My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the OrderPaper.

My Lords, the Government were glad to be associated with the consultative document, An Open Tech Programme, published on 14th May 1981 by the Manpower Services Commission. This outlines a programme to promote open learning to help meet adult training needs at technician and related levels. Further developments will depend on comments received by September this year and on the availability of resources. There was another consultative document from the commission, which was called A New Training Initiative, and this sets training objectives for the 1980s. Among these objectives are the improvement of skill training and the improvement and extension of initial training and education for young people.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the high technology industries, particularly aerospace, are still woefully short of people with adequate technical training, both those who are young and those who are more mature? Will the MSC make use of the invaluable knowledge and experience the BBC has gained with the Open University and use these similar facilities for the Open Technical College?

My Lords, the Government are well aware of the needs for technological training, especially in the industries my noble friend mentioned. Indeed, the open technical training is intended to work through existing education and training institutions. We believe that the Open University and indeed the BBC will both be very useful vehicles for this concept of the Open Tech.

My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that there are available throughout the country facilities on quite an extensive scale, in polytechnics and colleges of further education, which could help in doing the kind of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has suggested, and which was earlier suggested, I think by Mr. Prior, with regard to an Open Technical University? Would they bear in mind that this is a matter of urgency, not something that should be left to the slow process of time with which we are only too familiar in this country? It could mean that we wait for 10 or 20 years to do something which needs to be done today. Would they remember that it means setting up a really effective central organisation analogous to the present Open University?

My Lords, indeed everything the noble Lord has said is very much in the mind of my right honourable friend in the Department of Employment, and the Government intend to use every educational opportunity and facility to further the concept of the Open Tech, be it the Open University, be it the BBC, be it television, be it colleges of advanced technology; every avenue will be used for this new concept.

My Lords, will the Government give a decision as to whether the computer language being taught to children, which is BASIC, is the one which will be used for further adult education in the open technical colleges that have been suggested?

My Lords, I would have to take advice on the computer language being taught to children. The programme that I have outlined relevant to the Question on the Order Paper deals with postgraduates and young people who have left school and are receiving further education, either at work or before they go further into new technological industries.

My Lords, are the Government in a position to say that whatever computer language is chosen will be a standard one used for both elementary and adult education?

My Lords, I think that is a little wide of the original Question on the Order Paper, but certainly the noble Lord's comments will be noted in the department.

My Lords, will the noble Lord take care to ensure that whatever computer language is taught it will not become as archaic as Latin by the time young people reach their maturity?

My Lords, we shall take very careful note of the noble Earl's comments. As one who studied for two years and got an O-level in Greek, I believe it is particularly relevant that we should study newer languages.

My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord said in regard to the Government trying to use every educational means of extending technological education, what opinion is he expressing this afternoon on the UGC grants which are being cut back on those technological universities? I mention Aston in Birmingham particularly, which has got the highest rate of placement of graduates from any university into industry and commerce.

My Lords, we are very interested to note the relevant points raised by the noble Baroness on the University of Aston. I think the first part of the noble Baroness's question was a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that some of us very much welcome the concept that the proposed Open Tech programme should build on existing resources rather than form a new institution?

My Lords, the noble Lord's comments are very welcome, and indeed he is very accurate; we accept them.

My Lords, is it not a fact that the Open University provides university education for so many who would otherwise be deprived of it, and the Open Tech could do exactly the same for technical education?

My Lords, I hope that my earlier answers did give the noble Lord some indication that the Open Tech goes a little further than the Open University as such, but of course the Open University will be a very valuable vehicle for the overall concept of Open Tech, as suggested by the Manpower Services Commission.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this idea seems to have strong support in all parts of the House, and therefore it is a welcome initiative? I shall, therefore, seek to put down a further Question when we reassemble to see what progress has been made since this was launched at the beginning of May.

My Lords, the House will have due warning of further Questions to be put down by my noble friend. Indeed, we are grateful for his interest.

My Lords, I am sure every Member of the House welcomes the suggestion of the use of Open University facilities for this very important task. Will the noble Lord answer directly the question put by my noble friend Lady Fisher? Is it not the case that the present Government's policy is reducing technological training and technological apprenticeships at this moment when they are needed to a greater extent than ever before in the history of the country?

My Lords, the noble Lord's question is rather like the curate's egg; it is good in parts and not so good in other parts. Indeed, the whole concept of Open Tech accepts that we need further and continuing efforts to improve the technological skills in training particularly as regards young people in our country. But, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, perhaps he or his noble friend would care to put down another Question, because it is not strictly relevant to the Question which was raised by my noble friend.

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

My Lords, over the years, big rises in money incomes without commensurate increases in productivity have increased our labour costs relative to those in other countries, so undermining competitiveness. This has meant loss of markets, severe pressure on firms' finances and profits, and so loss of jobs. Future prospects for unemployment depend crucially on reversing this decline in competitiveness through lower pay rises and improvements in productivity.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that long and erudite reply. However, I should like to ask him whether he realises that a great many people think that the Government's public relations statements have been inept, to say the very least; that they have failed to get over some of the very simple facts of economics; and that the impression still remains that what they are doing is wholly doctrinal and not really related to trying to put this nation on its feet? I think that there is lacking completely the slightest Churchillian touch.

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Viscount does me less than justice. In the first major speech which I made in your Lordships' House, after we came into office, I said:

"the employer who accepts an excessive pay settlement damages his own profits and puts the viability of his business at risk. The employee who insists on an excessive settlement damages the company for which he works and puts his own job in jeopardy. These are the simple facts of the situation".—[Official Report, 19/6/79; col. 845.]

My Lords, shall we not continue to fail to match pay increases with productivity improvements or to alleviate unemployment until the Government, employers and trade unions are prepared together to establish agreed long-term arrangements for pay determination?

My Lords, we do not agree with the noble Lord's approach to this matter. The ends that he seeks to achieve, of course, are the ends which are shared, I think, by all of us. However, experience shows that a formalised incomes policy unfortunately does not produce the results that he expects of it. We regard the responsibility as falling on the respective employers and the representatives of the workforce. In our own field, so far as the public services are concerned, we are, in fact, taking a firm line on this, and we hope that the private sector will similarly face up to the realities of the situation as, indeed, it appears to be doing.

My Lords, if it is in order to ask Questions on the Order Paper making reference to speeches that have been made by past Prime Ministers, would it be in order for me to ask Questions about Mr. Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli, or, to be more modern, to ask Questions about Mr. Harold Macmillan, and even go so far—although I do so with the utmost respect—as to ask Questions which refer to the activities of the noble Lord, Lord Home? Would that be in order?

My Lords, I regret to say that the noble Lord also does me less than justice, because if he reads one of my earliest speeches, he will find quotations in it from Mr. Gladstone's speeches. So far as the Question on the Order Paper is concerned, I have, of course, no responsibility for the terms in which it is phrased.

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that Sir Harold Wilson did, in fact, say what he is alleged to have said?

My Lords, I do not know whether I need detain the House on this, or whether the House would appreciate my detaining it; but what Mr. Harold Wilson, as he then was, said in a speech to the Durham Miners' Gala—a function, of course, with which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has been associated in a very distinguished way—on 19th July 1975 was as follows:

"I have never been allowed to forget that phrase 'one man's wage increase is another man's price increase'. In these grim days, it is more than that: one man's wage increase could mean another man's ticket to the dole queue".

My Lords, is not the noble Lord's continuing demand that justice should be done to him rather a dangerous request?

Not in the least, my Lords; I frequently read my own speeches to my own great benefit.

My Lords, the Question refers to "real wages". Can the Government distinguish between the increases in real wages and the increases which are due purely to catching up with inflation?

My Lords, as a statistical matter, it is perfectly possible to distinguish how much of an increase in money wages represents a real increase in income, and how much represents merely an inflationary increase. It is a simple matter of statistical arithmetic.

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that when the world was confronted with the horrendous problem of unemployment in the 'thirties, the then United States President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, accepted the policies and philosophies of Maynard Keynes and Kenneth Galbraith which were based simply on spend and prosper? By adopting that philosophy, he overcame unemployment. We followed in this country the policy of spend and prosper. Would it now not be fair—in so far as the Government have had a long run and have failed lamentably—that they might try to tackle this extremely serious problem with the policies and philosophies of Keynes and Galbraith?

No, my Lords; the world has moved on a great deal in the 50 years since 1931. Repeated attempts in the last 30 years to spend our way out of recession have merely resulted in higher levels of inflation and higher levels of unemployment.

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that in 1931 and the years following prices were falling, although unemployment was high? The situation nowadays is entirely different: although we have high unemployment, prices are still rising. That is the problem with which we are trying to cope.

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. While lessons can and ought to be drawn from history, one thing we always need to remember is that circumstances today may be, and indeed are, very different from what they were half a century ago.

My Lords, will the Government discourage the practice which is now so common, of justifying increases in price by saying that they are necessary in order to keep up with the rate of inflation, as though the rate of inflation was a natural phenomenon, or an act of God or of the Devil? There is no more certain way of maintaining inflation than by using the pretext for raising prices.

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that one of the most important things to do is to break inflationary expectations. A number of major speeches have been made by my honourable and right honourable friends in another place, and have been designed to try to displace many of the inflationary expectations which, unfortunately, have grown up over the years.

My Lords, when he speaks of the world having moved on 50 years, would the noble Lord not agree that his Government are pursuing a policy of Adam Smith? The noble Lord is really saying that it is better to keep nearly 3 million people out of work and pay them something, rather than to have them gainfully employed, keeping their dignity and making a contribution to our nation.

