 30 minutes of work being free. Thereafter it may be that the consumer would be required to pay a contribution towards what might have to be done.

I was asking why the consumers should have to pay anything. It is nothing to do with them; it is either the equipment or the supply that is wrong, so why should the consumer be expected to foot any part of the subsequent bill?

I do not think that it is necessarily the case that the consumer should be completely relieved of any responsibility. It may not, in fact, be the actual supply which is contributing to the leakage. The first 30 minutes of free work will enable the British Gas Corporation to determine what is the cause of the trouble. If it is something to do with the distribution system, which is their responsibility, then the consumer would not be expected to pay. But it could conceivably be something which is not directly related to the distribution system.

All of us who are householders, and who have people coming to make repairs, know that the first half-hour of work may well be free, as the Minister has said. It is what comes after that that is the trouble, and I cannot see why a consumer should have to pay for something which is not his fault. That is the point I am trying to make.

If I may first deal with the point made about an appliance, this may be something which is far removed from British Gas and something with which they have had nothing at all to do. They are obliged to carry out work free of charge to make safe a gas escape. This work must be done free of charge, whether it takes 30 minutes or longer, if it is directly connected with the distribution system for which British Gas have responsibility. Work on the supply must be done free of charge by British Gas.

It is only work on the consumer's own appliances for which payment must be required. If British Gas have supplied a particular appliance and that appliance is the cause of a gas leak, presumably in the early stages that will be under guarantee in any case. But so far as the supply is concerned, it would be quite unrealistic to hold British Gas responsible in perpetuity for appliances. If the problem is to do with the actual supply system for which British Gas are responsible, that is one thing. If it is to do with any appliance which was supplied by British Gas, obviously that cannot be the responsibility of British Gas for ever and ever.

Am I to understand from what the Minister has said that, if the fault is in the appliance which is owned by the consumer, then the consumer may have to pay? If that is so, I quite understand. But what I want to know is whether, if the fault arises from something other than the actual appliance, the consumer is still liable to have to pay.

No, the consumer is not liable to have to pay if the problem is in the distribution system. If it arises from an appliance or something relating to an appliance, then obviously at a certain time that would become the responsibility of the consumer, just as it is with anything else which is bought from British Gas or from any other supplier. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness because I think, as she so often does, she has helped me in my case by highlighting just how difficult and in appropriate it would actually be to write into the legislation what this amendment seeks to do.

I thank the noble Lord for his patience and I hope mutual self-help will make progress later on.

May I put this specific question to the Minister: Let us assume that the fault is nothing to do with an appliance or with general distribution, but rather with a leak in a pipe under the floor of a house. In that case, presumably, the gas supplier has a duty to stop the leak and to do half an hour's free work to repair it. But after that, is it the responsibility of the householder?

Yes; the noble Lord is correct.

The smell of gas escaping in Ronan Point must have been in several flats. One presumes that it would have taken much longer than half an hour to find where it was escaping and where it was to be turned off.

I should have thought that in an example such as the noble Baroness has given, if that situation was occurring in more than one flat, and if the first leak was repaired and the smell of gas had not been removed, then another flat would have been examined and then another and another. Of course, that is a different exercise each time. Ultimately, if the work within the flat was of a nature that required more than half an hour's work, then the responsibility would not be the corporation's.

I am bound to say that I do not find the Minister's answers for the present provision in the Bill at all satisfactory. What is proposed in this amendment, among other things, is that certain-activities shall be free of charge. I hope we can avoid the confusion concerning the point at which the supplier becomes responsible and the point at which the problem relates to the apparatus and so on.

Here we have a provision for making safe all escapes of gas free of charge. Everybody recognises that that is a sensible public duty. The avoidance of it could lead to loss of life. At the moment the gas supplier, British Gas Corporation, recognises and carries out that duty free of charge. The noble Lord, in replying to the request that this should be incorporated into the statute, says that it would not be appropriate to put this responsibility into the statute. He referred to this as an imposition. Is it an imposition to say by statute that what you are doing is right? Is it an imposition to say that what you are doing and what you have said you propose to continue doing is right? I just do not understand the use of the word "imposition" in those circumstances. It is right that this practice should continue. It should continue in the interest of public safety, and therefore it is right that it should be put into the Bill.