My Lords, I entirely reject both the allegations and the arguments of the noble Lord.

My Lords, I think the House feels that we should move on to the next Question.

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

My Lords, the total staff of the British Information Services in the United States has been reduced in the last 10 years from 100 to 64, a reduction of 10 United Kingdom-based and 26 locally-engaged officers. The present establishment is made up of two United Kingdom-based officers in Washington and three in New York, supported by a total of 59 locally-engaged officers deployed as follows: Washington 8; New York 41; Atlanta 1; Boston 1; Chicago 2; Houston 3; Los Angeles 2; San Francisco 1.

My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for his illuminating statistics, might it not be held that recent events have suggested that, particularly in the case of those officers based in the United Kingdom, these were false economies, as the citizens of a country to which one is directing information can only act in a relatively minor capacity? Does not this reveal the constant pressure by the Treasury upon the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to reduce our facilities for presenting Britain's image and Britain's case abroad, whether through information services or through the BBC?

My Lords, no, I do not think that this service is doing a bad job. I do not think that the numbers have been reduced unrealistically. Staff costs at the Diplomatic Service's 10 largest posts have been reduced by 10 per cent. in the last two years, and of course information work cannot be excluded from this exercise. In addition, all posts in the United States are being inspected at the present time in accordance with the normal three-yearly inspection cycle.

My Lords, will my noble friend consider whether 41 in New York and only 23 spread throughout the immense rest of the United States is a proper weighting? The effect in New York does not seem to have been very substantial in spite of the numbers, and certainly not as far as Mayor Koch is concerned.

My Lords, the reason for the large preponderance in New York is, of course, that the centralised information gathering services of the United States are situated in that city.

My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the numbers are needed in New York because they arrange the tours and everything else all over the country? Does he also agree that even 10 years ago—and at that time I was doing some lectures for the British Information Services—certainly my impression and that of many Americans was that the services were very stretched and the staff was a very small one? Does the noble Lord not further agree that the amount of benefit that results from the work of the British Information Services taking knowledge of what is happening in this country to all parts of the United States is quite invaluable?

My Lords, I said at the beginning of this Question that I was convinced that the Information Service in the United States was doing a very good job, and I would certainly agree with the noble Baroness.

My Lords, in view of the fact that, in some people's opinion, the IRA have done quite well lately propaganda-wise on the west coast of America, and as we have only one representative in San Francisco, as my noble friend said, could not some of his henchmen from New York go out to support him?

My Lords, the entire Information Service is, of course, fully and continuously briefed from London through the medium of both Washington and New York, and any support that the outlying areas require is, of course, continuously and consistently given.

My Lords, following what the noble Lord opposite has said, will the Minister agree that there is widespread misunderstanding throughout the whole of the United States and not merely on the west coast, of the present state of affairs in Northern Ireland? While we cannot afford to have as many information officers as we did in the palmy days of long ago, could we not make a particular effort at the moment to send people over there with up-to-date information on what is in fact happening in the Province, so as to counter the propaganda of the IRA and in particular the monstrous raising of money publicly by IRA supporters for sending weapons into the Province, thus making the situation far worse?

My Lords, the Information Services, the Government here and Members of Parliament on exchange visits and so on are doing everything they possibly can to make absolutely clear to responsible opinion in the press and in the United States exactly what is the position.

My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the number of people that he mentioned as being engaged in this Information Service consist entirely of information officers, or does the number also include typewriting maidens and other subordinates?

My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that because I do not have the detailed breakdown with me.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, with the increasing amount of trade, particularly in San Francisco and Los Angeles, and of tourism, representation by one information officer in San Francisco and two in Los Angeles is completely disproportionate compared with the representation elsewhere in America? Will he review the situation?

My Lords, earlier I mentioned that we were in the middle of a triennial review and obviously this is one of the matters at which we shall look.

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

My Lords, the function of interest rates is to bring the demand for money into line with the supply. Increases in wages unmatched by increases in productivity reduce the demand for labour and hence create unemployment. If this is what the noble Lord means, I would agree with him.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said and I am always anxious to define an area of agreement with the noble Lord. But if the function of high interest rates is to reduce the money supply, would the noble Lord claim that they have been conspicuously successful in that attempt? Are we not really getting down to the saying that inflation is a matter of too much money chasing too few goods? If by high interest rates we reduce the money supply but at the same time reduce the volume of goods, are we not left with as bad, or even worse, an inflationary situation?

My Lords, no. It is perfectly true—and we have made no secret of it—that the control of the money supply is a difficult exercise. Nevertheless, it is essential that we continue to direct our best efforts to doing this, and it is what we are doing. The statement that the noble Lord made about inflation being due to too much money chasing too few goods is a popular truism, in the sense that the more money there is and the fewer goods, the higher prices will be. But the natural consequence of that argument is to point towards reducing or controlling the money supply, which is exactly and precisely what the Government's policies are directed to do.

My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to answer the one part of my question in which I put forward, as a fact, that the policy of high interest rates has had the effect of reducing the volume of goods?

My Lords, the reduction in the level of output is due to the slowness of the economy in responding to the economic measures taken. The biggest problem here has been the persistence of a high level of wage settlements, way beyond what the economy could afford. This has produced severe strains on the money supply and it has also resulted in a reduction in the level of output.

My Lords, would the Minister agree that the phenomenon referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, of inflation produced by too much money chasing too few goods, is one form of inflation, but it is not the form of inflation from which we are now suffering?

My Lords, we are indeed suffering from the problem of people demanding too high money incomes for the goods that they produce. It is this which ultimately leads to inflation. The main cause of the demand for too much money lies in the level of wage settlements. Fortunately, this level is coming down. The present level of settlements is about half what it was last year, and we must look forward to a continued reduction, which will be followed in due time by a fall in the rate of inflation.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he attributes any of the inflation which has taken place over the last few years to the increase in oil? Why does this not appear to be part of the answer which he gives on this occasion? It has always struck me that the increase in oil fuelled the inflationary tendencies of the last four years.

My Lords, the increase in the price of oil—and there have been two great oil price explosions, one in 1973 and a further one in 1979–80—did in fact spark off very severe inflation throughout the whole of the industrialised world. Some countries however coped with this situation much better than did others. The German economy, for example, by following strict financial policies succeeded in keeping their rate of inflation much lower than we kept it in this country, which was due to a failure to follow adequately firm financial and monetary policies.

My Lords, finally may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware how grateful we are that he has at least spared us the claim he usually makes, that Government policy is bringing down interest rates?

My Lords, the rates of interest have fallen from 17 per cent. last summer to 12 per cent. now. That is a very considerable achievement.

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announced that dinner will be available today at the usual time. The Report stage of the Transport Bill will adjourn at approximately 7 o'clock for an hour. During the adjournment the Committee stage of the Armed Forces Bill and the Third Reading of the Zoo Licensing (No. 2) Bill will be taken.

At a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission Report on domestic gas appliances.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

moved Amendment No. 29:

Page 71, line 12, leave out from ("but") to end of line 14.

My Lords, I support the amendment which, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, reminded us, is in very similar terms to one moved at an earlier stage. I should at the outset thank my noble friend for arranging a series of demonstrations at which members of the department showed your Lordships a number of machines that might be used. The three machines demonstrated to us were all American—it seems a rather unhappy situation that the British industry has not been able to provide such a machine—and I understand that other machines are being evaluated by the department. If by virtue of the demonstrations it was sought to persuade us that the machines are as near foolproof as possible, one cannot accept that in that we did not see other machines which might be used. In addition, although we had quite clearly explained and demonstrated to us the way in which the machine could start at zero, take a reading and finish at zero, I am happy to say that we were not invited to provide our own blood or urine samples against which the machine could be tested and checked, so there could reasonably remain some doubt.

I accept all that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, but I would add the additional point that, in so many of the measures we have been discussing during the passage of the safety parts of the Bill, we have referred to public acceptance—the public relations element of it—and I do not know of any noble Lord who has spoken against tightening up the law in regard to alcoholism. Indeed, some of us have said we have not gone far enough. We are, therefore, after all the years since Blennerhasset, making a fairly major change in procedure, and I believe it would enhance the provisions if alleged offenders had the option which the amendment would provide, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I believe that within a year or two the option would not be exercised and the machine would come to be recognised as an acceptable device.

I was not much enamoured by the answer we received on 8th June from my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, in which he said—his comments appear at column 105 of Hansard—that if we allowed such a discretion to drivers it would inevitably perpetuate unnecessary delays and obstructions. I do not wish to weary the Committee with reminders of the exchanges I have had with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in regard to justice, time and resources. I believe we should give an alleged offender all the opportunities he could reasonably require to prove his innocence. The amendment would provide one of those and therefore I support it.

My Lords, it might be helpful if I indicated that my noble friends on these Benches support the amendment very strongly, for reasons not entirely the same as those admirably put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—although I agreed with everything he said—but rather more for the point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. If we go back to the days before we came to the concept of a blood-alcohol level as being an offence, we were in an area of extreme difficulty because fitness or unfitness to drive was largely a matter of opinion. It was also a matter of opinion based on a recollection. Juries were asked to convict on the basis of an expression of opinion and there was no permanent record at which courts could look which gave incontrovertible evidence of the condition of the driver. It was for that reason among others that we moved on, sensibly and rightly, to the concept of a permissible or impermissible blood-alcohol level, and that did an enormous amount of good to get away from perhaps wrongful acquittals and prolonged legal processes which were entirely unnecessary, and that change got us on to a much more orderly footing.