I must say, once more, that I get very impatient at the idea that the purpose of the Committee is to give power to a Minister to do what he likes, in a licence or in an ancillary document over which your Lordships' House will have no further control whatsoever. The House must stand up to its own responsibilities and say whether it thinks that this protection of human life should be provided free of charge. I think it should. The present gas corporation thinks it should. It is therefore appropriate that it should be in the statute and I hope your Lordships accept that view.

I feel that the noble Lord is using rather emotive language here—

Not at all.

Yes, indeed he is. In this respect, nobody is more concerned about the protection of human life than the Government, and the suggestion that the Government are casting this aside as something which is of little importance is totally wrong. In my earlier remarks, I pointed out that in this Bill the Government are strengthening the whole gas safety regime and bringing it into line with the general requirements of the health and safety legislation. To suggest otherwise is simply to turn a blind eye to the actual facts of what is happening.

We have extended the obligation, which at present covers only British Gas's own pipes, to all escapes whether they are British Gas's pipes or the customer's. The obligation in the Bill is to deal with escapes absolutely free and I am pleased, therefore, to say that the Government fully agree with the noble Lord that it should be in the statute. But what the noble Lord is suggesting in this amendment is going much further than that, and I really cannot understand why the noble Lord or his noble friends are so anxious to include these requirements in the Bill.

The noble Lord said—and, if I may say so, I think he was in error—that the Bill provides for this work to be done free. Can he, rather than just relying on generalities in words, point out to me where in this Bill it says that it shall be provided free of charge?

What I said was that the obligation in the Bill is to deal with escapes of gas in the distribution system free.

I think that the Minister has been poorly briefed on this point. There are two ways of dealing with a leak and may I, after about 35 years' experience in fitting gas cookers and so on, point out that if there is a responsibility on the part of the new gas authority to deal with a leak, that may merely consist of turning off the gas at the point of entry to the property? What some noble Lords are wondering about is the cost of repairing the pipes that occasion the leak. Is it true to say that the only obligation put upon the new authority is to turn off the gas, if there is a leak on the customer's side of the meter? If that is so, why cannot somebody in the realms of government advise the Minister properly?

The obligation in paragraph 13 of Schedule 5 must be carried out free. It is a statutory obligation which must be dealt with, without the supplier making any charge.

What I asked some time ago is: where does it say that? We all understand that the licence says it is free; we all understand that the present practice is to provide the service free and we all understand, therefore, that to put it in a statute is by no means an imposition, because it is being done already and is accepted as a responsible attitude and in the best interests of a commercial organisation. So I am repeating to the noble Lord the Minister that either he has to admit that the Bill does not give authority for this service to be provided free, or to show us where in the Bill we can see the words "free of charge".

The provisions of the Bill are carried forward virtually unchanged from the 1972 Act. No reference is made there to the extent to which charges arise. However, where a statutory obligation arises, that is to prevent escapes. It may be the simple operation of making safe and no charge will be made. The service must be performed at the supplier's expense. So it most certainly is free.

All that means, in other words, is that the gas board have to turn off the gas. May I ask a question arising from something the Minister said earlier, because I am rather concerned about the way he so blithely threw the responsibility for having no amendment at all on to the fact that the present gas authority have said that they will continue certain practices, and the Minister relied on that as an argument. Will he tell me, and the public generally, where it is in the Bill that he relies upon a future body, British Gas plc, to carry out any promises or commitments made by the present organisation? The real truth is that there cannot possibly be any.

With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, he is not correct. When a statutory obligation is placed on a body, that body cannot charge for the carrying out of the obligation. This is implicit in the interpretation of any statutory duty. This is implicit—

I am sorry, but that is not what the Minister said earlier. The Minister was dealing specifically with the fact that work would be carried out on the consumer's premises for half an hour free of charge, which is done now. If one notifies the gas board now that there is a leak, they will go to the consumer's premises and, if they are occupied by somebody who is evidently poor or elderly, and only a small amount of repair is needed on the premises to the consumer's fittings, the gas board will carry it out free of charge.

I am glad to see that the Minister agrees with me, because he went on to say that the gas board gave him an assurance—I do not know who it was in British Gas who gave that assurance; perhaps he would like to tell us—that that same practice will be carried out under the new arrangement. This means that what the gas board have said is that, purely gratis and as a favour, they will carry out some repairs on the consumer's premises free of charge. I am not talking about turning off the gas. Anybody can turn off gas.

The Minister then went on to say that, because he had had that assurance, there was no requirement for the amendment in the Bill. Will he tell me where there is an assurance in the Bill, or how he intends to see that an assurance is given, that British Gas plc will carry out any obligations accepted by British Gas at the moment?

I have tried to make this as plain as I can, but I am afraid the noble Lord is not correct. When a statutory obligation is placed on a body, that body cannot charge for the carrying out of the obligation. That statutory obligation is carried forward. I have explained already that the requirements of the 1972 Act—if the noble Lord will listen to me for a moment instead of his Front Bench—

He is getting more sense from there.

From here, yes. The 1972 Act has been carried forward and, therefore, anybody who supplies gas has to comply with those obligations. When a statutory obligation is placed on a body, it simply cannot charge for it. It is a statutory obligation. I am not going back to the question of the half-hour. That is a separate point altogether and I have already answered the noble Baroness. But may I just repeat for the benefit of the noble Lord that work on the distribution system must be done free by British Gas. It is only work on its own appliances for which there may be payment. Indeed, even on those appliances in the early days—the days of guarantee—the payment would be avoided, but thereafter that would not continue forever.

I am afraid that we are by no means out of the wood. First of all, perhaps I may direct the noble Lord to the Bill itself, because he has some hesitation in referring to it. We are talking about paragraph 13 and the prevention of escapes of gas. The last line of sub-paragraph (1), to which I draw his attention, states:

"(whether by cutting off the supply of gas to any premises"—

to which the noble Lord has just referred—

"or otherwise)".

So we are talking about more than just going along—as the noble Lord said, any fool can do that—to turn off the main tap.

The Minister has come along with a new proposition. He no longer maintains that the statement "free of charge" is incorporated in the Bill—which is the whole purpose of this amendment. He no longer maintains that it is incorporated explicitly in the Bill. What he now says is that it is implicit. The noble Lord would have to talk to me for a long time before he could persuade me that that was so. He is saying that it is implicit in the Bill because any body which has a statutory obligation has to carry out that obligation free of charge. I wish that were even 1 per cent. true.

For example, one of the obligations in the Bill is to supply gas. There is a statutory obligation in the Bill on the gas supplier to supply gas. Is the noble Lord the Minister seriously suggesting that because it has to supply gas, it has to supply it free of charge? Of course it has not. The Minister is being misinformed, and therefore we come back to what we were talking about. We do not want anything that is implicit. We want something that is explicit. We want a plain statement saying that what is right, what is the present practice, what is intended to be continued, should be in the statute.

We now see the difficulty of making progress with the Bill. The debate which we have just had shows quie clearly that noble Lords are concerned about very relevant matters. The noble Lord the Minister has not been able to satisfy the very relevant and real questions which have been put. The noble Lord tried very hard—I appreciate that—to satisfy this side of the Committee and perhaps his own side as well, but he has not satisfied them. There is no question about that; he has not satisfied them.

My noble friends are absolutely right in saying that all that the Bill and condition 11 of the authorisation do is to put a duty on the gas supplier to cut off the supply of gas, whether it be by simply turning a lever or perhaps making a temporary repair to a pipe or other fixture—perhaps a meter—concerned with the supply of gas. That is all. That is the only obligation. What we are seeking to do is to continue, and continue in law, the obligation which British Gas itself has accepted to perform a half-hour's work, if it is necessary, to repair a gas leak.