If we are able to design and introduce new, rapid, efficient and reliable screening methods to discover blood-alcohol level, that is obviously for the public benefit. But I feel it right to remind the Committee that we live in an era when there is some suspicion of experts; perhaps there has been even more suspicion of forensic experts in recent months. It is absolutely essential, if a measure of this kind is to work, that the new method is fair, just and accurate, we should be and support of the public as a whole.

I believe that time must elapse before people will be entirely convinced that this new method of screening is wholly accurate. It is my view that time will show that it is wholly accurate, but until that time has elapsed and people have had an opportunity to develop confidence in the new method and to learn that the new method is fair, just and accurate, we should be very wise indeed to preserve this safeguard which, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, will be resorted to very rarely indeed. Thus, we support the amendment because we believe that in the long run it will be for the good of the new measure which the Government wish to introduce, and that that new measure will become much more effective if it is given time to earn public acceptance and confidence. Until that time, we should be wise to retain the safeguard which the amendment would provide.

My Lords, not for the first time I find myself assaulted from all sides, but I am not daunted because the case against the amendment is not simply as powerful as the arguments adduced for it, but is more powerful. We afforded the opportunity for your Lordships to come and examine the machines, which were displayed in another part of your Lordships' House. We did that because we appreciate the concern there is about the new breath analysis machines, and it is right that there should be concern because what we are proposing is an important and serious matter—not least to those people who one day, for whatever reason, might find themselves in the position of having to use one of these machines.

That is why we gave your Lordships the opportunity to see the machines in practice. We gave the machines some pretty severe tests; there are some Members of your Lordships' House, as I am sure all your Lordships will know, who would put such machines to a very severe test, and indeed some of them did. From the observations that I made at the time—and I certainly have no intention of mentioning any names—I thought that the machine stood up very well. I really do not see how anyone who observed or took part in this test could have any doubts about the accuracy of these machines. But it is a very important matter and perhaps I should spend a few minutes discussing it.

The use of breath as a means of establishing the concentration of alcohol in the body has been recognised for a long while. It has been in use in other countries for some years—for example, in some States in the USA since 1956. The technology of breath analysis has advanced considerably in recent years. In 1977 the Home Office Central Research Establishment evaluated a number of machines by extensive laboratory and field trials and concluded that breath analysis was a reliable and accurate means of determining the amount of alcohol in the body. Indeed, they discovered that the machines were accurate to plus or minus 2 milligrammes although the manufacturers only claimed an accuracy of plus or minus 5 milligrammes. Further tests are under way on a new generation of machines and I have no reason to suppose that they will be any less accurate.

As we are proposing largely to replace the well-established methods of laboratory analysis, we have provided a large number of safeguards for drivers. I consider it is important that I should give noble Lords some detailed information about this aspect. The machines will have to be approved by the Home Secretary. Before they are installed in a police station they will first receive a British Calibration Service certificate. The British Calibration Service is a branch of the National Physical Laboratory and, for a fee, provides a service to industry in checking measurements et cetera. The machines will be regularly inspected and, if necessary, recalibrated by British Calibration Service approved laboratories. Proper instructions for the operation and maintenance of the machines will be issued and a select group of police officers will be properly trained to operate the machines.

When a driver suspected of driving while impaired or while exceeding the prescribed limit is at the police station, he will be asked to give two breath specimens. A police officer authorised to use the breath analysis machine will first check it for accuracy in the presence of the suspect. He will do this by passing through the machine a standard alcohol vapour sample equivalent to the prescribed limit and certificated by the British Calibration Service. The driver will be required to provide two consecutive samples of breath only if this test shows that the machine is working correctly. The machine will then be checked again by the same method, and only if it is still working correctly will the results of the driver's breath samples be used. The lower of the two results will be taken as evidence of the suspect's breath alcohol concentration, thus giving the suspect the benefit of the variation between the two samples. The suspect will then be given a copy of the print-out from the machine, showing the results of the two checks and the two breath samples. I should like to think that this very much covers the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.

The machines which the Home Secretary will eventually approve for use could be as accurate at the prescribed limit as those already tested. However, an allowance will have to be made on top of the prescribed limit for machine variation, and therefore prosecutions are unlikely to take place below this level. This follows the current practice with blood, where analysts deduct 6 milligrammes from an analytical test below 100 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood and 6 per cent. from results above this figure. Although present prosecutions start at a certificated result of 81 milli-grammes per 100 millilitres of blood, the analytical figure obtained for such a result was in fact 87 milli-grammes per 100 millilitres of blood.

In our new arrangements we will also be providing the driver with an additional safeguard. In a small number of cases, it is possible for a person with an unusual blood-to-breath ratio to exceed the prescribed breath limit but to be under the limit on blood. All drivers whose results do not exceed 50 microgrammes (that is equivalent to an average of 115 milligrammes in the blood) may provide a specimen of blood for analysis to replace the breath test result. Similarly, if a machine is not available or is not working correctly, the suspect will be required to provide instead a specimen of blood. If the doctor then decides that a specimen of blood cannot or should not be taken, a specimen of urine will be required.

There is also provision that where the constable making the requirement for breath has reasonable cause to believe that for medical reasons a person cannot provide a breath specimen or should not be required to do so, the constable can ask for blood instead. The medical reasons could cover those who clearly could not give a breath specimen; for example, asthmatics and those who may have special problems, which they should make known to the constable. Again, if the doctor decides on medical grounds that a sample of blood cannot or should not be taken, the person will be asked to give a specimen or urine instead.

This is an extremely important amendment and it is right that we should spend the time which we have in discussing it. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that he was anxious that everyone should have the right to a blood test and that it was important that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done, and that in this way public confidence in the new system would be established. Indeed, that very point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. On the other hand, the Government believe that the breath analysis machines are sufficiently accurate and well-tried, that the built-in safeguards on procedures are sufficiently strong, and that the margin allowed for the right to a blood test is sufficiently generous to ensure that justice will be done without the need for this amendment.

I listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth because I know that he too, in associating himself with this amendment, is very concerned and anxious about this point. That is why I was very pleased that he, too, was present at the testing of the machines, and I know that he looked into this aspect very closely indeed. I had hoped that because of that I might have had my noble friend on my side, but I suspect that he is not really all that far away. Supporters of the amendment argue that there would be no harm in accepting the amendment, because once drivers get used to the breath analysis machine they will not bother to ask for blood tests unless they really believed that a blood test would give a different result. But no one can really predict with any certainty how drivers will react.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke about only a "small number" of drivers; but what if blood tests are asked for by large numbers of drivers, faced with the possibility that they will have a year off the road and who have nothing to lose by undergoing a second test—and that is a very likely scenario, because who would not elect for an alternative in case the result was different? The consequences would be so serious that it could undermine the whole objective. Not one of the noble Lords who have spoken against have objected in principle to what it is that we seek to do here. I do not make the whole of this case on the basis that police time and court time will be saved and that more police will be on the road. It will do more than that. The other aspects are far more important; the fact that a test will be done better, with more accuracy, and that the procedure will be better. All those noble Lords who have spoken said that something better than we have at the present time is wanted. Blennahasset did not go for this, but one must bear in mind that there has been much technological advance since Blennahasset reported in this whole area.

Before I finish I should like to refer to the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in respect of speed guns. My information is that all breath-testing instruments work on different principles from speed guns and that radio transmissions using various types of police transmitters have been made in the vioinity of evidential breath-testing instruments without any detectable effect. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.

I ask the noble Lords who have tabled the amendment to consider not pressing it, despite their concern, which I appreciate and understand. What they propose would drive a coach and horses through all our drink/ driving proposals in the Bill; and everyone is agreed that we must do something about this aspect of safety on the roads. That is why I believe that we are entitled to ask noble Lords at least to consider not pressing the amendment; but if they do press it, I hope that we shall have the support of your Lordships against it.

My Lords, I sometimes think that on all sides of the House we are in danger of minimising the virtues of simplicity. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the elaborate precautions that he is including in the Bill in order to prevent mistakes by the machine; it has to be tested beforehand, retested again afterwards, and so on. The great merit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is that it is perfectly simple. If the person who is suspect does not like the machine, does not trust it, he asks for the old-fashioned method. I am sure that the noble Lord is right in thinking that in the course of time the simple use of the machine will gain on the fuss of having to give a urine or a blood specimen.

My Lords, I hope that I am in order in making some observations arising from the speech of the noble Lord who speaks for the Government. I thought that he was extremely persuasive in his account of the precuations that are to be taken to ensure that the machines are fair to the driver. Nevertheless, I would support the amendment put forward by my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench if he presses it to a Division. But I venture to make an observation before the vote is taken. We are dealing with drunken driving. Drunken driving is a matter of the very highest importance. If we want to reduce the appalling toll of death and mutilation on the roads, drunken driving is one matter on which vigorous action must be taken. I speak with feeling because my own driving career was finished by a drunken driver who struck my car sideways on against the back wheel axle at 40 miles an hour. He destroyed both his own car and my car. He spent the night in a police station because he was so obviously very heavily under the influence of drink. Had he been one-fifth of a second earlier in hitting my car, probably I should not be here. I had a miraculous escape.

It is right to have safeguards for the driver, but in my view infinitely more important are safeguards for the victims of the drunken driver. I venture to urge again what I urged at an earlier stage; namely, that the penalty for drunken driving should be much more severe than it has ever been in the past. I believe that fines are of no effect. I believe that suspension of the licence is of considerable effect, but it is not enough. I believe that for drunken driving there should be imposed long terms of imprisonment. Nothing but imprisonment will restrain the drunken driver who takes from the bar "one for the road" and then goes out and commits a murder. I submit that the driver who drinks and then drives is in fact committing a murder with premeditation. He knows that the drink may cause him to kill someone, but he drinks and then goes out and drives. I hope that before the Bill completes its passage the Government will be able to insert penalties that will really restrain people who are guilty of this most heinous crime.