I should have thought that the Minister would have seen the point we are making. It is all very well for him to say that British Gas has said, "We will continue this practice". The present British Gas Corporation would expect to continue that practice, but there is no certainty that its successors will wish to continue it. Indeed, if profits were falling and shares were falling on the Stock Exchange and the new British Gas plc wanted to increase profits by reducing costs, this might be one of the items on which it would wish to save by removing the practice. What we are seeking to ensure is that it cannot be removed because it is in the statute and Parliament has said that it shall remain.

We are talking about safety. We are talking about the safety of people. Although it may sound far-fetched, it could very well be that poor people who feared that they might be faced with some expense would do nothing if they occasionally smelled a leak of gas. But they should do something about it. This half-hour's free repair service is an encouragement to people to report gas leaks which may be very dangerous, even though the consumer—the member of the public—does not realise it. There is a real reason of public safety why this practice should be continued and why it should be written into the statute so that nobody can discontinue it after British Gas is privatised.

The amendment also states:

"The supplier shall provide an effective and continuously attended service for the receipt by telephone of reports of escapes of gas".

That is not in the Bill, but it is in the amendment. In the interests of public safety I hope that Members of the Committee have listened to this debate and that they see how serious a matter this is and realise that it would be sensible and safe—much safer—to write the provisions in the Bill by voting for this amendment. I fear that I really must press the amendment, in spite of the courteous patient manner in which the noble Lord dealt with it; That I appreciate. We are not satisfied with his replies, though that perhaps is not his fault. In the light of the fact that he is not able to make any concession I fear that I must press the amendment to a Division and ask noble Lords from all sides of the Committee to support it.

Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may, briefly, put forward a suggestion. Members on all sides of the Committee are worried about the safety of gas; otherwise we would not be here this afternoon. We are, so far as I can make out, at rather an impasse. It is very difficult. The Minister has to decide and, indeed, the Secretary of State has to decide whether this provision should or should not be in the Bill. Before we ask the Committee to divide I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he will take this away and let us have a considered opinion at Report stage.

That is a very useful suggestion and I appreciate it, coming from where it does. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether he is prepared to respond now to the reasonable suggestion of the noble Baroness. Perhaps the noble Lord wishes to say something before I press the matter to a Division.

There is really little more that I can say. I can but reiterate that it is only where specific provision is made for payment that such payment is allowed. So I think that the point about payment is clearly dealt with.

So far as concerns writing the requirement into the Bill, this is a straightforward amendment, and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Macleod is aware of that. I shall do something that I do not normally do, out of deference to the very great knowledge that my noble friend Lady Macleod has of the subject, and because of the interest she has always taken in it. I shall do so totally without commitment. If the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his amendment, then I shall take further advice. I do not feel that the Committee would expect me to do more, but I am prepared to do what I have said, if that is the Committee's wish.

Frankly, I really do not think that that is good enough. The noble Lord has made no concession to the arguments that have been put from this side of the Committee—no concession whatsoever. If he had done so, then it would have been right to withdraw the amendment. However, the noble Lord made no concession to us at all. He said that his undertaking was totally without commitment. Perhaps he should have committed himself rather further than that to examining the matter seriously. Perhaps he should have said that he would at least try to do something with the authorisation, if not make an amendment to the Bill. I fear therefore that I shall have to press this matter to a Division.

moved Amendment No. 103B:

Page 79, line 41, after ("shall") insert ("at his own expense").

I support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Diamond. I hope the Minister realises that the high charges which have to be made to bring out skilled men to do a job are a real deterrent to householders. I fully appreciate that the skill has to be paid for; but in such cases it may well deter the less well-off sections of the community from sending for a skilled worker when necessary. With those few words, I hope that the Minister will consider the matter further.

I must confess that I am particularly concerned about what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said in supporting Amendment No. 103B. I thought that, in essence, this argument had been settled on the previous Division. I find it extraordinary that the noble Lord should continue to persist with the argument that the supplier should deal with these problems at his own expense. To my mind that is absolutely typical of so much so-called consumer legislation which assumes that a corporation can take on to its expenses something entirely unconnected with the expenses charged to the generality of consumers.

What one is arguing about in all these instances is not whether the consumer shall pay—the consumer will of course pay one way or another—but whether a particular consumer should pay or whether the generality of consumers should pay. That is the only distinction and that is the only area where expense arises. To my mind what the noble Lord proposes again on this amendment is far too sweeping. It is not inconceivable that an individual consumer will have caused and be logically responsible for the escape of gas to which he is at risk.

I freely confess to the Committee that recently I chopped down a tree which hit an electrical connection and plunged a village into darkness. The electricity board had to repair the damage and restore the supply. The noble Lord will insist that the generality of customers should have to pay for that through the additional expense which would have to be carried on their bills rather than that I should pay. That seems to me to be entirely illogical. The noble Lord wishes to intervene?

I was merely going to ask the noble Lord whether, when he went to the relevant authority, he said, "I am sorry, I cannot tell a lie. It was my fault"?

In fact I did. I accepted full responsibility, as of course it was. The point is that if this amendment were to be carried, that would not arise. If I had caused a gas leak it would nevertheless not invalidate the fact that the responsibility for the cost of repairing that leak would fall upon the gas corporation. The noble Lord says that it should be "at his own expense". What it means is that it is at the expense of the generality of consumers. To my mind that is a classic example of where so-called consumer legislation lands consumers with the bills to pay.

I do not really know why the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, intervened. Bearing in mind the felling of the tree across high tension lines, his act could in fact have resulted in a charge of criminal negligence. However, let us not go into his private business, although he told us about it.

The noble Lord does not seem to realise that gas is a very volatile and dangerous substance and that a leak in one person's premises can cause disaster which affects not only those premises but the premises of others as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, explained, that is why we think it is necessary to have this sort of amendment, which will encourage people to report gas leaks and give them the assurance that if they do so they will not be faced with high hills. That is the objective of the amendment, because gas is a difficult and dangerous substance. We all know that the consumer will in general pay in the end, but we have put down this amendment for the protection of all consumers. I do wish the noble Lord would see that point. If he does see it, perhaps he will vote with us for the proper protection of the public after the Gas Corporation is privatised.

I do not want to delay the Committee for very long because we have a great deal to do in a very short time today, but I myself have put down Amendment No. 103D, which I can deal with briefly. It proposes to leave out "twelve" and to insert "two". We have put down this amendment because of the distribution code of practice of the existing British Gas Corporation which, in response to a report of a leakage, says:

"Within normal working hours the supervisor shall dispatch a distribution team to the site as soon as possible but certainly to arrive not later than one hour after receiving the message Having dispatched the team, the supervisor shall attend the site as soon as possible, normally within two hours".

That is the existing practice. That is why we have put down an amendment with a time period of two hours. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain why he is proposing a period of 12 hours instead of the requirement of two hours which already exists.

Can the noble Lord tell us what is the current statutory requirement in terms of hours?

I think that this question of the statutory requirement, which as I understand it is being reduced from 24 hours to 12 hours, is perhaps a point that should be brought out. What is much more important and seems to have been written into this Bill is something which was not written into the Bill of 1972. It is contained in the very helpful notes to which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has referred on previous occasions in explaining this Bill, and is that the obligation to deal with escapes has for the first time been extended to the customer's side of the meter. That is a most important provision.

I think we have had a short but useful debate on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said that he hoped I would take the amendment away and consider it, and I find myself feeling a little inhibited. Throughout the course of this Bill I have been accused of being intransigent and of not being prepared to take points away for consideration, but the first time that I offer to do this I have the offer thrown back in my face. So I am hardly in the mood for taking away amendments. Nevertheless, I can assure the noble Lord that in my reply I shall consider very carefully what he and others have said.

First of all, perhaps I may answer the question that was raised by my noble friend, who asked what was the statutory position regarding hours. At the moment the period is 24 hours.

Amendment No. 103B, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, also subscribed, would require a public gas supplier to prevent any escapes at his own expense. For one brief moment I must return to the point which I made many times during our earlier discussion on Amendment No. 103A; namely, that it is an accepted principle in law that, where a statutory obligation is created, the person on whom the obligation falls must foot the bill unless specific provision is made for recovery of costs.