My Lords, I am sure that no noble Lord in any part of the House wants to drive a coach and horses through the drink and driving laws, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. I humbly suggest to the noble Lord that he did not really take the point of my noble friend about public acceptance. It is quite true that the noble Lord was good enough to arrange a demonstration. Unfortunately, I was not able to be present, but many noble Lords went along, and for all I know were well satisfied. But I suggest that that is quite different from satisfying the general public, who will always suspect new methods of this kind. As I say, I do not want to drive a coach and horses through the drink and driving laws, but I do not understand why it should be thought that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would do that.

My Lords, I do not want to extend the matter any further, but, with the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the noble Viscount's last point. I spoke earlier about the reality of a person who, when tested by the machine and found to be marginally over the limit, is then given the right regarding a blood sample. Almost always he will say, "Well, have a blood test as well". Surely that will be the almost inevitable reaction, and in such circumstances we therefore need not have the whole thing in the first place. That is why I was so convinced about this question.

My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government consider the question of whether a driver who requests a blood test should be responsible for all the costs involved in the event of the result of the blood test going against him?

My Lords, once more I ask for the leave of the House in order to reply to a point—and I had better not ask again! The noble Lord has made a very interesting suggestion, which of itself is not unhelpful. But we are talking about a situation which many of us believe will be on so great a scale that we might then have to abandon our proposals and start all over again. That would be a great shame. No noble Lords who have spoken have really doubted that basically the machines are accurate and that they will become even more accurate. The Government have given undertakings, as I gave in my remarks, that the machines will continue to be accurate and will become more accurate. For that reason we want the legislation to go forward, so as to make a major contribution to road safety—if I may use the phrase.

My Lords, surely we are getting out of order; this is not the Committee stage.

My Lords, I have not spoken previously and so I think I am in order in seeking to speak now. I feel that I must support the amendment, though I understand the reasons why the Minister wants the machine to operate alone. Any machine, no matter how accurate, is only as accurate as the extent of the fallibility of the human being who is involved with it, whether he installs it, calibrates it, or operates it. Therefore I cannot believe that we ought to rely only on the results of a machine. We must give the individual concerned the opportunity of an alternative choice.

My Lords, I always listen very closely to what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, says in his persuasive way. I, too, wish to thank him for the facilities arranged regarding the demonstration. Unfortunately, I went along at the last moment, I had had no alcohol, and so I could not be tested; I had to wait for other people. In my opening remarks I made it quite clear that I am not challenging the general statements about the basic accuracy of the machines, even though the motoring organisations claim that scientific tests carried out by them show that there could be greater inaccuracies at the higher levels, which are very important from the point of view of periods of disqualification.

However, leaving apart that aspect, the important question is that of general acceptance by the public. It will be noticed that not one noble Lord has come to defend the Minister on this question. All noble Lords who have spoken have supported the principle of the amendment, and, as has been emphasised, there is certainly no intention of driving a coach and horses through the provisions.

In another place, reference was made to "rough justice". You cannot be satisfied with rough justice when you are dealing with an important issue of this kind. What we are endeavouring to do by this amendment is to ensure that at least in the initial period, while people are getting used to the machines, the Ministry, as I am certain they will, with all their information network, will be able to obtain sufficient publicity as time goes on for the effectiveness of the machine, and, where there has been a blood option, will be able to put one against the other. I am certain that will be done; and if the Government are right, then the numbers claiming the option will decrease rapidly.

If this amendment is carried, as I hope will be the case, there is nothing to prevent the Minister, if he so desires, coming back at Third Reading with an amendment to provide that what I am proposing should be there for only a period. But I believe this is such an important issue—it is a question of justice and public acceptance—and, obviously, so many noble Lords from all parts of the House believe in this amendment, that I must press it to a Division.

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will repeat a Statement being made in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the action which the Government has decided to take following the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of certain domestic gas appliances, published last year.

"I told the House on 17th June of the public interest findings made by the commission in their report.

"The considered that the British Gas Corporation's monopoly had acted against the public interest by restricting competition in the retailing of appliances.

"This had limited the number of independent outlets, suppressed competition, and possibly had increased prices.

"They also considered that the manufacturers' over-dependence on BGC had indirectly led to poor export performance on the part of the manufacturers, reduced incentives to improve efficiency and depressed investment; and that this was against the public interest.

"I told the House on 17th June of the options put forward in the MMC report.

"The Government have considered these, and others, with great care, bearing in mind that the Government's objective and first responsibility must be to respond to and remedy the adverse findings in the commission's report in a way consistent with the need to give consumers wider choice, better service, safety, availability and convenience, and at the same time to minimise as far as possible any adverse effects of any changes on our own manufacturing industry and the employees of the British Gas Corporation; I should like on this occasion to repeat the statement which I made in the House on 17th June that no solution that failed to maintain safety, at least at its present level, that generally inconvenienced consumers, or that was seriously damaging to manufacturers, would be acceptable to the Government.

"Having considered carefully and consulted widely, the Government have concluded that in order to remedy the adverse effects identified by the commission, the BGC should withdraw from its current retailing operations and that the timetable of three years in the MMC's first option is too compressed a period.

"The Government have decided therefore that the corporation should be required to cease retailing domestic gas appliances and to dispose of their showrooms over a five-year period.

"This would be a carefully structured and phased programme of withdrawal, with the corporation being required to dispose of half their showrooms within two years, a further quarter in the following year, and the remaining quarter in the final two years.

"The Government will, if necessary, introduce legislation to give effect to this decision.

"As a counterpart to these steps, the Government are also considering measures under the Fair Trading Act to counteract certain adverse effects of the gas appliance manufacturers' monopolies identified by the commission.

"The Government are clearly concerned to minimise the impact of their decision on employment.

"In this context I must stress that the Government are not proposing to curtail British Gas's servicing and installation activities.

"The decision will therefore only have a direct bearing on those who are employed in appliance retailing, mainly in British Gas's showrooms.

"The Government would wish British Gas to maintain some customer contact points and since they have stated that 80 per cent. of showroom staff's time is spent on activities other than retailing the number of jobs which could be affected should be minimised.

"Nevertheless, the Government recognise that concerns about employment are deeply felt by Gas Corporation employees, although, in the Government's view, these fears are largely unfounded.

"The Government will consult British Gas and their unions closely at all stages about the detailed implementation of these decisions so that the impact on employment prospects can be minimised.

"The Government are well aware that a change of the kind they have decided upon will represent a radical move away from the gas appliance market as we know it today.

"But the Government would not have reached the decision which they have reached if they did not believe it to be right, justified and necessary, and a measure essential to the enhancement of competition in the public interest.

"We believe also that as this sector evolves away from its present monopoly dominated structure there will be positive benefits alike to the consumer and to gas appliance manufacturers, as competition between retailers develops to meet consumer needs and satisfy consumer demand, providing, as enhanced competition always does, wider choice and better service."

My Lords, may I first of all thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in the other place detailing the Government's reaction to the MMC report—that is, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report—published almost a year ago today and based on evidence taken in 1976. This is an appalling Statement. It flies right in the face of the expressed wishes of the National Consumer Council, the manufacturers the gas industry and the Gas Consumer Council. The only part of the industry which I understand is in favour of this Statement is the retailers.

This Statement and the intentions embodied in it will create a potentially serious industrial situation within the British gas industry where none has existed before. Your Lordships will know that the record of industrial relations in the gas industry has been almost perfect. These proposals will destroy that record. At a stroke, the Government are proposing—and I give these figures on the basis of the estimates made by the unions involved—to create between 20,000 and 30,000 job losses in the gas industry.

If British Gas is forced to sell off its showrooms, it will not be able to maintain the same level of service to its customers. Inevitably, the public will have to call more and more on the services of private gas installers—those who work for the Council of Registered Gas Installers (CORGI). The safety record of those involved in gas installation shows that a gas installation made by a member of CORGI is fifteen times more likely to result in an accident than one which is made by a Gas Board employee. That is because the employees of CORGI firms are not necessarily trained fitters. There must be a very great deal of public concern about this safety aspect.

The Minister said that the Government would start consultation with British Gas about the implementation of this Statement, and I understand that consultations started at 3 o'clock this afternoon between the Minister and the chairman of British Gas, and that there has been, bar one general discussion between British Gas and the Government, no consultation about the proposals in this Statement before.

The noble Lord indicated in the Statement that legislation could be needed before, in fact, British Gas takes the action proposed in the Statement. We believe that it will be necessary for the Government to bring forward legislation. We shall oppose that legislation, and shall seek to have it reversed in the next Parliament. I would ask the noble Lord to say what compensation the Government propose should be given to British Gas for the disposal of a successful business.

Briefly, what this Statement envisages is poorer safety in the gas industry, higher prices, and worse services for the consumer.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in thanking the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place. The noble Lord will understand that this is a very complex Statement, with very important and serious implications for those who work in this industry and for those who depend upon it for goods and services, and indeed for consumers in general. The noble Lord will understand that we shall wish to consider this Statement carefully before reaching any final conclusions. First, does he agree that this present tendency of the Government to privatise, to sell off or otherwise to eliminate highly profitable sections of nationalised industries, does not hold out a helpful example to people working in those industries? Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that the gas showrooms provide a whole series of services, apart from selling goods? From my own knowledge I can ask, is he aware that they give advice on safety, on energy conservation and on the economic use of fuel? Also they frequently give advice to elderly people on heating costs and heating allowances and help with matters of that kind. Finally, in the event that the gas showrooms are phased out and this void is left which will certainly not be filled by the commercial operators, have the Government any plans for replacing the important services at present being provided by the gas showrooms?

My Lords, may I first take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. As I said in the Statement—and I appreciate that the noble Lord may not have had a chance to study it—it is the Government's intention that British Gas should maintain an adequate number of contact points for the public so that the advice to which the noble Lord referred and some of the other services and activities which are presently carried out in gas showrooms, as, for example, the payment of gas bills, should continue to be possible on a local basis. It is the retailing activities on which we have made the decisions which are contained in the main thrust of the Statement.

As for the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, he started with what I must tell him is a wholly misinformed, inaccurate and quite wrong condemnation of the activities of the private installers. The CORGI installers are just as good in terms of safety as the British Gas Corporation. There are no statistics which show that they are less efficient than British Gas. What is the case is that there are a few "cowboy" installers who are not covered by the CORGI scheme. It was to the CORGI scheme that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, specifically referred. It is the "cowboy" installers who perhaps in some cases are not up to the required standards; and we shall want to ensure than any disadvantages of that nature are not continued in the proposals we shall be bringing forward. The insinuation—and I can call it no less—made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby in that respect is, as I say, quite wrong and I hope that the noble Lord will not persist with it.

As for employment, a point which the noble Lord also raised, as I said in the Statement, 20 per cent., or even fewer, of British Gas employees in the showrooms are presently engaged on retailing activities so that it is a small percentage that will be directly concerned in the phasing out of the retailing activities. But I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of British Gas to ensure that redundancies on any significant scale do not occur.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware—

My Lords, I think we speak from alternative sides of the Chamber, do we not?

My Lords, the generally accepted point of view is that we do go from one side to the other. I think that is right. I think that my noble friend got up before the noble Baroness did, but certainly the noble Baroness got up soon after. I think it was my noble friend who rose first.

My Lords, perhaps I might continue with my question to my noble friend.

My Lords, will the House allow me to speak as Chief Whip of the SDP, to remind the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip that what he has just said is not entirely in accordance with the private agreement reached, and to ask the forbearance of the House when I say that we shall raise the matter again in private?

My Lords, we have had discussions, of course, on various points outside the House, but I think it has been generally agreed that at the specific moment the noble Lord and his friends who find themselves sitting on that particular Bench do not get any particular preference in forms of statements.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his remarks will be welcomed as bearing out what the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommended and that it will be unquestionably in the interests of consumers? But is it not a very long time to phase out the retailing operation over the whole of five years? Is there any possibility that when experience has been gained after, say, two years this process could be expedited and that the three years that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommended could be adhered to?

My Lords, the five-year period to which I referred in the Statement was arrived at after a lot of careful consideration. I think that there are dangers in seeking to expedite this process too rapidly. That was why we took the decision, as we did, that the three-year period recommended by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was unduly hasty. There are risks of putting too much property on to the market at the same time, although I should say in parenthesis that not all the gas showrooms are held on a freehold basis. But, having regard to all considerations of that kind, we came to the conclusion that five years was the right time.

My Lords, I was under the impression that as we, the Social Democrats, had been given a copy of the Statement, after the official Opposition and Liberal speakers had asked questions we would come next. I apologise to the noble Lord the Chief Whip, but I believed that to be so. We on these Benches do not agree with what the Government propose to do. I should like to ask three questions. First, we feel that the presence of the showrooms in the high streets and the service provided from them are both of real benefit to the consumer. I should like to ask the Government whether they believe that the same level of service will be provided by a fragmented network of private sector retailing outlets? That is something we cannot accept.

If I might move on to the monopolies point in the noble Lord's Statement, we must accept that there is a technical monopoly in gas appliances. I even think that service to consumers would be improved if steps were taken to reduce this monopoly. Certainly I think that the corporation should become more competitive in its retailing. I believe that monopolies do not create competition or the best choice of reasonably priced new products. Arising out of that, I want to ask the Minister—and I hope that he will agree with me—in view of that, can the Government not consider even now at this late stage the proposition that retailing and maintenance become separate sections as distinct and accountable parts of British Gas? Can he look at that? We are interested in what the noble Lord said about steps to be taken under the Fair Trading Act. We all hope to hear more of those.

But I find—and this is my third question—that the answers that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has given to previous questions were rather confusing. He says in the Statement that the Government have decided that the corporation should be required to cease retailing domestic gas appliances in their showrooms over a five-year period. Then he says that, in this context, the Government are not proposing to curtail British Gas servicing and their installation activities. Finally he went on to say that the Government would wish British Gas to maintain some customer contact points. I suggest that these statements are all contradictory. As we understand it, over a period of time the Government are proposing to sweep away all the retailing shops of British Gas. If they are not proposing to do that, may we be told what that means?

My Lords, I do not think there is any contradiction in what I have said. British Gas will be remaining in the servicing and installation businesses. However, those businesses are not necessarily conducted from the gas showrooms, which are concerned with retailing gas appliances, on which less than 20 per cent. of the staff time is employed. At the gas showrooms there are also certain other activities, for example, the collecting of accounts. Those activities will continue at the contact points to which I referred.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister very briefly this question: How many consumers—housewives—did the Government consult about this act of vandalism? We have had it before; we have been here before, and none of the women I talked to about this—and, after all, one knows about these shops closing—has been in favour of it at all. I think that it is an absolute scandal.

My Lords, this decision is, of course, in accordance with the main thrust of Conservative policy which was put to the electorate in May 1979, and the decision that they took then was a clear one.

My Lords, looking back to the early years of nationalisation when, as Minister of Fuel and Power, I was very closely concerned with the matter, would the Minister agree that gas suppliers are a national monopoly and that the nationalised board, by suppressing small gas stations of very low efficiency and introducing a grid, have made enormous profits and there have been enormous advantages for the consumer over all the years since then? Would he agree that the supression of the showrooms must inevitably reduce contact with gas consumers, and that the corporation will literally be unable to give the same kind of service, about which the noble Baroness has spoken, to consumers of all kinds that it gives today? May I express the hope that before too long a Labour Government may be able to reverse this decision?

My Lords—

My Lords, be that as it may, the fact is that in our view the consumer is much better served by having a wider range of suppliers from whom he can purchase his equipment than he is by having to go almost exclusively to the showrooms of the British Gas Corporation, which is the situation at present. As the report from the MMC showed, the results of this monopolistic situation which has existed for a long time now have been that the prices have been kept high and competitive choice available to the consumer has been much less. Those are the evils that we seek to correct.

My Lords, I am sorry but I cannot agree with the statement that my noble friend has made today. I was the first chairman of the National Gas Consumer Council. I was chairman for five years. In that time I was able to assess what British Gas does for the consumers. It is only on the subject of safety that I am worried this afternoon, primarily because to my certain knowledge the people who give after-sales help to those who buy gas appliances, from British Gas or any other outside outlets and those who service these appliances, have to be highly trained. One cannot take somebody off the street—a plumber or anyone like that—and say: "Go and service this piece of equipment". I hope that the Minister will agree with me that safety for the consumer is paramount, and that wherever the gas appliance is sold there must be back-up sales staff who are highly qualified.

Reference has been made to CORGI. That is an excellent organisation. They have people who can give back-up sales advice. But, as I understand it—and I have not had the pleasure of a copy of the Statement—other private people will now be able to sell gas appliances without, presumably, the back-up sales staff. Is my noble friend aware whether British Gas and their staff will agree to service appliances that they have not sold? They have never done so in the past. I should be very interested to know whether the Minister has come to any conclusions with the British Gas Corporation on this subject.

My Lords, as I said in the Statement, the installation and servicing activities of the British Gas Corporation are unaffected by the announcement that we have made today. However, it will continue to be possible—as it is now, for that matter—for independent gas installers to do the work when the customer so chooses. We continue to think that it is the customer who is entitled to have the last word in this matter. I absolutely agree with my noble friend when she says that safety is of paramount importance. We shall certainly ensure that arrangements are made to secure the necessary safety levels in this matter, and we shall, if necessary, consider what "policing" arrangements can be brought into force.

My Lords, I was seeking to intervene a few moments ago when the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was replying to my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker, when he referred to the monopoly situation revealed in the MMC report. What I wanted to draw to his attention was that this report was based on the retailing position in the industry in 1976—five years ago—and since that time there have been considerable additional outlets for gas appliances outside the showrooms of the board. The other point which the noble Lord took me up on regarding safety and its being 15 times more likely for there to be an accident if an installation is made by a non-employee of the Gas Board, I would agree with the noble Lord that I should have referred to a non-Gas Board employee as opposed specifically to somebody working for a CORGI firm.

The final point—which several noble Lords have touched upon—is the role of gas showrooms in helping consumers generally. The point here is that although only 20 per cent. of the time of staff in gas showrooms is spent in retailing, it is the fact that the retailing which takes place enables the other 80 per cent. of the work to be done.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister two questions? Is it still the standing instruction of the Government to the nationalised industries that they should in fact behave commercially? If that is the standing instruction, is this decision justified on commercial terms? The retail trade is not particularly lively at present. Due to the high rates that exist in the country at the moment, property values tend to be depressed. May I ask whether anyone acting commercially at the board would regard this as an appropriate time for disposal of these assets? May I also ask whether the realisations of these disposals will affect in any way the external finance limits and the investment ceilings of the board? Will they be credited with realisations of the assets for further investment purposes?