There is no such payment provision in paragraph 13; hence the duty must be fulfilled free. Therefore, I suggest to the Committee that no expression of this point is therefore necessary in the Bill. However, we have made clear in Condition 11 of British Gas's draft authorisation that making safe will be free of charge, though customers may be liable for the cost of repairs associated with an escape. I explained that point a little earlier also.

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but can he explain, when there is already a statutory obligation upon the gas supplier to carry out this duty free of charge, why the Government have found it necessary in the authorisation to use the very words that we are seeking to put in the Bill? If it is so clear, why does it have to be put in the authorisation?

Because the authorisation is something which is prepared and given to any company which will supply gas, but it is not in statute. It still has very full effect but it is not actually written in statute. I could put the question back to the noble Lord or comment on what he has said: if it is in the authorisation, then it is not necessary to have it in statute.

I apologise, but the noble Lord has said that it is not necessary at all because there is a statutory obligation upon the public gas supplier to carry out this duty free of charge. It is a statutory obligation: it is not necessary to mention it. If it is not necessary to mention it at all, why is it in the authorisation?

With great respect to the noble Lord, I think we are getting into the semantics of the problem. If it is not necessary to mention it at all, it is not necessary to have it as an amendment. However, when I gave way to the noble Lord I was pointing out that under Condition 11 of British Gas's draft authorisation making safe will be free of charge, though customers may be liable for the cost of repairs associated with an escape. This is only fair, given that one of the improvements that we have effected in the Bill is to extend the obligation to prevent escapes to the customer's side of the meter—this was commented on by my noble friend Lord Sanderson—as an escape may equally arise from a defective appliance as from a defective pipe.

Amendments Nos. 103C, 103D and 103E, which were spoken to by both the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Stoddart, seek to reduce the response time for preventing escapes. First, I should comment again that the Government have already halved the response time as expressed in the 1972 Gas Act from 24 hours to 12 hours, but it is necessary to bear in mind that in sub-paragraph (2) it is tied to the commission of a criminal offence if that condition is not met.

I recognise that the target response time of British Gas is two hours, which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, pointed out, but I do not think that it would be appropriate to adopt that period where a criminal offence is concerned, or even the period of six hours, as suggested. I think that we have moved a long way forward by reducing the period from 24 hours to 12 hours. I readily acknowledge the superb achievement of British Gas in having an average response time of two hours. That is very good indeed. But where we are creating a criminal offence, I think that it is probably wiser at this stage to have a reasonable overlap, and that is what we have achieved.

In view of those remarks, I do not think that noble Lords have made the case for the amendment. I wonder whether on this occasion the noble Lord will consider withdrawing it.

In regard to Amendment No. 103B, are we right in understanding that according to the Minister the wording means quite clearly that there will be no charge? If that is so, we must accept his interpretation. I would only say that I think that it is a bit hard to expect the average consumer of gas to be a constitutional lawyer and to understand that, even though a statute does not say so, in fact the service will be rendered without charge.

I refer the noble Lord to Condition 11 of the authorisation which deals with emergency services. Paragraph 1, line 7, states that the supplier shall by appropriate means secure that adequate publicity is given of the ways in which it can he contacted for the purpose of reporting such escapes. I think that was the point about which he was anxious.

I was asking why the average person reading the Bill would suppose that the provision meant that the service referred to would be rendered free of charge.

With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that the average consumer would be reading the Bill. It is entirely up to the supplier to make sure that he conforms with the requirement of his authorisation in order to publicise the methods that can be used to contact him. I am not suggesting that people will not read the Bill, but the sort of people who will read it will be informed people connected with the industry or with various concerned associations. With respect, I doubt whether the example that the noble Lord chose is a good one.

Those people would be unlike us, because we did not understand the provision to mean that.