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer the last point without some consideration. I shall write to the noble Lord. On the wider point of the need for the nationalised industries to operate on a commercial basis, we certainly continue to think that that is the right way to proceed. In this case that is not what was happening. The Gas Corporation were in an almost wholly monopolisitic situation. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, in the past two or three years there have been a few additional outlets, the fact still remains that the British Gas Corporation had far and away the largest retailing operation in terms of gas appliances.

My Lords, I know that there are a number of noble Lords who would like to ask more supplementary questions; but this debate has been going on for the best part of half an hour. We have a lot of business before us, and if I get right the feeling of the House, it is that we should return to the main business of the House today.

moved Amendment No. 30:

Page 73, line 1, leave out ("has either") and insert ("either has").

moved Amendment No. 31:

Page 73, line 3, after ("or") insert ("has been").

moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 74, line 20, leave out ("6") and insert ("5").

moved Amendment No. 33:

Page 74, line 27, at end insert (" "drug" includes any intoxicant other than alcohol").

moved Amendment No. 34:

Page 20, line 23, after ("persons") insert ("under the age of twenty-five").

My Lords, I can and do gladly confirm that these amendments, which will ensure that all regulations under the new section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure and will thus require the approval of both Houses of Parliament, are acceptable to the Government. Regarding Amendment No. 72 to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred, I am able to say that we are not unsympathetic to this and would most certainly want to consider it.

My Lords, may I just add a word or two in case the Marshalled List may have been unintelligible to any noble Lords who were not initiated? The disappearance of my Amendment No. 57A, which was on the Marshalled List yesterday and which had the intention of making all the regulations subject to affirmative resolution, was due to the fact that I knew noble Lords generally wished to see the regulations made subject to affirmative order; and indeed I agree with that wish myself. Naturally, consultations with the Government were necessary, and the parliamentary draftsman, who moves in a mysterious way, found my amendment to be defective in the form in which it appeared on the Marshalled List. He therefore advised that I should put down the two amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has referred. These have the effect of amending this Bill so that Section 199(4) of the 1972 Act, which defines what shall be subject to affirmative resolution, shall apply rather than subsection (3) of Section 199, which refers to the negative procedure. I just give that explanation because, on the face of it, the two Amendments Nos. 69A and 69B might not be intelligible without it.

My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, which I imagine he is going to do, I should like to suggest that no intelligent debate should ever take place with a view to making laws in relation to age, sex, colour or creed. If we are referring to drivers or to persons in vehicles, it seems to me that if you introduce these pieces of nonsense you have already got a lot of exemptions. We all know the way insurance companies operate. At one stage women drivers had to take out a greater amount of insurance, on the assumption that because they were females they did not drive as well as males. That can easily be disproved. Equally, if we are to have people of different ages, some having to wear seat belts and some not, the next thing we shall have is people who have just arrived in this country and who may not be used to driving on the left side of the road, subject to seat belts, whereas residents of long standing are not. I would suggest that it is not a serious way of making laws ever to introduce these matters, which are totally unrelated to any law which is to refer to drivers in vehicles.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for his reply. The first part of it is very welcome and will be extremely helpful to the House this afternoon. I am not happy about the second part of his reply, indicating that the Government are not too happy about Amendment No. 72.

What the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has just said makes it all the more important to explain the raison d'être of these amendments. There has been a suggestion, which received a great deal of support in another place, that compulsion should be confined to learner drivers on the grounds that it is legitimate to impose special restrictions on L-drivers and also on the grounds that once you get used to driving in a belt, that habit tends to stay with you throughout your driving career. I very much like that idea, but I did not feel it would receive much support in your Lordships House this afternoon. Therefore my amendment goes rather further and confines compulsion to all those under 25, whether they be L-drivers or not. My own view has always been that an adult is an adult is an adult, and that people between 18 and 25 deserve their freedom just as much as older people. However, I do recognise that there are those who take a different view, namely, that the state has a special duty to protect young adults: hence the rationale behind the laws relating to motor cycle crash helmets.

One must also acknowledge, for instance, that the freedom conferred by the 1967 Sexual Offences Act has not so far been extended to those between 18 and 21, and also that sentencing policy for young adults differs from that applicable to older people. Further, it is perfectly true that drivers between 18 and 25 are those who are most at risk. Insurance companies nearly always impose a higher premium for those within that age group, and car hire firms make it very difficult for those in that age group to hire a car. That is really the reason behind this amendment.

There is yet a further school of thought—I mention this because it is possible that the next amendment may not be moved—and that is that my amendment goes a little bit too far and that exemption should be confined to those over the age of 60 years. If I guess correctly what is in the minds of the noble Lords who tabled that amendment, they believe that anyone who has been driving for more than 40 years gets set in a certain pattern and it is almost cruel to change overnight the driving habits of a lifetime—habits which have been perfectly legal and legitimate up to that point. But I shall not say any more about that, because it is possible that other noble Lords may have something to say. Before I withdraw this amendment, I hope that the Minister will take note of what has been said on it this afternoon. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 36:

Page 20, line 23, leave out ("driving or").

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord who moved this amendment could help me in one respect. He spoke as though, if you left out the driver, you would be dealing only with the front seat passenger. But the clause does not say any- thing about the front seat passenger. The clause includes anyone riding in a motor vehicle, does it not?

My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will deal with the interesting point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to reverse by 50 per cent. the decision which this House took on the Committee stage of this Bill, and I cannot believe that noble Lords would really wish to do that. It would, of course, automatically remove half the people who would be subject to the law, if we made the wearing of seat belts compulsory only for front seat passengers. The number will automatically be halved if we take out all the drivers. In fact, rather more would be taken out, because a good many people drive on their own without passengers. So the effect would be substantially to reverse the decision which we took before, and I feel sure that noble Lords would think many times before wishing to do that.

Just to deal very briefly with the noble Lord's technical points, he said that a passenger would be frightened to belt up because it might offend the driver who had not done so. There is another amendment about this later. But I cannot see that that is a fear which would loom very large in the minds of most people. Certainly, whenever I get into a car I always put on the seat belt and I have never known a driver take offence at that. Indeed, if it is made the law of the land that drivers must belt up as well, it might even be of assistance to the driver and remind him that he has an obligation, too.

On the noble Lord's point that drivers drive less well when belted up, that is completely unproven. The noble Lord must know that already there have been some authoritative comments and Professor Adams' paper is by no means proven. It is an interesting idea, but no more than that, that wearing seat belts makes people drive with less care than if they do not wear them. I think most of us would shake our heads over that, and I should be very surprised if, when it is time to make a complete analytical study of Professor Adams' figures and his thesis, they are found to stand up to any serious argument.

On the noble Lord's point that the passenger seat is the suicide seat, of course this depends on the driver. For myself, I feel quite happy with most of the drivers whom I go with, especially if they put on a seat belt before they start. This would seem to me to be good evidence that I was in the hands of a cautious driver. Returning to my first point, I would urge noble Lords, and, indeed, I would urge the noble Lord, Lord Monson, not to press this amendment to a Division, in the light of the earlier decision by the House.

My Lords, may I support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent? It would, to my mind, be quite unthinkable that your Lordships should reverse a decision earlier made. I want to voice an objection to the use of the word "illiberal", as applied to compulsion in wearing seat belts. What would be illiberal would be to allow people not to wear seat belts, when the results are known to be disastrous both to the driver and to his passengers. The case is proven.

As I am on my feet, may I make an answer to what I regarded as a very important speech made at an earlier stage by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which was not answered in the debate then, and which I was not able to answer owing to my grevious defects of sight and hearing. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made two points to which I took great exception. He said that some members of the medical profession have stated that road accidents are a handicap to the medical services of the National Health Service. It was not "some members of the medical profession". I think that to use that phrase—with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—was a grievous misrepresentation of the facts. It was the British Medical Association which drew up an official memorandum, which it sent to members of this noble House, and which said that the toll of surgical work imposed on the National Health Service by road accidents was an extremely grievous handicap to the surgeons of that service, because it meant that they had to postpone surgery on other patients who urgently required it. This, for the National Health Service, was a matter of the highest importance.

My Lords, I wonder whether I could interrupt the noble Lord. We are on the Report stage at the moment and should be speaking to the amendment that we are now dealing with. We have listened to what the noble Lord had to say on the Ntaional Health Service. if he wishes to continue, I hope he will speak on this amendment.

I do wish to continue, my Lords, because the point is one of very great importance. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, spoke slightingly about what he called the so-called serious cases of injury and mutilation due to road accidents, and implied that a very large proportion of the serious accidents were not serious at all; they simply had to be reported to hospital and were then dismissed. With great respect to him and with, as I think, vital relevance to the Bill which we are discussing, the 200 cases of serious accidents which happen every day impose an appalling load of suffering and economic loss upon the victims of the accidents and upon the community as a whole. In their memorandum, the British Medical Association speak of brain injury, facial disfigurement—

My Lords, if the noble Lord would kindly give way, may I observe that this is not the Second Reading?

My Lords, I bow to the authority of the noble Earl, but with respect and with consent, I will briefly finish the point I am making. Accidents which are called serious accidents impose the most appalling burden of suffering and economic loss on the victims and on the community. They include, as the British Medical Association have said, brain injury, broken necks, facial disfigurement, breaking of the pelvis, crippling for life and ruination of life for a victim and for his or her family. This is a matter of vital importance. I trust that the decision previously made will be maintained and, if possible, strengthened by the inclusion of compulsory seat belts for children on back seats.