My noble friend is the late chairman of the coal board. I mean "late" in the sense of ex-chairman, or, if members of the Committee would prefer it, in the sense that he has just participated, as most of us have, in an all night sitting. I am saying that he has that experience with the coal board. If somebody as closely associated with the fuel industry was not automatically aware of the new interpretation which the noble Lord seeks to put on that provision, it is not surprising that others are in the same difficulty: and I was not aware of it and still do not accept it.

I am not talking about the average consumer reading the Bill. The average consumer who is in difficulty goes to the consumers' council or the local citizens' advice bureau and says: "I have had a bill for so-and-so. What do I do about it?". The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, must have had endless experience of such occasions. We have received letters from various citizens' advice bureaux to say that they have that very problem. It is to them that reference is made, and they or their legal advisers must know exactly how to answer. They cannot consult a Silk as to what is the implicit responsibility of a statutory supplier when there is no mention in the Bill which gives him those exclusive rights that the service has to be supplied free.

I am bound to say to the Minister that I do not understand why, when there is all that difficulty on all sides of the Committee, that he should take up the most extraordinary attitude and say that he is not prepared to take the amendment away to look at it between now and Report stage. That is a minimum request which I am bound to put to him again. It cannot hurt at all.

Even if by Report stage he is able to write me a letter saying that there can be no doubt that that is the interpretation to be placed on the paragraph, we shall still certainly be moving an amendment saying: "For the sake of removal of doubt it is hereby stated", and then write it out clearly. We think that any citizens' advice bureau secretary or anyone concerned with a consumer council ought to be able immediately to refer to a statement in statute which makes it absolutely clear what answer is to be given to a complainant who asks: "What do I do about this bill that I have just had? I thought that the service was to be provided free of charge".

I am not saying what I propose to do at the moment with this amendment. I am asking the Minister whether he will be good enough to take what is the normal attitude at Committee stage and say, if he likes, "I think that everybody else is wrong and I am right, but nevertheless I shall take the amendment away, consider it between now and Report and do whatever is necessary or drop a line to the noble Lords, Lord Diamond, Lord Stoddart, and others who are interested". I cannot see why he should not do that. I appeal to him, before we reach a decision on the amendment, to be good enough to do that.

No. On this occasion I am not prepared to take this back. We have had a useful debate. I think that I have won the arguments. I do not think that the noble Lord or his friends have put forward sufficiently strong arguments to make me either accept the amendment or to do as I offered to do last time, to no avail. It was thrown back in my face when I generously offered to take the amendment away.

Will the noble Lord—

No, not at the moment. Let me just finish what I have to say. I do not feel that the arguments are strong enough for me to do that. In my ministerial career I have specifically avoided giving such assurances unless I felt that I could genuinely do so. When I give such an assurance, I genuinely take the matter back and look seriously at it to see whether I can accommodate the noble Lords who have raised the matter. I shall not devalue the practice that I have followed for many years. I offered to do it last time but it was rejected. I do not feel that the case is strong enough for me this time to take the proposal back.

I am sorry that the noble Lord should feel that his offer to consider the last amendment without commitment was thrown back in his face. It most certainly was not. I had to make a quick decision, and I hope that I rejected, if that is the right word, his offer courteously and explained the reasons why I felt that it did not go far enough and that I had to press the matter to the vote. I hope that he is not using, and will not use, that to refuse to accede to the reasonable request of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to have another look at the matter. It was not my intention, and it was not in my manner, to throw his offer back in his face.

Let me make it absolutely clear that I meant nothing personal to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, with whom I have done battle on many occasions and for whom I have the highest respect. did not allow that to prejudice my decision. I shall conclude by saying what I said earlier. It is easy—and nobody knows this better that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who for many years was a Minister in another place—to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "Oh yes, I will take this back and have a look at it", in the knowledge that one can do nothing about it. I do not do that. If I agree to take something back, I genuinely feel that I may be able to do something about it; I genuinely believe that the arguments put to me have merited that. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, who is very persuasive on many occasions, on this occasion he has not convinced me. If he insists on pressing the amendment, I must ask my noble friends to reject it.