My Lords, I should like to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for the reasons which he has given. The effect of his amendments are compulsory seat belts for front seat passengers only. That is very desirable. It would be accepted by the public. It has the further advantage that if in an emergency a passenger is wearing a seat belt the driver can put on the brakes really hard if, say, a dog crosses the road and he has to stop suddenly.

My Lords, I should like to make three very brief points. In an earlier debate we talked about driving a coach and horses through legislation. This surely we should do if we passed this amendment. I am certain that it is not the wish of your Lordships that today we should overturn a clear decision which was taken during the Committee stage. On the other point suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that drivers wearing seat belts drive less well, I am certain that the motoring organisations would not accept it. Even the RAC, which does not support the compulsory wearing of seat belts, as distinct from the AA, believe in the value of wearing seat belts. Therefore, that point has got to be emphasised. I am certain they would not say that they do not believe in the value of seat belts for all occupants of a car. My only other point is that there are cases of severe injury when drivers who are not wearing seat belts hit the steering column very forcibly. I believe that the wearing of a seat belt can assist in preventing that happening.

My Lords, could I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about Amendment No. 72, if the House will allow me to do so as I think it has relevance to this whole series of amendments, that I ought to put right a misapprehension which he may have as a result of what I said before. Although we feel the amendment will need checking and altering for drafting purposes, and although we feel that it adds little to what we should do, anyway, we have no objection to it in principle. I felt that I should say that now, because I hope it will be helpful as our proceedings continue.

Turning to Amendment No. 36 and speaking also to Amendments Nos. 40 and 51, I suppose that in fairness it can be argued that there is a difference in applying compulsory seat belt wearing to drivers and passengers in that the driver then has no option but to wear one while the passenger at least has the option of travelling unbelted in the rear seat. On the other hand, to exempt drivers would surely substantially erode the potential benefits of compulsion. The statistics are very revealing. Every year the statistics show that about 1,500 drivers are killed and some 18,000 seriously injured, whereas the number of passengers in both the front and the rear seats is less than 1,000 killed and some 14,000 seriously injured. In fairness, I would have to say that exempting the drivers does not raise the same practical problem over enforcement as do the earlier amendments which the noble Lord withdrew, but it is part and parcel of the compulsion issue. For myself, I could never accept that drivers drive less well when belted up. I just do not know how anybody can say that. Certainly in my own experience and knowledge—not of myself but of many others—I have never found this to be so. If anything, it has been quite the contrary. However, it is a personal view, and I had better stress that it is a personal view!

We understand the purpose behind the amendment as, frankly, we do about a number of other amendments of this kind. However, after much debate your Lordships' House decided to go along with compulsion being written into the Bill. That having been said, there must be room for discussion as to reasonable exemptions. That is right. However, this amendment certainly goes far too far, as I see it, against that principle. That is why I think, speaking for myself, that it should be left as it is.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Monson, as the mover of the amendment, why he feels that his amendment is necessary? His idea was that a driver would be intimidated if his passenger put on the seat belt. One might just as well argue that the pilot of a plane would feel rather hurt if all the passengers on his plane belted up.

My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, I did not say that the driver would be intimidated. I said that it had been said in this House last December by pro-compulsion speakers that an argument for compulsion was that many passengers felt unhappy about putting on belts. It was the pro-compulsion people who put forward this argument, not me.

My Lords, I put down my name to this amendment, so I must explain the reason: that I am utterly opposed to compulsion in the wearing of seat belts. In my case it is a personal reason, but I think I ought to give it to your Lordships. My eldest son, some years ago, turned his car over on an icy road. He was flung from the car and is still alive. If he had been wearing a seat belt, he would be dead. That is sufficient reason for me to support this amendment.

My Lords, it is not very often that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, but since I do on this occasion I would like to mention one or two reasons why. My noble friend Lady Phillips spoke about pilots of planes not being belted up when their passengers are. I think she is mistaken, in that whenever there is turbulence in the air, the pilot puts on his safety belt.

My Lords, I did not say that. In fact, I did not get an opportunity to elaborate what I was saying, which is quite usual for the females in this establishment who speak much less frequently but much more to the point! I would only say to the noble Lord that I was making the point in order to answer the curious idea that the driver of a car would feel hurt if his passenger belted up. I said that a pilot would not feel hurt if he thought his passengers were using their belts. I did not mention anything about the pilot not being belted up.

My Lords, I am very sorry if I misrepresented my noble friend. I took up her point because from my own personal experience, not as a car driver but as a pilot in the Navy during the last war, I wanted to give two examples following my noble friend's account of his unfortunate son. During those years I was unfortunate enough to have four total engine failures and in two of those, one over land and one over water, I suffered quite severe injury, although as a pilot I was wearing a safety belt. On the first occasion, when I landed in the Firth of Forth, despite the wearing of the belt I was struck by the instrument panel and lost consciousness, the plane began to sink and I only recovered consciousness as I disappeared under water. It then took me over a minute to get out of my cockpit—and a minute is rather a long time in those circumstances. Therefore I would advise all noble Lords that if they do wear seat belts they should not drive into rivers.

In the second example I was flying a dive bomber over Oxfordshire and experienced engine failure at 800 feet, which meant that I had to come down in rather a hurry. The only available landing spot was a potato field, and having rumbled over that for about 100 yards the 'plane turned over and I was hanging upside down in the cockpit, only slightly hurt. But fortunately I remembered—because I had been trained—that if you are hanging upside down by your safety belt you must be very careful how you undo it; that if you undo it quickly you will break you neck. It is important to go through that training, preferably with a dummy run because you should put up your hand on to the floor above you, then removing your safety belt and then lowering yourself gently on to the potato ground. That is another lesson for noble Lords, that they must be very careful with safety belts if their cars turn over after accidents.

My Lords, I am very grateful first to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for what he said about the Government's favourable attitude to Amendment No. 72 and I am grateful to all the other noble Lords who have spoken. In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, it is my understanding that there is no intention at the moment to require rear seat passengers to wear belts. This may come about but it will surely take many years, for reasons which perhaps we may come to when we discuss the next amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, implied that I had said that all drivers drive worse when they are wearing seat belts. I never said anything of the sort, nor would I ever do so; what I do say and I shall continue to say it, is that many drivers do. I have received countless letters on the subject and I have spoken to innumerable people, and I would estimate that about 33⅓ per cent. fall into that category. Those who are not adversely affected by wearing seat belts would tend to do so voluntarily anyway, but those who are adversely affected surely ought to be exempted.

The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that the Adams' thesis was completely unproven; but we do not need it to be proved when we know subjectively that this is so in our own case. The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, has a curious interpretation of the word "liberal". Presumably he would classify the introduction of prohibition and the banning of tobacco as liberal measures, but we will let that pass. We have had a good debate on the subject and perhaps we may return to it again when the regulations are introduced; but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 37:

Page 20, line 25, at end insert ("by the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations").

My Lords, the power to prescribe is defined in Section 196(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 and it simply means prescribe by regulations made by the Secretary of State. The power to prescribe descriptions of seat belts is already found in Section 40(5) of that Act and the Construction and Use Regulations already contain provisions as to seat belts. But there are other regulations which stem from that subsection and other regulations will stem from this new clause 27. The manner and location in which the relevant descriptions are prescribed is, I think, one of form which I suggest is best left to be determined in the future. It may be, for example, that it would seem most appropriate to have one self-contained set of regulations applicable to this clause alone. However the Government would of course ensure that there was no conflict between different sets of regulations. There is no intention to use Clause 27 to impose the obligation on cars which already have seat belts compulsorily fitted and I hope that the noble Lord may perhaps feel that he need not go further with this amendment.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, the last sentence of which entirely satisfies me, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 38.

My Lords, I think this amendment is based on a misunderstanding of the extent of the present clause. This makes it an offence not to wear a belt when driving or riding in a vehicle on a road. By virtue of Section 196(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 a road is "any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes".

While all roads are not highways, a road would not be within the statutory definition unless there were a sufficient degree of public access. This is a point which I gather is well settled by litigation and an attempt to distinguish between roads within the statutory definition and those outside it would lead to confusion. I have in front of me, and, if pressed, will quote the examples in point, but I suspect that may not be necessary. I understand, for example, that a person's drive would not be considered a road unless the public had access to it for a considerable period. This would not be the case if for a fee the public were allowed to enter on certain days of the week between certain times. In those circumstances the public would only have an implied consent to using the drive. Similarly, reference to private property also seems misplaced, as the clause is only concerned with roads. In effect, the amendment is not necessary and may in fact lead to some confusion. For that reason I hope the noble Lord will take the point and feel there is no need to press further.

I am not entirely reassured by what the noble Lord says. I am reassured in so far as he refers to the drives of stately homes and other places open only on certain days of the week between certain times, but he has said nothing about farm roads which also happen to be public rights of way, nothing about roads on private housing estates or on light industrial estates, for example. I feel quite strongly about this, but I think it is perhaps something we should both go away and look at, and return to it, if necessary, at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 39A:

Page 20, line 34, leave out ("such") and insert ("local rounds of").

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether this applies to doctors on their rounds?

My Lords, before the noble Lord replies to that, from time to time we have been castigated for having drafted our amendments badly. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us what is the definition of "local rounds".

My Lords, can I say first of all, with the leave of the House, that I understand that this does not apply to doctors. With regard to the definition of local rounds, I tried a few moments ago to draw a distinction between rounds where there is a need to stop frequently every few yards and those where there are long distances to travel between each stop; yet a delivery man could be said to be a person in charge of a vehicle that was having to stop. I think it is a question of the regularity of the stops, distance between them, that is the distinction. Like much in this legislation, this amendment is an attempt to try to meet a very fairly raised point, that it does not make sense to have compulsion on people where clearly it is not practicable. We want legislation that makes sense. It is an attempt to meet that; we are trying to find a form of words that will achieve that.