I hope that I have made it clear to the noble Lord that I do not desire to go endlessly down the route of dividing the Committee; I desire to make progress on the Bill. I desire to enable the noble Lord the Minister to give us some indication as to whether we shall see some improvement in the Bill at its final stage. We have a long, long way to go. We are only halfway through the Committee stage. We have the Report stage and Third Reading to come.

I hope that I am not to take it that the normal attitude of the noble Lord the Minister is that he will say in response to a request, when there are clear doubts in many parts of the House—the vote last time showed that—that he will refuse to look at matters, without any commitment. I understand the responsible attitude that a Minister must take of not yielding to temporary pressure and getting himself into difficulty at a future stage in the Bill. I understand that well. That is why I gave him what I thought would be a hand which he would take, when I said that on Report we would table an amendment saying, "For the sake of the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared". That hurts nobody. It merely puts in what the noble Lord the Minister says is the fact. I should have thought that as a minimum he would have said. "I am prepared to take this back and see whether it would be helpful to put in such a declaratory statement". It is frequently put into legislation when a legal officer takes a particular view. Of course, here, we are under the disability that we have no such legal adviser as a Member of this place whose function it is to give legal advice to us of a non-party nature.

It is therefore only reasonable that there should be put into the Bill a declaratory statement of that kind, where there is reasonable doubt, for the sake of removing that reasonable doubt. For the last time I say to the noble Lord the Minister, is he prepared, without any commitment to take back this amendment and see whether such a declaratory statement might remove doubt?

moved Amendment No. 103F:

The amendment is the proposed new paragraph 14 put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Gallacher. It would require a public gas supplier to prevent any escape of gas reported to him whether or not he was the supplier, although he would be able to recover the costs. Paragraph 14 of the schedule is a new provision. It recognises that in the future gas may be supplied by another company but that British Gas will remain by far the most familiar company in the mind of the public so that any escape might be reported to it.

I am sure that British Gas, with its experience, can be relied upon in these circumstances to take whatever steps are appropriate. In terms of resources it will be by far the best equipped to deal with escapes, but it would not be appropriate to tie British Gas's hands now in establishing whatever arrangements seem best between itself and any third party in the future. We have already effected significant improvements in the Bill in respect of the escapes provision and we do not feel that it would be necessary to change what we have in mind and incorporate this amendment.

I cannot agree that it would be sensible to require British Gas to deal with other companies' escapes. In order to deal with escapes safely a supplier will need both knowledge and control of the situation: knowledge of where pipes are and the way they operate, and control so as not to cause problems at other parts of the supply system. British Gas will have neither in the case of other companies' pipes. It would not therefore be safe to oblige it to deal with all escapes.

I do not think that this amendment improves the Bill. I clearly recognise and acknowledge the concern of noble Lords to ensure that safety is of the highest, but I am not persuaded that accepting this amendment would do anything to improve the safety provisions which we have in mind. Therefore I must ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

I do not know that I can withdraw the amendment. The noble Lord was very reasonable in his reply. But we have to remember that some of the new gas suppliers may have an odd installation here and there. One may have Shell (U.K.) Ltd. for example, or the small oil company, supplying over 2 million therms of gas to a specific firm, factory or installation. It may well be, therefore, that they will not have the facilities on hand to deal with such a leak. Under the existing Schedule 5, paragraph 14, all that British Gas has to do is to tell them. It may take the company quite a long time to get to the installation. While they are getting there a dangerous situation may be arising. It would clearly be sensible for British Gas—if it received that report and there was to be a delay—to have the power and authority to repair that gas leak in the interests of public safety and then charge the other firm an appropriate charge for making the equipment safe.

That seems to me to be eminently reasonable. In practice, if this amendment were carried British Gas may make arrangements with these other gas suppliers. This provision would certainly encourage them to do so and would encourage the other gas suppliers to enter into agreements with them that British Gas should repair leaks should they occur.

I think that it is a sensible and reasonable amendment. Obviously, I must ask the noble Lord whether he wishes to say anything more or, in the light of what I have said and the mutual concern for the safety of the public, whether he would like to have another look at this between now and Report stage. I think that it is probably worth looking at.