My Lords, could the Minister kindly answer two questions on this? If he cannot answer now, can he say that the answers will appear in the regulations to be issued in the future? The first is with regard to milk floats; do they come within the definition of "goods"? My second question is: Can he define what is a short delivery, because Harrods send out their vans to Fleet, to Basingstoke, to Brighton. Is distance going to be defined in terms of mileage? If so, I can understand it. But I cannot accept entirely in my mind the general vagueness of "short distance".

My Lords, I wonder whether I can be of help to my noble friend, since he has been very helpful to me. I would refer to Amendment No. 72, the consultative document. I would have thought that the answer to Lord Balfour of Inchrye's question could very well be contained in that kind of document, when the various representations of milkmen, doctors, Harrods and any other person can be made to the department. It would seem to me that if we press my noble friend this afternoon he is going to have to write for us a series of regulations and make certain decisions on questions which have not yet been discussed by the interested parties. That is what is behind my Amendment No. 72. I think my noble friend might be able to rest behind the assurance he has given earlier, which is unlikely to be challenged when we get to Amendment No. 72.

My Lords, not for the first time I am grateful to my noble friend for coming to my aid on this matter, and as a general principle I entirely endorse what he said. It is in the regulations that we shall have the answers to lots of these points. Nevertheless, I think I would go back, on the particular question put to me by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and repeat what I said; that we are surely concerned here with local roundsmen, people stopping and starting outside every house in every other street. Once we go beyond that we are coming to something else. Nevertheless, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said, there is clearly much area here for further definition and clarification in the regulations.

My Lords, is a milk float under the heading of "goods".

My Lords, I am told the answer is yes.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will bear in mind, when it comes to the consultation, the unfortunate enforcement officers who have to determine if the person is really telling the truth? Everybody, from my experience as a magistrate, will be on a local round, whatever they are delivering. I would warn him that we do not want any more legislation which makes it impossible to define what was in the mind of Parliament when making the law.

My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind the unfortunate housewife doing her shopping in the local town or village? She is not delivering; she is picking up, because no one now will deliver.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hear what the noble Lady says. When my noble friend Lord Balfour asked "What is a short delivery?", I was very tempted to say that now the Test Match is over I do not think a definition is required.

moved Amendment No. 41:

My Lords, as regards Amendment No. 41 I should just like to say that I am grateful to my noble friend for what she has said. The point which she has raised is an interesting one. Apart from what I have said about the ultimate need for the regulations, I want to give her an assurance that guidance in one form or another in any case will certainly be issued.

As regards Amendment No. 42 I should like to say that as a mere male I hestitate to become involved in arguments about pregnant women. But my understanding is that many medical and safety experts take the view that it is better for pregnant women to wear seat belts than for them not to do so. I gather they take that view on the basis that wearing a seat belt may at least save the life of the mother to be, whereas not wearing one may result in the loss of both mother and child. I imagine that their belief in the desira- bility of nursing mothers wearing seat belts would be even stronger. But let me immediately say "Enough, no more" as regards this matter at this moment. I can only lose, I cannot win by saying anything further on that point. I gladly give the assurance that, yes, of course we would have to have and would expect to have the utmost consultation with the medical profession on this matter.

My Lords, as it seems possible that Amendment No. 42 may not be moved I should like to point out for the Minister's consideration that I have done a little investigation into the statistical aspects of this matter. During the eight months that a woman is aware that she is pregnant—because obviously she is not aware from the start—compulsion would have the effect of reducing the number of moderately severe and severe injuries sustained from eight per every 10,000 pregnant women to five per every 10,000 pregnant women who travel an average of about 170 miles a week. As regards nursing mothers, where obviously the time involved is shorter, the reduction in injuries would be down from four per 10,000 to two per 10,000—that is to the nearest whole number, of course.

Every injury saved is worthwhile, but let us bear in mind that the other 9,997 women who are not affected by this during their pregnancy will suffer severe discomfort in hot weather and at other times as well. The average inertia-reel locks, in my experience, about once every 500 miles, under relatively sharp braking at a roundabout, or perhaps when a dog or cat runs into the road. In those circumstances they will be thrown up against the locked belt. We must not just pay attention to what doctors think; it is the women themselves who have a right to be heard on this matter. I hope that the Minister will take that into account.

My Lords, will the Minister clarify a little more one or two points as regards this very excellent amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve? It seemed to me from listening to the Minister that he was almost encouraging pregnant mothers to wear seat belts. He was quoting medical science saying that it is really excellent. I do not know what medical advice the Minister will obtain, but certainly I hope that someone who has been pregnant several months will not fall under that category.

Secondly, we are to introduce, particularly so far as nursing mothers are concerned, a new form of exemption certificate—a certificate of limited time. The doctor is to give a certificate that during pregnancy the mother has no obligation to wear a seat belt. How is the doctor to judge for how long the mother intends to feed her child? Will the exemption certificate have a limited time, expiring on the date which the doctor agrees with the patient? Will the woman be compelled to produce that certificate to any policeman to whom at once it will be revealed that for a limited time she is a pregnant woman? Pregnancy is something rather personal to many women.

Those are small points but they are points of great importance to the women who may be affected. All that I would ask of the Minister tonight is to make sure that such points, and probably many other points which other noble Lords may wish to raise, will be dealt with adequately in the regulations.

My Lords, I should just like to say a word or two in support of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. First, as regards the wearing of seat belts by pregnant women, I personally have tried to wear a seat belt—an intertia-reel seat belt—when pregnant and it was extremely uncomfortable. I can speak to that matter from personal experience.

As regards Amendment No. 41, there are a number of disabilities which could make the wearing of seat belts a misery. However, a great many of these—and pregnancy, too—are not necessarily matters which a woman, or a man, would wish to be publicly known. May I ask that exemption certificates will simply give exemption without saying the reason for the exemption?

Also, where the disability is permanent will it be possible for the certificates to be granted for life? For example, a woman who has had a mastectomy will not grow new breasts. I know that this is something which is, not very sensibly, done in the case of medical certificates for disabled drivers to enable them to get disabled parking discs. If you have lost a leg you have to apply again every now and then for a new medical certificate to get a new permit. Nobody who has lost a leg will grow a new one. I think that it would be a lot cheaper if a little common sense could be brought into this aspect of the matter.

My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the medical authorities with whom there will be consultation on this particular matter. Will they include the Royal College of Midwives?

My Lords, I feel, as has already been said, that one speaks with considerable trepidation after what one has already heard. I hate to differ from the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, but I feel that it is only right that we should look at the other side of the matter. I am not an obstetrician and I never was, but I have had a good deal to do with obstetricians over a long life both inside and outside the Royal College of Obstetricians. I have no difficulty or doubt in saying that the consensus of their opinion would be what I was taught, and what I have always believed ever since, that pregnancy is a normal physiological process.

If we decide that it is right to pass this amendment then we are turning pregnancy into a pathological condition and very nearly, as far as I can see, into a secret society if you do not say why you are getting an exemption. I think that that is a great pity because pregnant women are ordinary people, but very special people and we should pay them the compliment of only exempting them from seat belts if they have a genuine medical complaint. Pregnancy is not a medical complaint—a discomfort, yes. Have your Lordships ever thought of the gentleman who perhaps has reached the age of 50 or 60 or even a little more and is far more rotund than many pregnant women? Are we to exempt him too? He does not have a pathological condition: he is just too greedy, or does not take enough exercise.

I think that a pregnant woman is far more important than that, but I do not think that she should be spoilt by being made to be exempt from wearing seat belts. I think that she should be treated in an ordinary, straightforward way. If she has some condition that makes it uncomfortable or impossible, then let her get an exemption certificate, and be proud of it.

My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister a question. This point was raised by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. How are the police to tell who has been granted a medical certificate, and is there to be a licence on the windscreen of the car when a certificate has been granted? How are the police to tell who has had a certificate and who has not?

My Lords, with such a list of questions posed to me I think that your Lordships would agree that the best thing I can do is quickly to retreat behind the magic word, "consultation". That I do, I readily confess. It would be fair to say that, in fact, under the proposed regulations medical certificates could be for either a limited or an unlimited duration of time, for specific periods or not. We would not envisage that they should state the condition on them which has justified the issue of the certificate. However, as I say, we shall read very carefully what has been said. We shall ensure that the points raised will be included in the consultations which have to take place with the medical profession.

My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister very much for what he has said and to thank those who have contributed to this debate. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, that pregnancy is a fact of life and, as he rightly said, it is one of those things to which perhaps one looks forward, but I can assure him that it is a jolly uncomfortable nine months. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 41.

moved Amendment No. 43:

My Lords, with equally commendable brevity, might I say that this is a difficult area and is certainly another which must be left for regulations. However, it would be fair to say that it could be open to much criticism on a number of counts; for example, impracticability is one thing, mere discomfort is quite another. However, I think that we might leave this one with the assurance that the Government are aware of this particular problem and would consider how best to deal with it under regulations.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 44:

My Lords, again—and I keep saying this because it is the position—we shall look at this in regard to regulations. But it is right to say that the police, for example, may feel that they do not want to be exempted. In fact, when enforcing a law they might feel very inhibited if they are not themselves wearing seat belts. But we are talking about compulsion, are we not? Even so, we must look at this and the other categories referred to in the amendment very carefully, and we certainly will do so in the regulations.

My Lords, as a result of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 45:

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 46: