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

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has asked the Manpower Services Commission to publish its report on its sectoral review of future training arrangements before the Summer Recess. The report itself is likely to explain the criteria which the commission has applied in carrying out its review, and to identify those criteria which have influenced its conclusions on the most appropriate training arrangements for each sector.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that it will give pleasure to those who feel that the principles which will help the Secretary of State to determine the future of industrial training boards should be open to public and parliamentary scrutiny? Is the noble Earl in a position to say whether the commission's conclusions are likely to be made known to us before the Report stage and Third Reading of the Employment and Training Bill which is now going through your Lordships' House?

My Lords, the usual channels have arranged for the Report stage and Third Reading to take place on Friday week, and that still leaves us a little time before the beginning of the Recess, so I cannot say which will be the first.

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

My Lords, the Department of Transport and the British Railways Board have jointly been considering the ways in which the returns on road and rail investment can be compared. This work has been delayed by the pressure of other work—for example, on the electrification review. The independent Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA) was consulted about the work, and asked to be kept informed. It is possible that the newly reconstituted SACTRA may wish to return to this issue.

My Lords, when the Minister says that SACTRA has been reconstituted, is that not rather an understatement for the sacking of every single member of this body except one? Why do the Government bother to rig the composition of advisory bodies in this way, rather than adopting the cheaper and more honest course of continuing to give preference to investment in roads as compared with rail, as all Governments have done in the past?

My Lords, to answer the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary with regard to SACTRA, he may have been referring to an article in the New Scientist magazine; I hope the noble Lord will not believe everything he reads. When the appointments expired, my right honourable friend the Minister reviewed the future of the committee and its members. Some members made it clear that after, in many cases, four years' work on highly technical issues, they did not wish to continue for a further term. Others had changed their jobs or moved, so that service on the committee was less relevant or convenient. After four years of hard work, to refer to these hard-working gentlemen as having been sacked is totally wrong. The new board has been set up by my right honourable friend and consists of a very well-balanced board under the chairmanship of Professor Williams, who was himself on the previous board of SACTRA. So far as investment is concerned, we have maintained the investment ceiling for the railways, as the noble Lord is well aware, at the same level in real terms as the previous Administration, and we are perfectly prepared to stand on our record.

My Lords, have the British Waterways Board and the navigation authorities also been asked to join in this study? Is the Minister aware that the investment criteria so far used for investment in major navigations have been even weirder than some of those used for rail; and if the British Waterways Board are not involved in this, may I ask the noble Earl to say why they are not?

My Lords, I cannot inform the noble Viscount off the cuff whether the British Waterways Board is involved in this, but of course the Department of Transport would consult them on anything relevant, and we had a very good Question Time on the British Waterways Board only last week.

My Lords, can my noble friend assure us that, when considering investment in the railways, the benefit to the steel industry is taken into account?

My Lords, I am sure that all relevant information, apart from that of financing, is taken into account.

My Lords, would the Minister accept that there are a number of noble Lords who take the view that it is not a question of competing for investment in the roads, waterways or railways, but a question of what is best for the nation, what will help in our recovery and what will be of assistance in dealing with unemployment?

I am grateful to the noble Lord for those remarks, my Lords. The subject of comparability is, as he said, inherently difficult and in principle there is a case for the Government, in assessing proposals for public sector transport investment, having a mechanism for comparing investment levels and projects for one transport mode with those for another mode, and I fully take the point made by the noble Lord.

My Lords, in regard to SACTRA, may I ask whether, as he has obviously read the New Scientist, the noble Earl recalls that Professor Peter Hall, who was one of the members who was sacked, said he was surprised that they should have made such a clean sweep? Is the Minister aware that, while I do not believe everything I read in the newspapers, I take the word of Mick Hayman in preference to that of the Department of Transport? In regard to the substantive merits of road and rail investment, may I ask whether the noble Earl would agree that in the past it has always been the practice to insist that British Rail should adhere to the normal public sector investment criterion that it should meet the forecast rate of return specified in advance by the Treasury, but that no such restriction is applied to investment in roads?

My Lords, I really must object to the noble Lord using the word "sacked", which he has culled from the New Scientist magazine. They were not sacked; and so far as Professor Hall is concerned, since he is now working for the University of California, it would be quite hard for him to continue to work for the board in London. With regard to the noble Lord's other comments on investments, I think I agree with the first ones, but I am not sure about the latter.

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

My Lords, two of the Andover aircraft currently used by the Queen's Flight entered the Royal Air Force service in September 1964, and the third in March 1965.

My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that the anxiety that has been expressed in a number of questions in this House will certainly not be dissipated by those figures? Are these not somewhat elderly aircraft? And despite the admirable maintenance of the Queen's Flight, in view of the fact that there have been one or two somewhat disconcerting accidents to aircraft of this type and age, are not Ministers perhaps taking a very serious responsibility in not going forward with a replacement?

My Lords, these aircraft are somewhat elderly—I think that my noble friend is correct in those adjectives—but this is certainly not exceptional among extremely reliable aircraft of various kinds which we have had. The flying hours of the Queen's Flight Andovers are far fewer than the average for the Andovers used as communication aircraft in the Royal Air Force. In our view, the safety record of the aeroplane is very high, and, as my noble friend has mentioned, the maintenance is to an exceptionally high standard. Yes, the Government are confident that this is an extremely safe and reliable aircraft.

My Lords, would the noble Viscount forgive me if I asked him a rather practical question about these aircraft? Is he aware that since the aircraft are unable to fly very high, Privy Counsellors, when flying north as part of their duty, often are most horribly sick?

My Lords, I cannot answer that point, except to say that I have flown quite often in the aircraft without experiencing any of the difficulty that has been mentioned. I would take the opportunity to say that the question of the prestige of our Royal Family flying in the aircraft has been mentioned on previous occasions—I think by my noble friend—and I would remind the House that on long journeys abroad Her Majesty almost invariably flies in a VC 10.

My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether the navigation equipment is fully up-to-date?

My Lords, I think that for the purpose for which the RAF, and for that matter the Queen's Flight, aircraft are used, and for the conditions in which they are used, the instruments are more than adequate. I say again that the aircraft is extremely reliable.

My Lords, while admiring the defence that the noble Viscount the Minister makes of a quite indefensible position, may I ask him, would not the situation here be eased if the vote for the Flight were spread over departments other than the Ministry of Defence?

My Lords, the noble Lord, with his past background of experience in the manufacture of superb modern aircraft, will of course take the view that he has taken. However, I must remind him that if we are to meet the growing threat (which we shall be talking about next Monday) we really must select the necessary enormously high-cost equipment. Regrettably, this item comes lower down the priority list. So far as other departments are concerned, the whole Government policy is still to try to cut further the undue proportion of national expenditure that is represented by public expenditure. The defence budget is under great stress, but so, too, are budgets of all other departments.

My Lords, can the noble Viscount confirm that there are coming off the assembly line at Hurn at the end of the year two small VAC-475s which are not sold? If that is true, would they not be very suitable for transfer to the Queen's Flight? Secondly, is it not a fact that many of the uses to which the Queen's Flight are put would be better and more economically catered for by the HS 125s in the ministerial flight from Northolt? Therefore is there not a very strong case for combining the ministerial flight and the Queen's Flight?

My Lords, I cannot give a reply in relation to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question. I do not think that the aircraft mentioned is of the size normally required for Queen's Flight operations; neither is the HS 125. The question of amalgamating the HS 125 Squadron with the rest of the communications squadron has attractions and has been looked at, but that would still involve considerable additional cost in moving the aircraft and in servicing different aircraft at different places; and it cannot claim priority at present.

My Lords, will my noble friend say whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the plea by the Air League that in the interests of economy the Queen's Flight should be amalgamated with No. 32 Squadron?

My Lords, I think my last answer in relation to two other aircraft covers that proposition as well.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question: In terms of modern speed, are not the Andovers considered extraordinarily slow and antiquated? Is the Minister aware that there is a saying in the Royal Air Force about those who use Andovers—that strong men on bicyles can pass them on a windy day?

My Lords, my noble friend has such experience of aircraft flying slower than bicyles that I would hesitate to take him on. But I can assure him that I get to the West of Scotland to visit Coulport, for instance, I think in about an hour and a half, and have a very nice meal on the way.

My Lords, we have one more Question to go, and I think the House would wish us to move on to it.

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

My Lords, we have not discussed this issue specifically with the trade unions, as it is best dealt with directly between employers and unions in individual cases. The noble Viscount is, however, quite right to point out that, if work is shared to create extra jobs, those involved must accept that their combined wages should be shared, too, in order to allow the goods or services they produce to remain competitive. Otherwise, all the jobs will be put at risk.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. May I ask him whether he realises that it has been reliably estimated that it costs the country something approaching 80 per cent. as much to have people not working and getting unemployment benefit as it would if they were actually in a job? This being so, and if the Government are prepared to look at their accounting, it surely creates great possibilities as to what could be done, not only by way of work sharing—the Government getting the 80 per cent. which they would otherwise have to lose—but also, of course, in cutting down overtime, were they to subsidise by some means firms which are at the moment in fact relying on overtime. Would he not agree that this is an area which it would be well worth looking at in conjunction with the unions on the basis that everybody would have to give up a bit to decrease the unemployment?

My Lords, no one is keener to bring down unemployment that I am; and I know of cases where firms have offered one salary for two jobs to young people and to new recruits, and that seems to me to be an admirable and sensible thing to do. But overall, as I said in my original Answer, it is more sensible for unions and employers to negotiate together about the sharing of work than for the Government to plunge in themselves.

My Lords, if I may take up one point that the Minister has, I think, failed to answer, there is 80 per cent. which, one way or another, the Government have to spend on unemployed persons—that is including the tax they do not get, and so on—and it really is up to them to put that 80 per cent. to some useful purpose in solving this problem. Could the noble Earl deal with that point, which I thought I had made clearly at the start?

My Lords, the 80 per cent. figure is not accurate in any respect, and the noble Viscount must be aware that the unemployment register is a constantly shifting register. Even at this particular dark hour more than 300,000 people a month are leaving the register.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while his Answer has rectified it to some extent, the Question as it stands depicts very dangerous trends in suggesting that the Government and the unions should talk? Are not management and the owners of businesses to have any say in how their labour should be deployed in the interests of their companies and the country?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend.

My Lords, in view of the suggestion that everyone should share, would this proposal extend to the salaries of the management and the fees of the directors in these concerns?

My Lords, since the proposal is the proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and not mine, that question is perhaps more properly directed to him.

My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that the Question itself is indicative of the appalling situation into which the present Administration has got this country? Would he not further agree that his Answer confirms that; and is it not the fact of the matter that what we have to do—and it is a possibility—is create jobs; that is, take the unemployed and give them work to do, which they want to do? They want to earn a living, not to be dished out with money on the dole; and, if we were to follow the policies which have been enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition and by well-known economists, this could be achieved and our nation could be saved.

My Lords, I would very much welcome the co-operation of the noble Lord and his friends in talking to unions about the lowering of objections to activities by young people which are at present undertaken by unionised labour.

My Lords, would not the noble Earl have a word with the Institute—

My Lords, would the noble Earl not confirm that he and the Members of the Government with whom he sits have for a very long time been urging the unions to ask for rather lower rises in order to keep more of their colleagues in employment? Is this not in fact the same picture as was put forward by my noble friend Lord Hanworth?

My Lords, yes, I have no objection to the proposition that lower wages will protect more jobs. I agree with both the noble Viscount and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on that. My objection was as to whether the Government were the best agency to try to determine what people should bargain at the workplace in this respect.

My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that another way to tackle this problem would be by issuing a sort of reverse rights issue, whereby you substitute one share for two? By this means you halve profits, and this makes the product more competitive in exactly the same way as the noble Viscount proposes.

My Lords, I very much enjoy the financial language on the lips of the noble Lord, with his background. I must point out—and this is a view not necessarily of the Government, however—that the CBI recently came out against a reduction in hours overall because of loss of competitiveness. But, as I said to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, where people are offering two jobs for one salary that would seem to me to be a sensible way to proceed, particularly where new recruits are concerned.

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available today at the usual time.

Also, your Lordships may wish to know that at a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Belstead will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on equipment for the police.

moved Amendment No. 1:

My Lords, Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the establishment of a new company to which Sealink's harbours will be transferred. There are legal and commercial reasons for this which I have explained to the House before and which I shall not therefore repeat. The new company will be a wholly owned subsidiary of Sealink.

It is true that as the Bill stands there would be nothing to prevent the Railways Board selling the harbours company separately from Sealink's shipping business, or to stop any future private sector owner of Sealink disposing of the harbour company while retaining the shipping business. However, I do not think that this is likely to happen. The present intention of the Railways Board is that the two businesses should be kept together, and there are good commercial reasons for this. Sealink believes that ownership of its harbours, some of which are strategically very well placed for crossings to the Continent and Ireland, gives its shipping business a significant advantage over its competitors. If all connection between the two businesses were severed, in Sealink's view this would damage the company's commercial interests. Assuming that this is so, separate sales might also be expected to command a lower price than if the two companies are sold together. So, there is every reason to expect that the board will want to keep the two companies together.

I would have thought that that was as powerful an argument to assuage the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, as the previous references which were made as to the attitude of the board on general lines, the Secretary of State, and so on. I should have thought a good commercial incentive was a very substantial additional reason why the dangers which he fears in fact will not happen.

I am very grateful to have the reassurance from the Minister. Everything that has been said justifies why the amendment should be in the Bill. He has agreed that it is desirable and commercially wise to do so. Therefore, it would seem that this ought to be something written into the Bill. It is not an issue on which one would seek to divide the House but there is a principle involved. I shall not withdraw this amendment but ask the House to make a decision without a Division. If only the Minister would accept that what he wants is what we want and that all his arguments go to that length as well.

moved Amendment No. 2:

My Lords, this amendment takes up again a theme which we discussed both in Committee and at Report stage. The noble Lord is not convinced, despite extensive assurances which I have given, that the present or future Secretaries of State might use these powers in an irresponsible or vindictive way. I have to say that this latest amendment is no more acceptable to the Government than the others which we have already discussed and for reasons with which the House will by now be familiar.

I said at Report stage that it was important when taking powers of direction to leave no doubt as to the scope of those powers. If powers of direction are to be worth having they must be absolutely clear. I thought at the time that this was one issue on which there was agreement between us. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, seemed to accept the force of my point that we must avoid enacting ambiguous powers whose use invites litigation. Yet this amendment offends against that important aim: it creates ambiguity in a clause whose purpose and effect are crystal clear. It introduces the criterion of reasonableness to the exercise of these powers; and yet offers no test by which reasonableness may be established.

Reasonableness depends on the eye of the beholder. We may be sure that the Secretary of State will not give directions that he does not think to be reasonable; but will the Railways Board agree? The very existence of a situation in which a direction needs to be given implies that agreement cannot be reached. The Secretary of State may want to do something that appears to him perfectly reasonable as a way of implementing the Government's policy—policy that will have been discussed in great detail by Parliament and approved. The Railways Board may disagree and may therefore want to challenge the reasonableness of the Secretary of State's direction simply on the grounds that it does not please them. In that case it would ultimately be for the courts to consider whether or not the Secretary of State's direction should stand. This is quite inappropriate. It is not for the courts to interpret Government policy and we ought not to include in legislation of this kind such a subjective requirement which can only be interpreted by a court.

Both Houses of Parliament have for decades accepted the principle that the appropriate Minister or Secretary of State should have the last word on when to exercise powers of direction given to him by Parliament. I have looked at more than a dozen Acts containing powers to direct the disposal of assets and, as one might expect from what I have said, none of them contains the kind of limitation that the noble Lord wants to introduce. I see nothing in the policy under discussion or the proposals before the House that suggests we should depart from these precedents. I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord opposite that the amendment would create confusion by its dependence on the subjective element which has no place in the drafting of legislation, would place on the courts a role in policy-making that they could not suitably carry out, and that its chief practical effect would be to give the board or any other interested party scope for argument and delay. I have given the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, categoric assurances about the Government's intentions to proceed as far as possible by agreement and to use the powers of direction with care and discretion. I cannot go further than that without nullifying the whole of Clause 3, a clause already approved by the House in Committee and at Report.

My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, aware that some five or six years ago I put forward an amendment on similar lines to this when speaking from the Back Benches opposite, and his noble friend on the Front Bench—I forget who it was—said, a great deal more succinctly than my noble friend today has just said, that whenever Secretaries of State exercise powers they always do so reasonably?

My Lords, I am dealing with 1981 and not with 1976. Not only myself but other noble Lords, not of my party, at the Committee and Report stages expressed great concern at what they called the arbitrary, wide-ranging powers given to the Secretary of State. I made it clear, in moving the amendment this afternoon, that I fully accepted the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and that I could do nothing else but accept them. However, it is what is written in the Bill that matters—I have said this so many times—and when there are wide-sweeping arbitrary powers in a Bill they can be used; and assurances are not sufficient to bind any future Government or any future Secretary of State. Far from my creating ambiguity by trying to put these words in, the ambiguity is already there, because the Secretary of State is given these powers of direction—direction to dispose of and to form subsidiaries. Those directions are really instructions, and no matter how much one may say, "We have the assurances that these will not be used", the fact is that the powers are there. What the amendment was seeking to do was to make their use "reasonable".

It is pretty clear that the Government will not move on this. I thought I was being very reasonable in moving this amendment, because I should have liked to frame exact criteria to be used for the reserve powers—I accept that the Government may wish to use reserve powers. But the clause does not refer just to reserve powers: it refers to these wide-sweeping powers which a Secretary of State could use if he so desired. The comments made about the word "reasonable" may unfortunately come back in discussion on other Bills in which the same word appears: the point was challenged in this House only a few days ago. In the circumstances, although I think our amendment is right and justified, I beg leave to withdraw it.

moved Amendment No. 3:

My Lords, I should like strongly to support the noble Lord's amendment in this regard, until we have better and further information. Owing largely to the operation of the Hydro-electric Board in the parts of Scotland where I live, there are very many miles of private roads, and on the estate which belonged to my brother and myself there were something like 25 miles of private roads. They were used, as the noble Lord said, by shepherds, by people crammed into Land Rovers, and so on. It would be absurd and ridiculous if the regulations suitable for other roads were insisted upon in these areas. What is more, it would be even more absurd if the police had to come and check up.

My Lords, I should like strongly to support this amendment. I do not know if it is relevant, but I have only twice been upset and overturned completely in a motor car, and neither time was I driving. The second time was on a private road when I was rather rashly asked to act not as a kind of "baby-sitter" but as a semi-instructor to a learner driver, a rather timid, middle-aged lady. I tried to impress upon her that when one was approaching a right-angled turn one should go very slowly and turn into it. She was doing admirably until a friend of hers who had taken her out said: "You are going much too slowly." So the next time she was approaching a right-angled turn on to a private road I said: "I presume, Mrs. H, you are not going into that turning?" She said: "I am." It was much too late, of course. We landed upside down in a ditch with a crash of glass, and such is the peculiarity of one's subconscious that I found myself saying to her: "Mrs. H, this happens to everyone who learns to drive!"

Had I been wearing a seat belt I think I should have had much more difficulty during the 10 minutes it took me to extract myself and her from the car. Before it was lifted out by a crane in 10 minutes' time it had sunk very much deeper into the ditch, and I think that a seat belt, far from being a help in those circumstances, might have spared your Lordships this latest speech of mine. That is only one particular example but, for what it is worth, I would ask your Lordships' forgiveness for putting it forward.

My Lords, I also support the amendment, which I thought was put forward with great reasonableness by the mover. Without going into any details on this point, it seems to me that the question of seat belts had wide discussion in previous stages of the Bill. I refrained from participation, though I followed as closely as I could the reasonings put forward. But it seems not improper that, in this connection, there should be reference also to the general question of seat belts and it is on that that I have reservations.

I realise that, in the Bill's passage to this stage, there have been imposed qualifications which should allay the anxiety of many, like myself, with regard to the considerations in general, which equally apply to this amendment. Like so many in the country, my objection is to general compulsion in this matter, and it seems to me that the Government should now reflect on the possible priorities. Many speakers in the previous stages were moved by the emotional aspect of the loss of life, due to the absence of seat belts. There was less advancement of the point that people strapped in by seat belts often lose their lives, too. So I think that the Government should consider the priorities in other directions, which would help to avoid further loss of life. There are many other angles that could be advanced that would save lives, but which have received less emphasis.

Lastly, I come to the question of enforcement. How can the police be everywhere on private roads, so as to enforce this law? Already there is wide disregard of regulations and it is just folly, at this moment, when there is such pressure on the police, to put more on them by this legislation. That is why I support the amendment moved on this phase of the whole problem.

My Lords, there is one small point which I wish my noble friend would clear up. Am I right or wrong in thinking that the police have no right of entry, as such, for prosecution purposes on a private road?

My Lords, this amendment is concerned with a technical legal matter and I am afraid that, in explaining why I think it is unnecessary, I shall have to resort to the use of legal technicalities. As I explained during the Report stage, the clause relates only to roads as defined by Section 196(1) of the Road Traffic Act. These are highways and any other road to which the public has access. I do not think we are concerned today with highways. As to other roads, I think the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is misdirecting himself when he refers to "private" roads. The ownership of the land is not the critical point. All roads are in private ownership, be it the ownership of a highway authority or other body or, more usually, the frontagers. One question in relation to a road which is not a highway is relevant—and only one. Namely, is it a road to which the public has a sufficient degree of public access to bring it within the statutory definition, or not? If so, the seat belts clause relates to it; otherwise, it does not.

Access is a matter on which there has been considerable litigation over the years. The fundamental principle is that the meaning of the words "to which the public has access" is a matter of fact and degree. It is clearly established that, if persons obtained access either by overcoming a physical obstruction or in defiance of a prohibition, express or implied, they do not have access within the meaning of the Act. It has been held that, to be within the definition, access has to be by the public in general and not by a special class of persons, such as residents or visitors only to an estate, and that general public access has, at least, to be by the tolerance of its owner or proprietor. And it has also been held that use by dustmen, milkmen and postmen is not evidence of use by the public, so as to bring a "road" within the statutory definition. In giving these two random examples of decisions in the High Court, I hope that I may have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that there is no need for the amendment which he moved and, with respect, it tends to confuse the issue.

Similarly the second part of his amendment is also somewhat misplaced. "Footpaths" and "bridle-ways" are also defined under Section 196(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972. In neither case do the public have any vehicular right of way. Therefore, although there may be a right of way on foot or on horseback to that part of the land which is a footpath or bridle-way, that does not affect the classification of the road and as public rights of access are not vehicular they are irrelevant to the point. It is no use saying that a private road is to come within the scope of this amendment, without defining that expression. For example, a private street is defined in great detail in the Highways Act 1980 for the purpose of street works. I respectfully submit that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would cause more litigation and uncertainty than it seeks to save. I feel that that detailed and rather tortuous explanation is necessary, because I understand exactly what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve.

I and other noble Lords who have spoken have much sympathy with what he is trying to achieve, but I fear that, because of the complexity of the definition and the legal technicalities to which I have referred, the amendment will not achieve what he wants and would only make the position more complex and difficult. For that reason, I hope the noble Lord will feel that he does not wish to press the amendment.

My Lords, does my noble friend's explanation mean that, if people who control what they think is a private road put up a notice saying that the public are prohibited, the effect would be that the amendment was in operation?

No, my Lords. I cannot say that, because I am not sure how far putting up a notice of that kind could be sustained, based upon the access points to which I have referred. So I do not think that that would be enough to cover the point.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has satisfied me to the tune of about 75 per cent. of my doubts, but we still have some grey areas and I do not think this is very satisfactory. Unless I did not hear him, he said nothing about whether this is a matter which would be covered by the regulations; in other words, whether the Minister would have any discretionary power. This is rather important. If he would, then there is no problem, because we shall have some months before the whole thing has to be defined. I wonder—

My Lords, by leave of the House, it would be very easy to say that and let it go at that, but I do not want to mislead the House at all. As always, we will read very carefully what has been said, and the noble Lord can be assured that my colleagues will think about the matter carefully. But I feel that the points that I made, very much based as they were upon the legalities and problems that would ensue if the amendment were put into the Bill, are a cause for real concern—not the motivation. Nevertheless, I certainly undertake that we will look at the point, although I cannot promise that we will be able to come back or, indeed, that it might be taken within the regulations, which I know is what the noble Lord would like.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I am still not entirely happy, and I do not imagine that every other noble Lord is happy about it, either. But for the moment I had better beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 21, line 9, leave out ("persons") and insert ("any person").

Under section 6(6) of the Interpretation Act 1978, "words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular". The clause has been drafted so that all the exceptions in subsection (2)(b)(i) to (iii) are expressed in the plural in respect of the drivers of vehicles and persons holding a certificate. Subsection (2)(iii) does seem grammatically wrong because it refers to "persons". The amendment corrects this by putting the whole of this subsection into the singular, although stylistically it should be in the plural in order to tie in with subsection (2)(ii) and (iii). Having said that, if your Lordships feel that this amendment should be incorporated, the Government would have no objection. I believe that it is a matter of style and presentation and I am happy to leave it to your Lordships to decide the matter.

My Lords, I simply believe that this amendment would help to avoid confusion, since the subsection contains another noun—"medical practitioner"—to which the pronoun "he" could relate.

moved Amendment No. 5:

My Lords, before this debate proceeds any further and without wishing in any way to curtail the discussion, I should perhaps tell your Lordships that it is at least arguable that my noble friend's amendment—and maybe one or two other amendments to Clause 27—goes a little wide of our rules and conventions on Third Reading. An amendment should not be moved that raises again an issue—and here the issue is in effect the compulsory wearing of seat belts—which has been decided at earlier stages in the Bill. In addition, Third Reading amendments should be limited to those which seek to remove remaining inconsistencies or uncertainties. I do of course realise the depth of feeling which noble Lords have on this particular issue, but I hope that your Lordships will bear what I have said in mind and will seek to keep debates as short as possible. I am not suggesting, of course, that my noble friend has been anything other than commendably brief in moving his amendment.

My Lords, may I make an observation on what has been said by my noble friend? Surely the rule that he has just explained presupposes that there have been two previous occasions when this matter has been discussed. In fact, this particular amendment was first moved at Report stage and so there has only been one previous opportunity to discuss it.

My Lords, the Procedure Committee discussed this point very recently and my advice is that the Procedure Committee is at the moment of the opinion that amendments to Third Reading should be on these very limited points.

My Lords, may I remind the House that the Amendment No. 46A moved by Lord Monson at Report stage dealt specifically with conscientious objections, and that point was answered by my noble friend Lord Bellwin. I would have thought that we were now being invited to cover the same ground.

My Lords, I have made only one plea and that is that we should clear up an uncertainty, precisely as the noble Lord said. If that is contrary to the rule of your Lordships' House, then I think that the rule should be changed.

My Lords, perhaps I may join in. I appreciate that there are a number who would suffer varying degrees of anxiety about being made to wear seat belts because they believe that wearing seat belts would be worse in an accident. This could be because such people believe that they would sustain injuries from the belt itself, or because they were afraid of being trapped by fire, by water, or whatever. The problem is that the degrees of anxiety may range considerably: all the way from those who are known to suffer from acute claustrophobia to those who may merely dislike anything new which they do not altogether understand. Those whose anxieties amount to a medical condition (this part of what I have to say answers my noble friend Lord Selkirk in the affirmative) can, I suggest, be covered by the medical exemption already provided for in the clause. I see no reason why the inadvisability on medical grounds of wearing a seat belt should not cover both physical and mental conditions, though clearly this is something which we should have to discuss with the medical profession.

My next point gives the contrary view. I say that where such an anxiety is not thought to amount to a medical condition I can see no practical way of providing exemption, because I can see no practical way of testing whether the anxiety is genuine. Nor should I have thought that such grounds were in themselves strong enough to warrant people's being privileged to be exempt from a law of general application.

I hope that for most people the problem will largely resolve itself. Most of us dislike doing something new, especially as we grow older, but most of us get used to it in the end and think nothing more of it. The best answer I can give to my noble friend, hopefully to assuage his concern and those of others who are similarly anxious, is that a statement will be made some three months before we move to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. My noble friend touched upon this point when speaking to me only yesterday. I was not then able to answer him in the same way as I do now: by saying that there will be an opportunity to deal with points of this kind.

My Lords, I support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. If we are to have a non-medical condition known as anxiety, what about a conscientious condition known as deeply held personal conviction?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that there will be a statement, but I very much regret that he has not answered the one question which I asked to remove uncertainty: whether the Secretary of State is perfectly free to prescribe any exemptions which he wants to, or thinks desirable, and may charge a fee for the cost of doing so. I think I am correct in so interpreting paragraphs (c) and (d), but I should like this to be confirmed.

My Lords, in my one speaking note I tried to cover it all by saying that the part where I refer to the medical condition generally, I feel, comes within the scope of the section to which my noble friend refers, but that the anxiety aspect of it does not.

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"Mr. Speaker, with permission, I shall make the short statement which was requested yesterday in advance of tomorrow's debate by the Leader of the Opposition and the right honourable gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook on the equipment available to the police. Naturally the whole House wants to see the police provided with sufficient means of protecting themselves and also of taking positive and effective action to deal with riotous behaviour.

"To protect police officers special helmets are being provided in increasing numbers; fire resistant overalls have been ordered; and so have more standard shields and new lighter shields. Better protection has assisted chief officers in adopting positive tactics to break up violent groups. It is firmly the view of the chief officers who have been most closely involved that their most effective approach lies in training their officers and developing their tactics for mobile and positive public order policing.

"But there may be extreme circumstances in which further equipment might be required in dealing with riots. I have, therefore, decided to make available to chief officers, who alone are responsible for the conduct of operations, a range of alternatives.

"Different types of water cannon are being looked at by police forces to see which might suit their needs. Additional protection is being provided for normal police vehicles, and the need for specially protected vehicles will be urgently examined.

"This brings me to CS gas and plastic bullets. Neither I nor chief officers wish to see these used except in the very last resort and under strict control, but they should be available. Stocks of CS gas have therefore been reviewed, and appropriate groups of officers will be trained in the proper use of plastic bullets. They will be used only on the authority of the chief officer himself. I shall be talking to chief officers about the circumstances in which such authorisation might be given.

"Mr. Speaker, in opening tomorrow's debate I shall be speaking on other aspects of these matters and about the implications for the penal system".

That, my Lords, is the Statement.

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for repeating in the House the Statement of the Home Secretary. I am sure that the House will welcome the first part of the Statement, that the police should be provided with sufficient means of protecting themselves. Indeed, in the House on several occasions noble Lords have spoken of the need in particular for fire resistant overalls and other wear and for special helmets to protect the heads of officers, many of whom have been so grievously injured, and also of the need for more effective shields. But more questons are likely to arise about the circumstances in which the other type of weaponry, if that is the right way to describe it—

Equipment.

Yes, equipment. I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. As always, he is most helpful on these occasions. Namely, CS gas and plastic bullets, can be used. This will introduce a new dimension into the English scene. The noble Lord may have seen the observations in a statement attributed to Mr. Terry, the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which is reported in today's Guardian: that there is a worry throughout the police forces that they might be turning to what might be seen as the Continental system of offensive policing on behalf of the Government rather than protective policing on behalf of the community. Another fear among police officers, said Mr. Terry, is that the appearance of the new weapons on the streets might lead to an escalation in the violence of rioters. I have no doubt that serious thought will be given to those observations.

With regard to CS gas, may I ask the Minister what type of CS gas is to be used? Is there a standard type, or is there a more or less offensive—I mean offensive to the nostrils of the body—type? Perhaps we might obtain some guidance about that.

With regard to the use of plastic bullets, in a situation short of the civil war which we have in Northern Ireland where real bullets are used against the police, will there not be a proper repugnance about the use in this country—in the present situation, at any rate—of guns by the police, just as there will be about the use—in present conditions, at any rate—of CS gas? Both are liable to cause indiscriminate harm to innocent bystanders as well as to the wrongdoer. One can well imagine the appalling consequences which might arise from, say, the accidental killing of a child on the streets of one of our cities. Perhaps, therefore, the noble Lord could elaborate upon the circumstances, which the Home Secretary is to discuss with chief officers, in which authorisation for the use of this equipment, to use the neutral phrase of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, though one could think of more fierce words, could be applied for.

Obviously, we want the police to be properly protected. As to the use of water cannon, what the experience in Germany and indeed in Northern Ireland, has been about the use of water cannon and its effectiveness perhaps the noble Lord can tell us. There is danger—I will not put it more strongly than that—as again another chief constable has apparently said, that the new weaponry comes too soon and that the scale of rioting is not yet large enough to justify such a response.

My Lords, while agreeing that the police must have the equipment necessary to defend society and to defend themselves, will the noble Lord not agree that those misguided persons who would like to promote rioting in this country have a vested interest, not only in escalating violence, but in escalating the response to violence, and is this not one of the great dangers of the present situation? Has not Northern Ireland taught us that it is virtually impossible to retrace one's steps once one has taken a step forward in response to violence?

While I would distinguish between the selective use of water cannon—and indeed CS gas—in certain circumstances, will the noble Lord enlarge upon the need for the use of plastic bullets in the present situation? It seems to me to be an unacceptable response to the present situation.

Another point on which I should like to ask the noble Lord a question is that: while I think every law-abiding citizen would agree that once one has a riotous situation it is first of all necessary to restore confidence in the security forces and in law and order, nevertheless would it not be more acceptable to the community at large if the Government expressed understanding of the underlying causes of the present discontent and the hope of remedying that situation?

The last question that I want to ask is this: in the light of the fact that some innocent people have been injured in the riots, would it not be an appropriate moment to call attention to the provisions of the Criminal Injuries Act and the procedure by which innocent people who have been injured may obtain compensation without necessarily the apprehension of the wrongdoers?

My Lords, if I may, I shall reply to both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who in essence both said the same thing, in the sense that the noble and learned Lord spoke of a new dimension in the English scene and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, spoke of those who wished to promote violence wanting to see an escalation of response. The reply I give to both noble Lords is that the decisions which have been made about equipment are precisely directed to promoting public confidence in the ability of the police to deal with a wave of violence of a new intensity, and the fact that the police must have equipment available to them to use as a last resort will, I give an assurance to both noble Lords, in no way reduce police efforts to enhance day by day ordinary contact between the police and the public, on which we all know the real value of policing in this country depends.

So far as concerns CS gas, which the noble and learned Lord specifically asked me about, of course this is a substance which has been available for some years. I only know of one form of CS gas—there may be others. What I do know about is that it was used, in the last resort in a most serious situation on Merseyside; in a situation which did not, so far as I know, cause any lasting harm to anyone but it dealt with that situation on that particular occasion. Chief officers would employ it only against violence which could not otherwise be contained and it would be delivered only by officers who would be fully trained in its use and in its effects.

So far as the very serious matter of plastic bullets is concerned, here again I join with both noble Lords in expressing my right honourable friend's extreme distaste in having to consider this matter at all, but plastic bullets would only be used as a matter of last resort and would only be used by officers who would be fully trained.

With regard to water cannon, as I understand it, there are two types available through the Ministry of Defence. I should prefer not to speak specifically about them this afternoon because I expect that my right honourable friend may have more to say in another place tomorrow and anyway, from the point of view of your Lordships' House, the police themselves are deciding what in this particular respect would best meet their needs.

Finally, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, the noble Lord asked me whether the Government should not look more closely, in the Statement being made, at the underlying causes. This is a matter to which I know my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will wish to address himself in the debate tomorrow, but nothing can excuse the criminal violence which started in Toxteth some nine days ago and which we have seen repeated in other parts of the country. The effects of that can be relieved, but no more than relieved, by the criminal injuries legislation to which I referred specifically when I repeated the Statement following the Toxteth disturbances.

My Lords, while welcoming the noble Lord's statement, which is a great deal better than the very weak statement on the same subject which was issued as a press handout after a meeting not long ago, may I ask that, while speed is obviously important here, we should see no panic, because what is necessary is considerable study to make up for the wasted years during which not enough attention has been paid to the whole question of street disorder and the means which are necessary to combat it, which ought to have been apparent to us from what we have seen on the Continent.

I was glad to hear the noble Lord say that tactics are as important as equipment and that no equipment is for universal application. As one of the probably few Members of this House who have had instruction in the use of the water cannon, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will consider the types of water cannon available on the Continent, particularly Germany, as well as those which happen at this time to be in the North of Ireland, and will he ensure that, at the end, the final outcome is a system which is common to all our forces?

My Lords—

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will forgive me, my noble friend at this stage normally answers questions one at a time, so perhaps the noble Lord would ask his question after that.

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will allow me, I do not know to what statement my noble friend Lord Inglewood was referring at the beginning of his supplementary question. I am not aware of any weak statement which has been made as a result of these very serious matters which started to occur nine days ago.

So far as the effect of equipment is concerned, may I simply add to what I said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that I think upon having the right equipment for the police depends, at the present time, the confidence of the general public and upon the confidence of the general public depend, once again, better and closer relations between police and public, upon which so much depends for good policing in this country.

The noble Lord asked me a specific question about water cannon: I repeat that it is the police service themselves who are now looking into the choices of water cannon and I think this is a matter about which we should rely upon their professional judgment.

My Lords, in fact the noble Lord has answered my question, so I will put it briefly. Is the noble Lord aware that, according to all the evidence, public opinion is determined that the police should have everything they need to control riots, and what is important (which is well explained in the statement) is that this should be used only under the very strictest supervision and as a last resort?

Yes, my Lords, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting those points to me.

My Lords, may I ask a simple question? Reference has been made to the use of lethal weapons by the police and various speakers have sought to safeguard against that possibility, but nobody has mentioned the possibility of the use of lethal weapons by rioters. In those circumstances, what are the police expected to do? Are they to refrain from using plastic bullets or CS gas or weapons of that kind? Has that consideration occurred to the Home Secretary?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and indeed I think my right honourable friend's thinking is exactly the same as the noble Lord's thinking upon this.

I do not think so.

Well, I have mistaken what the noble Lord said. I understood the burden of the noble Lord's remarks to be that if those who are rioting are availing themselves of weapons of various kinds is it not then important that the police should be equipped to be protected? I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that that is what he said, and therefore my right honourable friend's thinking is exactly the same as Lord Shinwell's on that particular matter. But it goes one step further, indeed two steps further. If the police are properly protected they can take positive action to end the riots which are causing such misery to law-abiding people. From that comes the further point that once that has been achieved we may be able to get back to the close connection between the police and the community upon which, I repeat, so much depends in this country for good policing.

My Lords, is not perhaps the most important word in the Statement "available" because this applies to the defensive equipment which is very definitely needed at this moment, but "available" does not mean that the offensive weapons will necessarily be used.

My Lords, again I would not wish to add to what my noble friend has said.

My Lords, I think there are no differences between any of us on the desirability of the police being fully protected by all available means. I think perhaps where the difference—

Question!

May I ask the noble Lord to accept that there is no difference between us about the question of the complete desirability to provide the police with every possible protection. There is, however, a difference of emphasis when we move on to the question—

Question!

My Lords, I am sorry; I ought to know this after 15 years in another place. May I ask the noble Lord to accept also that there is a difference of emphasis between us when we move into the question of retaliatory action by the police. Is the noble Lord aware that CS gas was abandoned some time ago in Northern Ireland because it was felt to be too dangerous? Is he further aware that water cannons were described by the Northern Ireland press office as being worse than useless? Is he further aware that people in Northern Ireland have been killed by plastic bullets? When we move into this area, is the noble Lord aware that some of us feel that great caution needs to be used before any freedom of action is allowed in that way, and that this is a matter which should remain firmly under the control of the Government?

My Lords, the noble Lord speaks of retaliatory action. I think it is important to say that my right honourable friend sees the need for positive action being made fully practicable for the police by the provision of the right equipment. We know that our police forces in this country, if they are properly equipped, even in these very difficult circumstances, can take positive action to end the misery that is being caused by these riots. With regard to all the various pieces of equipment the noble Lord mentioned in the second part of his supplementary question, I should like to underline once again that the Statement makes it quite clear that the very greatest care will be taken by chief constables, who are operationally responsible—the Government, of course, are not operationally responsible in these matters—before considering the use of these things only in the last resort.

My Lords, would my noble friend do everything that he can to assure senior police officers that the country is solidly behind them in trying to put an end to these riots? I understood, from the comment from a chief constable to which Lord Elwyn-Jones referred, that there was some worry that the Government might be responsible for bringing in this new equipment or these weapons. Is it not absolutely certain that there is no division between the police and the community with regard to this? The community are the people who need protection, and the chief constables are the only people who can use these weapons.

My Lords, again I would not wish to add anything to what my noble friend said at the end of his supplementary question. So far as his initial remarks are concerned, I think what he said will be much appreciated by the police.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us in all parts of the House would react much in the same way as he has done; namely, towards greater severity. But will he reflect that in most countries of the world where there are fiercer police there are also fiercer riots, and which is the chicken and which is the egg it is often hard to tell. Let him dwell on that with some care. Further, does the noble Lord understand that many of us would be a great deal happier if there were some indication that the Government intend to concentrate a good deal more strongly than appears to be the case at first sight on the underlying reasons for these very regrettable and dismaying disturbances, and that this is nothing to do with plastic bullets or water cannon.

My Lords, this, of course, was a Statement requested by the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right honourable gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook, and it was to be on equipment, paving the way for the debate in another place tomorrow. That is why the Statement does not go into the causes. But I repeat—I hope the noble Lord and the Government can meet on common ground about this—that however worrying the causes may be, nothing, but nothing, can excuse or in any way condone the appalling violence we have seen in the last nine or 10 days.

My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister accept that I understand the relationship between the Home Secretary and the chief constables, but would he also not agree that, in view of the very great importance of exercising the strictest control if it were to come to a question of using plastic bullets, in no matter what area of the country, this is a matter which really would be such a new departure in England and Wales that the Government, and the Home Secretary, should be consulted before any chief constable were to have resort to these weapons?

My Lords, at the very end of the Statement there are the words "I shall be talking"—meaning my right honourable friend will be talking—"to chief officers about the circumstances in which such authorisation should be given", and that authorition referred to plastic bullets and the use of CS gas. I know that the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be taken into account in any discussions which my right honourable friend will have.

My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the object of providing the police with greater protection is in order to enable them to move into the crowd instead of standing distant from them, as they have to at the present time, in the light of petrol bombs and things of that kind. In those circumstances having regard to the anxiety there is about the use of plastic bullets, if the object of the police is to get into crowds and break them up, plastic bullets used in those circumstances would be very dangerous. In those circumstances, would it not be wise to lay less emphasis on plastic bullets and leave them very much in abeyance, and see what arises from other actions before there is any question of the possible use of plastic bullets?

My Lords, I think there is no disagreement between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, on this matter. The noble Lord has put in very clear terms what I have referred to as positive police action in these very difficult circumstances. So far as other pieces of equipment are concerned, what the Statement is saying is that these should be available but only used as a last resort. That was the intention and the only intention.

My Lords, I think, with respect, that we have had a good run on what is a limited, though important, Statement, and I suggest that we go on to the next business.

moved Amendment No. 6:

My Lords, I had hoped that the provisions inserted in the Bill on Report to ensure that all the regulations made under this clause would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure might have enabled us to avoid going over some of the old ground. As I explained during the Committee stage, the Government would have no intention of requiring someone to wear a seat belt where there is no requirement to fit a belt. Therefore those travelling in vintage cars will not have to wear seat belts because none has to be fitted. I can assure my noble friend that his amendment really is not necessary.

Although, as the House knows, the Government are neutral on the issue of compulsion, I feel I should point out that amendments which have not been drafted by parliamentary counsel, however well intended, are likely to present difficulties for the courts. For example, this amendment might be interpreted as providing exemption for anyone who uses a pre-1965 vehicle, irrespective of the vehicle in which they are actually driving or riding. Moreover, it does not accurately cover all vehicles where compulsory fitting is already required. To do so it would need to refer to cars manufactured on or after 30th June, 1964, goods vehicles manufactured on or after 1st September, 1966 and three-wheeled vehicles manufactured on or after 1st March, 1970. I mention this just to show the difficulty that one can fall into. My noble friend Lord Mottistone is very experienced in bringing forward amendments, but even he can fall into a situation of this kind. Therefore, I hope that with the assurances I have given as regards what, in fact, is not required, he will feel at least satisfied as regards this amendment.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend. Of course, this was a probing amendment and I put forward the excuse that we have had only one intermediate stage, as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said earlier, because this particular clause came into the Bill rather late in the day. However, the point is that I think my noble friend has answered the main features of what I had to say. I hope that in preparing the regulations the Government will take carefully into account the fact that there will be a degree of unfairness. As I have always said, it will be impossible to apply this particular clause fairly. If the Government really feel that to be so, then perhaps with all the safeguards that we are trying to get written into the Bill the thing may die. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 7:

My Lords, I should like to speak very briefly in support of this amendment, the attraction of which is to lessen the impact of the criminal law with all its problems of enforcement, which still bother me very greatly, and to return to a measure of individual decision in a way which would meet the argument that the costs of death and injury as a result of not wearing seat belts would be an extra burden on the community.

My Lords, I should like to speak very briefly on this as well because at one point I had an idea of tabling an amendment on much the same lines. But, if I had done so, I would have made the conditions rather more strict, so that it was not just a question of paying £25 and getting your exemption; the exemption would probably have had to be carried on the person, witnessed by a commissioner for oaths, and so on.

The advantage of this is that it removes the objection that so many people have to making seat belts compulsory, which is the loss of personal freedom. I think that we are very late in the Bill for this sort of consideration, particularly the amendment as it stands at the moment. Therefore, may I simply suggest that the Government should consider it, but should consider giving themselves powers to introduce something on these lines, should it prove to be desirable, at a future date.

My Lords, briefly, much as I admired the arithmetic of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I found the basic argument to be quite wrong. It seems to me to be quite wrong that you can buy your way outside the law. I do not like this clause—and noble Lords know that. But I do not think that I could give any support to paying a fee, whatever it may be, thus buying myself outside the law.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is not this a case of buying yourself to freedom?

My Lords, I can only admire the facile solution which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, seems to have found for the problems facing my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer I am sure that he will read with much interest the very substantial sums of money which the noble Lord's amendment would find.

I must confess—and I know the noble Lord well enough and he knows me well enough to know that I say this, perhaps, lightly—that I thought when I first saw the amendment that he was tabling it with tongue stuck firmly in cheek. All else apart, the effect of this amendment for what it would do to the basic proposition which your Lordships accepted—certainly it was self-evident, so far as I am concerned, although it may not be the noble Lord's intention—appears to provide for the issue of certificates of exemption from the law to anyone who is prepared to pay for the privilege. I think that the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas was a fair one. Certainly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, made was another way of, if you like, coming at the problem. But any way you look at it, it is really saying that those who wish to pay for the privilege can do so. Indeed, if vehicle taxation were ever abolished at some time in the future, such exemptions might be free. I find the principle of exempting people from the law, if they are prepared to pay, rather extraordinary to say the least.

Compulsory seat belt wearing is presumably being proposed not only for the benefit of the individual, but for the benefit of the community as a whole. I should not have thought that an individual could claim to opt out simply because he thought that he was such a careful driver that he would never be involved in an accident and, therefore, never need the benefit of a seat belt. Accidents can happen to anyone and, if they do, the cost to the community as well as to the individual can be very high indeed. But, from a practical point of view, an exemption which anybody can obtain obviously weakens the potential effectiveness of compulsion.

I think that this amendment is on a par with some of the others which we were debating on Report and which, in fact, the noble Lord did not then press because he was, at least to some extent, satisfied that he would have the chance to look at the nuts and bolts, if I can put it that way, when we come to the regulations. I understand the great feeling of those who object to the principle of compulsion. I must repeat that the Government have taken a neutral line on this matter all along, and are still taking that line. But the House did come to a decision; it came to a decision after a full debate. It came to that conclusion and although I am certain that we shall probably never satisfy those who feel strongly to the contrary, nevertheless that was the conclusion reached. What will be said about the matter in another place will be for them to decide. But, so far as we are concerned, with this Bill in its present form as we are hoping to pass it forward, that is where we were, and that is where we are at present. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who is always reasonable as I well know in these matters, despite his inner feelings will say, "So be it". At least I invite him to do so.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could I make it clear that from my point of view at any rate the idea of paying was really in order to compensate for the extra cost to the nation of the injuries which would be incurred by not wearing safety belts. That was my thinking. I just wanted to put the record right on that point. It was not quite as the noble Lord had said with regard to the amendment.

My Lords, first, may I take up the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. If my amendment were accepted, it would more than compensate the nation for any expense incurred by people not wearing seat belts. I suggest that the amounts are well above the actuarial amount that would be needed to compensate the National Health Service. The nation would make a large profit on the deal.

With regard to the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Bellwin, I regret to say that they have both missed the point. They object to people buying their way out of the law, but if this amendment were accepted it would not be the law, because those who took advantage of the exemption would be excluded by law. They objected to the idea of people buying a right to take a risk—that is what it boils down to. If non-smoking teetotallers were to object to this, I could understand it. But let me point out that every time any noble Lord lights up a cigarette or knocks back a double whisky he is effectively buying a right to take what is, statistically, a risk. A hundred times as many people die from drinking or smoking as die from not wearing seatbelts; they pay, through taxation—not as much as seat belt wearers would pay in proportion—but they pay in taxation for that right and some of what they pay goes to compensate the National Health Service.

I take the point that the noble Lord spotted, which I did not, that if the road fund licence were abolished, the amount payable by those who wish to be exempt would also vanish. Therefore, I accept that the amendment is defectively drafted. It is for that reason alone that I do not press it, because I know that there are many noble Lords who feel strongly about this. It seems to me to be something that, perhaps looked at in a more thorough fashion, could be dealt with under the regulations. But for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 21, line 21, leave out from ( "but") to end of line 23 and insert ("notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law no person other than the person actually committing the contravention shall be guilty of an offence by reason of the contravention.").

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for that tidying-up operation, for which I am very grateful.

moved Amendment No. 9:

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord on a point of order? Is not this exactly the same point raised earlier on the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk? This is substantially repeating an amendment, Amendment No. 53, which was debated on Report and answered by my noble friend Lord Bellwin, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, thereupon withdrew.

This is directly in conflict with the recent advice from the Procedure Committee in January of this year with regard to this point. Perhaps it may be helpful for the House if I ask the Clerk if he will be good enough to read it out so that your Lordships can have it before them. Would it be agreeable if that were to be read out?

My Lords, if it may help the House, I have with me and could read out what was said. It is as follows:

"Amendments may be moved after the Third Reading has been agreed to and before the Motion ' that this Bill do now pass.' Notice must be given of them not later than the day preceding that on which they are to be moved (except in the case of privilege amendments) in sufficient time to enable them to be printed and circulated in the form in which it is proposed to move them.

"The principal purposes of amendments on Third Reading are to clarify any remaining uncertainties, to improve the drafting and to enable the Government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the Bill.

"It is considered undesirable that an issue which has been fully debated and decided upon a previous stage of a Bill should be reopened on Third Reading."

This is not the same issue that has been debated before. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, knows that we have not effectively had a Committee stage on this clause. The Report stage had to be the Committee stage, and the Third Reading has perforce to be the Report stage. There is no way around it. This is a controversial matter and we have not had the number of stages that we would normally have.

My Lords, would the noble Lord kindly give way? The amendment which the noble Lord put down at Report stage was:

"It shall be a defence to any prosecution brought under this section to establish that failure to comply with the requirement to wear seat belts saved the life of at least one individual or materially lessened the severity of injuries sustained as a result of a road accident."

That is very substantially the same as the noble Lord has down here. It was debated. Several noble Lords took part in it. My noble friend answered it, and the noble Lord thereupon withdraw. It really is an abuse of the Rules of the House for the noble Lord to persist with his amendment now.

My Lords, if the noble Lord had allowed me to finish what I was going to say, I should have explained that it is not the same. My amendment on Report was criticised, very rightly, because it was too widely drafted. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and other noble Lords pointed out that if anybody anywhere in the country had been saved as a result of not wearing a seat belt this could be cited in defence by the person being prosecuted, which of course is much too wide. I had not intended that, and naturally I withdrew it because it was defectively drafted. This narrows it right down so that the defendant himself can cite in his defence only the fact that his own life was saved. He cannot even cite the experience of his wife or his son or daughter. It narrows it right down, and it applies only to incidents which take place after the coming into law of these provisions, so it is totally different; not the same at all. I beg to move.

My Lords, when we considered that I think I had better refer to as a similar amendment on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Spens, clearly explained why he thought the House should support that amendment, and I had every sympathy with the reasons he gave, as indeed I have sympathy with the basic point underlying this amendment. However, as I said last week, it is a difficult task, to say the least, to establish what might have happened in the event of an accident had, or had not, someone worn a seat belt. We must face the fact that there may well be unfortunate cases when one could speculate that if someone had not worn a seat belt then they might have been saved from the worst effects of the accident. But surely the point is that the number of such cases will be very few compared to those where the wearing of a seat belt would have saved death or injury, or would have had a significantly mitigating effect upon an accident situation.

We would be imposing an impossible burden on the courts by requiring them to decide on the merits of any defence in the complex area of accident investigation. Nor do I think that we should encourage people to feel safer without seat belts when, with the exception of rare cases, this is not so. The chance of someone benefiting once by not wearing a seat belt is small; the chances of them doing it twice are fairly minute. If someone felt so strongly about this, because of some previous experience, that it amounted to a medical condition, then I am sure that he, or she, would be able to obtain a medical certificate to exempt them from wearing a belt.

I hope that the noble Lord will think again about the desirability of this amendment. Throughout the whole of the seat belt aspects of this Bill again and again runs this thread of concern; the great dislike of compulsion that so many people have. I say again, and I know it is repetition, that one has to be sympathetic because it is not a right or wrong situation. It is a question of taking the overall balance. The Government stay neutral. I made my own position clear. My position was that I think that the balance just came down in favour of compulsion. I said so. But, having said that, I still think that we must consider all aspects of it, and we shall get plenty of chance to do this in detail when we come to the regulations in as reasonable—I use the word "reasonable "at the risk of its being quoted back at me by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—a way as possible, and I think that is what we shall do.

My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would consider rephrasing an expression he used just now? He seemed to indicate that somebody who had been thrown out of a car because they were not wearing a seat belt, and thereby it saved their life, might be in such a mental state that they could get some sort of certificate for not wearing one in future. I think if my noble friend had been thrown out of a car he would not want to wear one again, and I am quite sure he would not regard himself in a mental state.

My Lords, with respect, I think that is semantics. I think that a mental state in the terms of a medical condition is something that the medical profession will advise us upon in due course. I am no more qualified to dissertate on that subject than, so far as I am aware, is my noble friend, although possibly he has the advantage of me in that way. I am trying hard in all this seat belt discussion to try to take an objective view about it because I realise how deeply felt are the feelings of those with both points of view. But if when we come to regulations we approach it in the right spirit, then we will get something that will at least be acceptable to just about everyone in your Lordships' House.

My Lords, the Minister mentioned regulations, but this cannot be dealt with in that way. This is something quite separate and it is not a question of exemption: it merely excludes from prosecution those whose lives have been saved or whose injuries have been lessened. I have done my best to meet the wishes of the House, in that I entirely accept that the amendment I moved a week ago was too widely drawn and went too far. I have cut it down even further than I intended. Indeed, it is cut down so that it excludes anybody injured before the Bill becomes law.

I think it would be intolerable if people were to be prosecuted under such circumstances. The police would be duty bound to do so; they do not have discretion in these matters and while the magistrates might let them off with a very small fine, the law must still be upheld. I believe the "t' s" should be crossed and the "i' s" dotted and people given an absolute right to escape prosecution in these circumstances, and therefore I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 21, leave out lines 41 to 45.

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Bellwin has moved Amendment No. 10, I think it would be convenient for me to speak to Amendment No. 11 at the same time. My noble friend explained clearly the intent and content of the amendment, which meets totally the points made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, at an earlier stage, and I know that my noble friend Lord Inglewood is grateful that the point he made has been embraced more accurately in this amendment, and therefore we are grateful to the Government.

It might be convenient to the House, my Lords, if, while addressing some remarks to Amendment No. 10, I spoke at the same time to my Amendment No. 12, because I am not sure of the procedure if that amendment were agreed to. I should say at the outset in relation to Amendment No. 12 that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, certainly would have added his name to mine had he known about the Government's precise intentions rather earlier than last night when the Marshalled List had already been printed.

We were under the impression last week that the Government had accepted the period of two years, and perhaps that is why I appear to be reacting rather late in the day. I shall be very unhappy if the period is extended to three years, particularly as that was not the intention, as we understood it, last week. It is important to remember that this whole question of seat belts has never really been put before the public; it never appeared in any election manifesto, it was never mentioned in any party political broadcast, I do not think it appeared in any individual candidate's election address and it was certainly not a feature of the Queen's Speech.

I believe this matter should be in the forefront of people's minds at the next general election, so that they may give their verdict on it. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, about the figures for the second year not being available, but some interim figures will surely be available, and I think it right that the people should be able to express their opinion on it at about the end of 1983 or the beginning of 1984, when there will have to be a general election. If the pro-compulsion lobby are right in assuming that opposition to this measure will dwindle away, then they have absolutely nothing to worry about, because it will not make any difference to candidates in marginal seats. If, on the other hand, opposition is still as great as I suspect it will be, then it may make a difference in a number of marginal seats, depending on the candidates' attitudes to compulsion. If the pro-compulsion people have the courage of their convictions they will accept my amendment. If they resist it, I can only conclude that they are worried about the possible electoral consequences of compulsion.

The noble Lord, Lord Monson, misses the whole point, my Lords, because this has nothing to do with elections. Indeed, the provision is not even basically in a Government clause; the provision was moved initially by my noble friend Lord Nugent and the Government took a neutral line on it. The House as a whole, right across party lines, voted on this issue and so far as I am aware the same will happen in another place. In no way is it a political issue, and to bring that aspect into it does not help the substance of the debate.

moved Amendment No. 11:

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 11, Amendment No. 12:

In paragraph (c), line 1, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").

My Lords, I feel that I must say a few words in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on this point. I am sure that to most of us this question is the absolute opposite of a political decision. I agree with the noble Lord that many of my noble friends here and honourable friends in another place are opposed to the idea, but opinions go right across the board. I can think of many subjects that might be included in the manifestoes of the respective parties at the next election, but I do not think that this will be one of them, nor do I think that it will be one on which the nation decides who it wants to form the next Government.

I know of the passionate feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on this matter, and for him it really looms as priority No. 1, but for most of us it is a single, important matter with a complex of arguments which we have discussed here at great length, and its political significance is very small indeed, if it has any political significance at all. It is really in that spirit that we looked at this question. Clearly my noble friend Lord Bellwin has looked at it. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has looked at it, and evidently the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has, but he has not at all taken a view about the period being three years instead of two years. On a pragmatic basis obviously three years will provide sufficient a test for us to sec how it all works out, whether it is working out satisfactorily, whether the regulations are satisfactory or whether they should be changed—indeed whether the scheme is workable at all. If the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is right, it will not be workable. But I do not believe that that will be the case.

In any event, three years is obviously a much better period than two years. A period of two years is not long enough properly to test the regulations. The first year will be concerned with running-in the scheme and in the second year it will begin to operate normally. Then there will be sufficient experience to say whether the regulations are sound or should be modified, or to take any other view. That is the sole purpose of changing the period. I am sure that noble Lords will not think it a practical point to decide on two years in order to coincide with the next general election. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, knows very well that I am in sympathy with him on most of the points here, but I agree with the Government amendment as it stands. I think that the great advantage of having three years before there is what will in effect be a review is that it will confirm even more strongly that the promoters of the clause were in fact at fault and that the casualty rate will be even more definitely confirmed as being quite unchanged or, if anything, slightly worse. Therefore it will be very helpful to us to have the three years evidence with which to shoot down the idea when the time comes.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, is quite wrong in thinking that I feel uniquely strongly about this matter; my bulging file of letters proves altogether otherwise. Of course, the question of seat belts will not appear in any political manifesto, because they all want to brush it under the carpet and will not want it as an election issue. My idea is that it should be in the forefront of people's minds and they should be able to make their choice. Of course it will not affect Parliament as a whole, but it might make a difference in a few marginal seats, depending on the views of candidates in those seats on the issue.

As for the idea that we should wait for three years, I can only ask why the noble Lord did not mention it at the time, when there was plenty of opportunity to do so. Several noble Lords have said to me that they think it wrong that the period of two years agreed to last week should be altered. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone; there is something to be said for it. But the overriding issue here is the one of not sticking to what we agreed to last week, and therefore I should like to press the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 22, leave out lines 7 to 14.

My Lords, I do not want to press the point about what may or may not be in order for consideration at Third Reading, but the fact is that your Lordships clearly voted at Report stage to accept the maximum fine of £50, and to go over this once again really is taking us round the track once more. But I think I would still want myself to make one or two observations on what my noble friend has said. First, the wearing rate in West Germany is only 51 per cent., and it is therefore far lower than in those countries where there is a penalty; and I think that point ought to be made. Without going further—because I do not think it is right that we should—I would only say that this amendment would make a nonsense of the whole clause: and, of course, I certainly could not support what is in fact a wrecking amendment.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for what he has said. The wearing rate on motorways in Germany is as high as 70 per cent., and I think that is very high. As this is the first time, I think, that the German system has been discussed in your Lordships' House, I should like to test the feeling of the House on the matter and to press my amendment.

moved Amendment No. 14:

My Lords, while I can understand the anxiety of the noble Lord for the teaching profession, I can think of so many others where the same conditions would apply. How about the medical profession—a doctor carrying his own equipment in his car? How about members of the musical profession carrying their instruments in their cars? There are many other examples that I could think of. I do not know why the education profession—deeply though I feel for them, may I say—should have special exemption in this way.

My Lords, I should perhaps note that we are in some danger here of becoming enmeshed in a particular fiscal matter outside the scope of the provisions of the Bill and our remit in these matters. Be that as it may, while I understand the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on this point, I cannot accept that a reduced vehicle excise duty burden on the lorries used by educational suppliers is appropriate.

There are two fundamental objections to this amendment. The first relates to the point which was touched upon a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and that is simply equity. The Government are frequently pressed to grant exemption or relief for what might be called special cases in special circumstances. Each one is well argued, and on the face of it has merit. But were they accepted there would be a severe loss of Exchequer revenue which would then have to be made good by increases on other VED payers or increases elsewhere. On the other hand, singling out one case for special treatment would be equally unfair. Moreover, the position of educational suppliers does not seem to me to be at all different from that of those in many other businesses who at the present time may well be faced with difficult trading positions.

The question of equity apart, the amendment would lead to more complex VED administration and enforcement at a time when the Government are taking steps to streamline the operation of the tax and cut out bureaucracy. I hope that the noble Lord can accept these very real difficulties of principle and of practicability which the amendment poses. The Government are, I can assure your Lordships, sympathetic to the underlying question of provision of books and equipment for schools. In that context, I should perhaps note that the Government's rate support grant settlement for 1981–82 allows for an increase—not a decrease—in local authority spending on books and equipment of 2 per cent. in real terms. Similar increases for later years are included in the Government's public expenditure plans. But it is of course for local authorities and schools themselves to determine their priorities within the resources made available to them. I hope that the noble Lord will accept these observations on his amendment.

My Lords, I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's reply. It will be recalled of course that I spoke in support at Committee stage of the downplating of lorries under this same clause in support of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on the basis of equity and fairness. If there are other categories which ought also to be considered, that is a matter which could be adjusted when Lords amendments go to another place. It should not affect this particular amendment which is trying to deal with the question of justice. To suggest that this is to be looked at from the aspect of loss of revenue appears a farfetched argument.

We are talking about a simple way for teachers to help the pupils and the smooth running of their educational work. If they refuse to do this because of the extra goods duties then somebody has to provide goods vehicles to move the equipment from one part of a comprehensive school to another. When we are talking about wiping out bureaucracy, my amendment would do that. What will happen if teachers say that they are not prepared to have this additional goods duty placed upon them? Either the equipment will not be moved from one part of the building to another, under the three examples I have given, or the LEA will have to meet quite considerable costs in providing goods vehicles to do it.

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way for a moment. I should have said that the position of estate cars being used for this purpose is something we would be willing to look at.

My Lords, I am delighted to have that assurance. On that basis, I readily withdraw the amendment. The noble Lord said "estate cars". Will he look at the hatch-back as well? They are both in the same position. With that assurance, I readily beg leave to withdraw and hope that something may happen.

moved Amendment No. 15:

My Lords, briefly, I should like to support the noble Lord and congratulate him on the energy with which he has pursued this issue and the energy with which he pursued many other issues under this Bill. I believe that there is a case of equity as the noble Lord has expressed. If my noble friend cannot accept the amendment, I hope he will say he will look at the case as I feel that he should.

My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 16 as well as this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is certainly most persistent and I entirely endorse what my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has said about his endeavours while we have been going through this Bill. At every stage he has sought doggedly to restrict the powers of licensing authorities to charge economic licence fees. I fully appreciate that he has the interests of the taxi trade at heart. I know that the trade is worried lest it be required to pay excessive licence fees.

It was in recognition of this worry that, at the Report stage, we moved an amendment making it absolutely explicit that a licensing authority may not charge a taxi licence fee greater than is necessary to cover its reasonable costs. Although, as I have said, I think I have a good understanding of the arguments that the noble Lord puts forward, beyond that I fear I cannot go. The Government's whole policy on local authority charges is directed towards removing unnecessary restrictions. Indeed, that was the very purpose of this clause. The proposals put forward now would take us in the other direction. As I shall try, briefly, to show, I am convinced that they are unnecessary.

The complicated procedures for notification and for the hearing of representations by district councils whenever they wish to charge licence fees in excees of £25 set out, as the noble Lord said, in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, are no longer appropriate. They merely impose additional costs on local authorities without significantly benefiting the trade. Indeed, in the long run, the trade is probably the loser since these extra costs have to be passed on through it to its customers. Furthermore, I really cannot see that a statutory right to make representations to the very authority whose decision is being objected to would add to the trade's ability to further its interests. As has been said more than once before, the trade has never shown any signs of being unwilling or unable to make its views abundantly plain if it dislikes a decision taken by a licensing authority.

The noble Lord's second amendment, to make it a duty for a council to supply details of the costs on which its licence fee is based, appears eminently reasonable on the face of it, so I hope he will not think that I am being churlish in having to resist it. But resist it I do—even at that risk. For local authorities are, in the great majority, responsible and reasonable bodies. The noble Lord spoke, in our debate on Report, of authorities who had refused to give a break-down of their costs. I accept that there may be some which may have done so, just as I accept that there may be a minority who in the past have set fees at a level which could not strictly be justified on the basis of their costs.

I have no doubt that most local authorities would do their best to be helpful in explaining the general basis of their charges. Because a minority might not, this amendment would apply to all the necessity so to maintain their accounts as to be able to supply at any time a break-down of costs, including apportionment of administration costs. While this would, of course, be feasible, it would be bound to add to authorities' general costs at a time when the Government's concern has been to limit and reduce local government expenditure.

The purpose of seeking details of costs is to check the reasonableness of the licence fee charged. Both my noble friend Lord Avon and I have explained in letters to the noble Lord that there already exists ample protection for taxi operators who suspect that a licence fee is excessive. Though it was already implicit in the law, the Government amendment which was accepted at Report stage has made clear that charges not firmly based on local authorities' actual costs are ultra vires. It is open to any local government elector whose interests are affected by the level of a licence fee to challenge his local authority's accounts by raising a formal objection at audit (or the matter could be drawn to the auditor's attention at any time). If, on examination, the auditor judged that the authority's charges were excessive, he would raise the matter with the council. If the circumstances warranted it, he could record the issues in his statutory report, which is a public document and which could provide a basis for the taxi trade to bring a case before the courts against the council.

That is the long-standing method by which the interests of the public are protected, in whatever field of local government operations. There is no separate provision for the man who thinks the local swimming bath charges are high to demand a break-down of the authority's costs in providing the bath: no separate provision for the market-stall holder to demand a break-down of costs of provision of the market; no separate provision for the applicant for planning permission to demand an analysis of the costs of the planning department: frankly, nor should there be. Similarly with taxi licence charges. This amendment might be the thin end of a very thick wedge, and, while I do not suggest that the wedge would necessarily be driven into the thick end, it seems to me undesirable even to introduce it.

The amendment is also to some extent defective, in that the word "details" is so vague as to render the enquirer's purpose unenforceable. I apologise for having gone on at some length, but I know how deeply the noble Lord feels and therefore I feel obliged so to do. I appreciate that my arguments will probably not convince him, though I am always hopeful. They must, however, be seen in a much wider context than the issue of taxi licence fees. The noble Lord's proposals would represent an undesirable precedent that could have serious repercussions right across the field of local government charges.

In case the noble Lord is not aware of it, I would want to say before I sit down, hopefully in a helpful way, that the Home Office are preparing a consultation paper on the 1976 Act, and that I should have thought that when that comes forth there would be an opportunity for the noble Lord, or anyone else concerned, to take up matters arising out of the working of that Act. So I hope that, with at least a helpful ending to my remarks, the noble Lord may be at least partially satisfied.

My Lords, I am in some difficulty because I have not spoken at all on Amendment No. 16. I confined myself entirely to Amendment No. 15 because I thought there were two different principles involved. Therefore, before I sit down perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words on Amendment No. 16.

The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that my efforts had been to try to restrict the powers of local authorities to charge proper licence fees—not at all: that has not been my purpose. My purpose has been to ensure that there is fairness to all the taxi trade and that they will all have equal opportunity to make objections. I have not argued about whether it is right to increase fees because everybody knows, as the Minister pointed out at Committee stage, that the licence fee under the 1847 Act is something like half a crown, and therefore that has got to be dealt with. But I wanted those authorities where it is as low as that to have the same right of objection as the 1976 ones. I am delighted to be told at this late stage that there is going to be a consultative paper—

My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way perhaps I may give him some information which is helpful. Perhaps I should explain that the point I was making about the 1976 Act concerned consultations about the taxi trade that were going to take place. I do not want to mislead the noble Lord.

My Lords, I cannot imagine a consultation in connection with the 1976 Act dealing with the taxi trade not covering the very point I have in mind. Therefore, while it does not fully satisfy me, we can come back later to this question of equity. But I would urge that, if the Government propose to amend the 1976 provisions, we must have something which dealt with the whole of the country together and, if the Government's proposals are not adequate, we can fight it on the basis of the whole country, whereas at the moment it deals only with some of the district councils; and nobody can possibly justify that.

If I may, I should like to say a few words on Amendment No. 16, because here again, as the noble Lord has rightly said, a promise was made at Committee stage to bring forward some clarification of the costs which a council could take into consideration in fixing licence fees. I pointed out at the Report stage that the words which were brought in then in the Government's amendment were exactly the same words as are at present in Section 70 of the 1976 Act. I am not arguing whether or not that is correct. It is because of the way that has been implemented by councils that the taxi trade was very concerned; and this Amendment No. 16 was seeking to say: "These are the costs which a council may take into consideration under points A, B and C, but, where an applicant or licence-holder feels aggrieved and wants to know the details, he should be able to get them from the licensing authority, the district council."

I indicated examples where one district council—I have been given the names of another seven but I shall not mention them here—had likewise refused to give this information. It is not a question of waiting for the auditor or taking cases to court: we want to avoid that if possible. One would have thought that it was not bureaucratic but common sense, because it might well be that when a licensee got the information he might decide not to press the matter further—he might be satisfied with the break-down of costs. But there have been complaints that in some cases the department responsible for this has been built up unnecessarily and that in some cases it would appear that too high a proportion of the salary of part-time officers has been placed in this particular department whereas it should have been spread over a number of other departments.

If a licensee or an applicant wanted to check that, that, he could only go to the council. When he got the information, he might decide to drop the business and not take it any further, without having to worry about checking with the district auditor 15 or 18 months afterwards. Therefore, I should have thought that this amendment was assisting in the reduction of bureaucracy, rather than adding to it.

Before I sit down, I should apologise to the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, whose names appear on the Marshalled List in support of Amendment No. 15. Much as I appreciate their support on other matters, on this occasion there was a mistake by the printers. I do not know whether by leave of the House, the Minister wants to reply to my points on Amendment No. 16, because I have not given him the opportunity to reply to them before.

My Lords, I am not sure whether we are completely in order, but, if we are discussing Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 together, there is one point which I should like to put to the Minister before he replies. He mentioned in his anticipatory statement about No. 16, that it would put councils to a great deal of trouble to have to work out these detailed figures. But, surely, they have to work out these detailed figures in order to fulfil their obligation not to charge more than the cost, do they not?

My Lords, may I say, first, that I apologise for speaking to Amendment No. 16. I thought that it had been agreed beforehand and, as I gather that it had not been agreed, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. There was no intention to put them together on any other basis.

May I say briefly, on one or two points that have been made, that I thought the amendment that we brought forward at Report stage clarified very much the fact that local authorities can base their fees only on their actual costs. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, asked how local authorities will calculate their costs separately, if they have to justify them later on. I can tell him from my own experience that the point I was making earlier, about the need for other services having their costs calculated, is one thing. But the great difficulty in these matters is not simply that you ascertain how many people are working on the preparation of something; it is what you apportion to each separate function.

They will have to be able to do that in this case, and that information will have to be available in case anybody wants to have it. There is no problem in doing that; there is only the problem of the precedent that is created if one insists on doing it in this way, because one would then have to apply it to all the other services. That is the difficulty.

For example, one has only to bring in the auditor, if an authority is proving reticent. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, talked about those authorities who are refusing to give information. I would only repeat that it is an option for anyone to request the auditor, at any time, to look at something which he may have grounds for feeling is ultra vires. Those are very serious matters for local authorities, and they do not take them lightly. So I hope that the authorities to which the noble Lord referred will take note of what has been said and will act accordingly.

My Lords, if I may say one or two further words, I recall that under the Local Government Act the Government are insisting on a supply of information; for example, on direct works departments. The Government say that they want the information and they will then decide what to do about certain things. These licence-holders want the information so that they can decide. I hope that this may be included in the consultation document on the 1976 provisions, because it is part of them. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 27, line 33, leave out from ("engines)") to ("or") in line 34 and insert ("in subsection (3) for the words "two hundred pounds" there is substituted "£3,000").

My Lords, without going into detail, which I do not think my noble friend requires me to do, I am glad to say that we are pleased to accept this amendment and I gladly pay tribute to his assiduity in pushing this forward.

moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 27, line 36, leave out second ("subsection").

moved Amendment No. 19:

moved Amendment No. 20:

Page 28, line 26, after ("Schedule") insert ("so far as relates to—

(a) the Railway Fires Act (1905) Amendment Act 1923; and

(b) the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981,

comes into force on the passing of this Act and otherwise").

moved Amendment No. 21:

moved Amendment No. 22:

Page 36, leave out lines 16 to 18.

I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. As my noble friend the Minister will recall, his reply when I moved a similar amendment at Report stage was so frustrating that in desperation I put my amendment to a Division. In fact this was a very unwise thing to have done, and I know that, but it was done in an attempt to demonstrate to my noble friend that I cannot understand why the Government cannot see the arguments which have been put forward so cogently by the noble Viscount on two occasions and which he has now amplified very well.

There is really no justification for introducing this new provision, which the Government admit is a new provision. It is something that the British Transport Docks Board did not have, did not need, and did not want. If my noble friend has not been given the good advice to accept this amendment, can he tell me whether the Government could inject an amendment when this Bill goes to the other place, if they see the point by then? If not, we shall be a little desperate, because this is really quite an important point and for some reason, very good arguments in its favour do not seem to be accepted.

My Lords, we have gone into this matter in considerable depth, but I wish to spend a little longer replying now than my noble friend the Chief Whip—who has just entered the Chamber—would want me to do; I feel obliged to do so because of the concern which has been expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. If I go into the matter in some depth, my remarks will go on the record and that may be helpful. To take the question asked by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I can only comment that, as always, everything that is said will be carefully considered and whether or not the other place will wish to do something is for the other place to decide—I cannot say.

I hope that the House will be content if I speak to Amendments No. 22 and No. 22A, which both deal with ships' agency. We have discussed on a previous occasion the power which the Bill will give to Associated British Ports to undertake the activities of a ship's agent. On the second of those occasions, at Report stage, I promised to bring to my colleagues' attention the points which had been raised in order to find out whether they felt we should do something different. However, I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon and my noble friend will not be too disappointed at having received my letter in the one case, and in the other case at hearing me say that the Government have come to the conclusion that the extension of Associated British Ports' powers to acting as a ships' agency is reasonable and logical.

The noble Viscount expressed his concern about possible conflicts of interest which might arise on the part of a ship's agency employed by the port authority. Your Lordships will be aware that British Transport Docks Board has gone to considerable lengths to reassure existing ships' agents and ports users that it does not propose to enter into ships' agency activities in a big way. Many of your Lordships may recall, for example, that during Report stage I read out quite a long joint statement which the BTDB made with the General Council of British Shipping. That statement made it clear that BTDB still viewed the operation of its ports as its primary objective and proposed to undertake ships' agency work only where there was a gap in the existing services which ABP could advantageously fill. The position of port users will be further protected by the economic reality that ABP's best interest will always lie in providing the best possible service for its customers, thereby retaining their custom and ensuring an adequate return to the private sector shareholders who will control the business. In these circumstances, I believe that any conflict of interest is likely to be theoretical rather than real.

I should like to take this opportunity to reply also to the points which my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Lucas of Chilworth raised at the Report stage. My noble friend Lord Mottistone expressed concern about whether BTDB proposed to use their ship's agency powers to engage in the chartering of ships. I hope he will be reassured by the fact that it is my understanding that such chartering would normally be undertaken by a chartered shipbroker and that it would not come within the scope of ABP's power to undertake the activities of a ship's agent.

My noble friend Lord Mottistone also expressed his anxiety lest I thought there was an exact comparison to be made between Schedule 3, paragraph 4, of the Bill and the memorandum and articles of association of a private sector company involved in ship's agency work. Such a comparison of course is not exact and the important comparison to which I had wanted to draw attention is one of principle. This is that a private sector company is empowered to do whatever its memorandum and articles of association authorise, subject only of course to the general laws of the country. On the other hand, ABP, as a statutory corporation, has no memorandum and articles of association and will only be empowered to do those things which its statute expressly allows. Hence, Schedules 2 and 3 achieve for ABP what the memorandum and articles of association achieve for a company. The schedules go no further than a private company's memorandum and articles and confer no special privileges on ABP either in respect of ship's agency or any other power.

My noble friend Lord Mottistone saw a danger of a ship's agent employed by ABP joining his colleagues on strike and so depriving ship's masters of the ability to have their ships redirected to ports free of industrial action. I believe his fears are misplaced. BTDB's management have never gone on strike and it is fair to assume that port services not dependent on registered dockworkers would always be maintained as they have been in the past. So those who rely on the service of ship's agents have little to fear from this viewpoint, though it is, of course, a factor which they will be free, if they think it necessary, to take into account in appointing an agent.

My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth took the industrial relations point further by suggesting that BTDB's assurances about the use they expected to make of their ship's agency powers might be more welcome if backed up by similar assurances on behalf of the employees' side of the docks industry. Even if theoretically possible, it would I think be unfair to expect the BTDB management to subject their assurances, or any other business arrangements they make, to detailed scrutiny and, implicitly, consultation with their employees. They are not a co-operative and, therefore, responsibility for the business must reside with the management who will in turn be answerable to the shareholders. I think, therefore, that only management itself can ever be in a position to give assurances about the use of their ship's agency powers.

Finally, I should like to emphasise once again that BTDB have gone a long way to reassure those concerned that they do not intend to enter into the ship's agency business in a big way and that they have no intention of jeopardising the independent status of existing ship's agents or taking business away from them. I do not want to repeat all those assurances, but I should like to say that the reconstituted BTDB will not engage in any of their new ancillary activities unless circumstances fully justify it and they accept that it could well be in the best interests of their customers for a gap in the ship's agency services at a port to be filled by an existing member of the profession. In these circumstances they have said that they would be happy to initiate any liaison needed to achieve this. On the other hand, there may be instances in which a service would be provided more appropriately by ABP itself. In the Government's view, ABP should not be denied the flexibility accorded to other private sector businesses to respond to changing circumstances, and it should be left to them to exercise their new powers in a sensible and commercially effective manner in the best interests of its ports and its customers.

The Government have given full and careful consideration to ABP's powers and I hope that the comments which T have made today will help to reassure those of your Lordships who have expressed concern about the new ship's agency power. To the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who has pressed this all the way from the start, I should like to say that I hope that, if not fully, he will be at least partially reassured by what I have said.

My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for the very full reply lie has given. I cannot say that I find it entirely satisfactory, but there it is. In the early part of his reply, I think when answering the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, the noble Lord said that of course he could not say what would happen in another place: that it was up to them. If we do not pass the amendment, there is no possi- bility of the other place doing anything about it. This is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was making; we should pass the amendment here and then the other place can either remove it or alter it. If we do not pass the amendment here, there is no possibility of the other place doing anything.

My Lords, if I may speak again on that point, I went on to say that, while we could not accept the amendment, the other place would read very carefully, as we always do, what has been said, and, if that should be an influence upon their thinking, they would know what to do. However, so far as this House is concerned, we cannot accept the amendment.

With great respect, I do not think that the noble Lord has got it right. They can read what we say and it may affect their thinking, but there is no means by which the other place can introduce into a Bill which has already been through that place an amendment which they have not got.

Yes, my Lords, that is absolutely right. I apologise to the House.

Apart from that, once again the noble Lord gave us a very full explanation of the Government's view. Part of it was similar to the letter which he wrote to me. I invited the noble Lord to tell us whether he understood that curious sentence which I read out when I moved the amendment and which I could not understand. He read it out again, but he did not make any comment upon that reference to the likelihood of a conflict of interest on the part of a ship's agent employed by the port authority. I do not know how it has got into the text; it has nothing to do with what we are considering. Again, I am afraid it suggests to me—I have the greatest sympathy for the noble Lord, who is clearly having to speak on information given to him by another department—that the point has not really been understood. Nevertheless, I do not feel that this is a matter of such enormous importance that we should delay the House any longer or go to a Division. In all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 22A:

moved Amendment No. 23:

My Lords. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said in regard to this amendment. He will know that I do not share his pessimistic view of my right honourable friend's ability to carry out his responsibilities effectively after the abolition of the National Ports Council. But I do not believe that a report of the sort provided for in the amendment offers the best way of informing Parliament of how he is exercising his responsibilities. Many opportunities arise in practice, whether through questions, statements or debates, to discuss ports matters. If noble Lords, or honourable Members in another place, wish to discuss the ports industry, the Government's ports policy or indeed more specific questions, my right honourable friend and his colleagues welcome the opportunity of such discussions. They can take place on the issues of the day and be relevant to current problems. This is likely to provide the basis for a more worthwhile discussion than a single report 12 months after the Appointed Day on a rather limited aspect of my right honourable friend's responsibilities.

I do not need to describe to your Lordships at this late stage the provisions of Section 15 and Schedule 5, but I should explain that they are mostly concerned with the detailed arrangements for the abolition of the National Ports Council. I described at Report stage what was to happen to the Council's functions and also the role of the Secretary of State. Schedule 5 transfers to the Secretary of State the duty to decide objections against ship, passenger and goods dues and the power to collect port statistics. It also makes him responsible for administering the Council's staff compensation and pension scheme, responsibilities which the Public Trustee is to carry out on his behalf. But most of the Secretary of State's responsibilities derive directly from the Harbours Act 1964.

To sum up, I do not believe that a formal report a year after the Council is wound up is necessary. Nor do I think that a report on the rather limited issues covered in the amendment as drafted would assist Parliament. But my right honourable friend and his colleagues welcome occasions for debate on important matters of ports policy and I have no doubt that such opportunities will continue to arise.

My Lords, I should point out that all the words in the amendment after the word "report "on the third line of the proposed subsection (2) are actual words taken from the subsection in question. I am disappointed with the reply because I think it would be helpful if we knew how the carrying out of those things was working out in practice. But in the light of what the noble Lord has said, he can rest assured that I shall have discussions with my honourable friends in another place and I am certain that they will follow up the suggestions he has made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 24:

My Lords, on this occasion I will not repeat the reasons why the Government are not prepared to accept an extension of the provisions of Section 31 of the Harbour Act to cover all port charges, because we spoke on this at much length during the earlier stages and it is recorded in Hansard. I would rather confine myself now to the particular circumstances of this amendment, which of course is a very restrictive one. The amendment would in certain circumstances extend the existing right of appeal against ship, passengers and goods dues to cargo handling services. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has explained, these circumstances are where the services are provided at a port by one supplier and there are no other suppliers available, and where in addition the user has no reasonable opportunity of taking his business to another port.

Our ports industry is a highly competitive one, with a large number of individual ports providing a wide range of services and facilities and competing for a limited amount of trade. A user is, generally, free to choose the port to which he takes his business; if he is dissatisfied with the service provided he can take his business to another port. We regularly read of examples of this. Moreover there is no basis on which a statutory cargo handling monopoly can exist in the industry. There are ports at which there is only one employer of stevedoring labour. But any person or company may provide cargo handling services at a port, provided that at ports covered by Part I of the Docks and Harbours Act 1966—that is at the "Scheme Ports"—he first obtains a licence to employ registered dock workers. This is of course the very point made at Report by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I was grateful to him for having raised it then and I regret that we may have misunderstood it at that time. The trend is to a reduction in the number of firms providing stevedoring services, but there is certainly not a statutory monopoly.

I have no evidence that the combination of circumstances which is envisaged in the amendment exists in practice within the ports industry. Although the canal traffic, for example, from South to West Yorkshire must use the Humber or the lower Trent, the BTDB does not have a cargo-handling monopoly there. On the other hand, where there is a cargo-handling monopoly at a port, we are not aware of a captive market. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has raised an interesting point, but I do not think it is one which arises in practice. I do not think we can do anything about the noble Lord's amendment: all we can do is to take note of what has been said, not with a view to altering it in another place, as I said earlier, but with a view generally as to where we go from here. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful with regard to this amendment, which I recognise is one that the noble Lord felt might be accepted, but that is the position as I understand it.

My Lords, I wonder whether I might put just two or three points. In the first place, what the amendment is saying is that where the port authority is the only employer and where there is no reasonable opportunity for the port user to go anywhere else, there should be the right of appeal. Therefore, it is not a question of whether at this stage there is such a port, but it could be in the near future. The National Waterways Transport Association have expressed real concern about this and they represent the independent private freight operators on our waterways, and a number of freight operators have expressed concern about it. Under the Bill the British Transport Docks Board will go out of existence and Associated British Ports will come in as a private company, controlling those particular harbours and docks in the Humber Estuary and the Trent. Therefore, there could be conditions of monopoly on both the points raised in this amendment. I wonder whether that is fully appreciated. I know it is no good asking the Government to take it back because there is no opportunity to take it back; either we do not proceed with the amendment, or alternatively the Government are prepared to accept it and then possibly, if they wish to improve it in the other place, they could do so.

My Lords, I fear, however helpful one wants to be, I am not in a position to accept it.

My Lords, this is one of the issues on which we feel very strongly, but in view of the Government's refusal to reconsider I do not think we will press it to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 25:

My Lords, I feel I must say a word here in support of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, sorry though I am to find myself in conflict with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who has been such a valued and stalwart supporter of mine through much of this Bill. The fact is that we really did decide this issue at Report stage, and, as the noble Lord reminded us, we divided on it. He made out a very attractive case and the result was that he got a great many people into the Lobby with him. It is the type of case which one can always make out very persuasively, because it seems to give an option which gives a rather serious matter a merciful application, and I can understand that.

However, my noble friend has to explain that in practice, certainly in the early years, it is almost certain that the majority of motorists would go for the option—they have nothing to lose by it—and that if they did so, the whole administrative system would break down. That is the dilemma. I am perfectly certain that if the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, were sitting in the seat of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, he would be saying exactly the same as my noble friend. The problem here is to make the new system work and to try to make the law with regard to drink and driving more effective, which I know is what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, wants.

Those were the very cogent reasons that were advanced last time. If I may say so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is rather stretching the recent new rule of order that came into operation at the beginning of this year, and was quoted earlier, in taking us round this course again. It is true that he has introduced an ingenious new feature of the provision, which would allow the Houses of Parliament to reverse their order after a year if they found that it was not working, but I cannot imagine how that looks constitutionally. It sounds very unattractive to me and I have never heard of it before, but no doubt my noble friend Lord Bellwin will inform the House about it. I hope very much indeed that after the House has heard what my noble friend Lord Bellwin has to say, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not feel disposed to press his amendment.

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, not for the first time, because I, too, would have wanted to say that we had a very full debate on this whole question during the Report stage. There was indeed a large turn-out for the vote, although I acknowledge that the result was as the noble Lord said. But what in fact the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is now saying ostensibly is that we should not restrict the right to a further blood test until some experience has been gained in the operation of the breath machines and public confidence has been established in them. However, what he in fact is saying is, "Let us adopt the procedure which was defeated on Report, and not until after a year—and only after a year—will it be permissible for the Government to seek to reintroduce the procedure which was accepted on Report".

I shall not say a great deal on this matter except to pick out one or two points which the noble Lord made. First, I said on Report that since the Blennerhassett recommendations the technology of breath analysis has advanced a great deal. In Northern Ireland, I understand that there are, in fact, two offences—the major and the minor offence—and it is for the minor offence only that a small proportion opt to have a blood test.

I believe, exactly as my noble friend Lord Nugent said, that a person who is found to be over the limit on the breath machine, faced with an option to take a blood test, must surely take a blood test. He is faced with being off the road for 12 months, so why should he not take up an option which may throw up something different? In fairness, it should also be pointed out that the new procedures give more scope to the person so affected than do the present procedures. At present, if you are shown, by a blood test, to have over 80 milligrams then that is all there is to it. What we are saying now is that because the breath machine—and no one is querying its accuracy because it was generally shown in the examples which noble Lords have had the opportunity to see as being pretty accurate—is a machine and there may be some inaccuracy in it, we shall go further, and say that if someone has up to 50 microgrammes (which is equivalent of up to 115 milligrammes in relation to blood) then he may have the option to have a blood test. We shall allow for that. That really goes much further than the present provision and in that way we are allowing for any of the eventualities. I should have thought that that was a very fair safeguard to those who might be concerned about this matter.

We are all trying to bring into this drink/driving legislation something that will materially affect the position so as to make it more of a penalty, because we are all so very concerned at what is happening on the roads, and no one more so than the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, himself. Therefore, we do have a safeguard and we have a bigger safeguard even than we have now. In view of that, and the impracticality of doing what the noble Lord suggests with the 12-month procedure on which we came to a conclusion previously, I think that the noble Lord should let the clause stand as it is.

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, responds, and notwithstanding the niceties which have been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, I feel bound to say something since I have put my name to the amendment. I support the general tenor of the amendment and at the same time accept what my noble friend Lord Bell-win has said. I hope that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not feel the necessity to press this amendment. However, I must say to my noble friend that we are not concerned with noble Lords who have had the benefit of widespread discussion and demonstration of some of the machinery that might be used in these tests. I am not here to cast any doubt upon the accuracy of those machines. But what I am saying is that it is all the other people—and of course in these arguments it is never oneself; it is always the other people—who have to be convinced.

The Blennerhassett Report has been with us for some years and we have now approached at this stage of this Bill the provisions which are to implement part of that Report. These proposals are somewhat contrary to Blennerhassett. I am suggesting, therefore, that it may be prudent if the Government were to make haste more slowly in this matter. I do not believe that many of the general motoring public who may be inclined to drink at one and the same time are fully conversant with that which the law is proposing. I am suggesting, therefore, that a very heavy programme of publicity be set up before this part of the Bill conies into force so that people are assured, at least to some extent, of (a) what their rights are and (b) the accuracy of the machine which will determine their guilt or otherwise. I would ask my noble friend to have regard to what I can only describe again as a public relations exercise, because it is the public who must be convinced, not, frankly, your Lordships.

My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but I note also his plea for me not to press this matter to a Division. I recognise that the basic issue was debated and went to a Division at the Report stage, although, as I have emphasised, I think that there is a complete change in what is being proposed in this amendment. Before I decide which step I shall take, we must consider that, despite the machines having advanced since Blennerhassett, it was the principle that Blennerhassett was advancing, for the very reasons that I have advanced the principle, and the fact that we need to get this so freely accepted. One way in which to get it freely accepted I am certain, would be to provide the machinery which is suggested in the amendment. I am certain that the motoring organisations are not asking for the optional blood test because they believe that there will be tens of thousands who will rush in and demand it. I do not believe that the motoring associations would be so foolish as to ask for that. They themselves want to encourage the general acceptance of the new procedure and the machines. I am in some difficulty, in so far as we had a vote on this issue last time, and I do not want to waste the time of the House or to intrude upon the general kindness of the House in letting me bring forward this matter again.

The other point I want to make is that this afternoon we have already passed a Government amendment which suggests that a certain measure shall not continue beyond two years unless there is an affirmative resolution. I am almost trying to do the same thing in half the time, in 12 months instead of two years, and to say that you have power to go back to what you want. That seems to me to be a most sensible procedure. But as it will appear if I divide the House that I shall possibly be asking for defeat and be most unpopular, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I should like to emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said: that the Government must not assume that they can ride roughshod over this and that there will be ready acceptance. I believe that there will be acceptance if the Government handle it properly, and that is what my amendment sought to provide. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw it.

moved Amendment No. 26:

Page 93, line 27, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 1.").

moved Amendment No. 27:

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In all, we have spent many hours debating this Bill. I am told that 273 amendments have been tabled and—and this is significant—more than 80 amendments to the Bill have been agreed to. Apart from minor technical amendments, of which I am glad to say that there have been relatively few, the main amendments to which we have agreed have been to the road safety provisions.

I should like to take this opportunity to thank, first, my noble friends Lord Avon and Lord Skelmersdale and my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, who were very helpful to me as we went through the Bill. Not for the first time, I am deeply grateful to them. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for the major role which he has played in the Bill. I hope that he will think that it has been worth while, in that some of his amendments did get through, although I know that I always disappoint him in the ones that I am not able to accept. Likewise, to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon—who is always so very cautious, very careful and usually so right in the points that he makes—I also regret that I am not always able to accept as many amendments as I might, personally, sometimes like to accept.

It would be invidious of me to mention many other names, but I should certainly want to refer to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who carried through a very significant measure on the seat belts issue. Whether or not one agrees with that, it is right and proper that we should pay tribute to him for the way in which he has persevered for so long in something in which he believes and which he has managed to convince your Lordships to accept. I should also like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Lucas, who is always so knowledgeable in the whole transport area, and to my noble friend Lord Mottistone. He and I do not always see eye to eye, but he, too, has somehow found a way to get through many amendments.

I think that this is a good Bill. I am happy to conclude it by saying that it is the second Transport Bill that it has been my privilege to pilot through. We have covered a wide range of topics. We have put some excellent new road safety regulations on to the statute book and I think that everyone will benefit from that. It has been a great pleasure for me, and I hope your Lordships will now agree that the Bill do now pass.

My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the way in which he has piloted the Bill through this House. I suppose one can say that it is always a pleasure to do business with him. Sometimes his manner is so disarming that he gets away with things that he should not, but he is always helpful in giving full and detailed explanations. He was also greatly helped by his team of Ministers, to whom I am certain the House is grateful. I have been appreciative of the various letters which have been sent by the noble Lord and by his noble friends on various matters which have arisen.

Needless to say, although some good improvements have been made in Part IV of the Bill, naturally I am disappointed at there being no changes whatever in Parts I, II and This may be because of the highly political content of the Bill, the fact that it reflects a complete Conservative doctrinaire attitude adopted in Parts I, II and III, in which we were unable to make any move. In particular, I was sorry that we could get no assurance from the Government that the proposals for the BR subsidiaries will not go beyond the four named. We shall have to watch this matter very carefully, because any movement in the British Rail engineering would, in my view, be a great tragedy.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said, the House has benefited considerably from the discussions on the road safety clauses. We said on Second Reading—I think that many noble Lords expressed this view—that there would be some lengthy debates on a number of the provisions. These have been contentious in some forms, but they have been completely free of politics, and on this side we have not allowed politics to enter at all into the road safety provisions.

I am grateful that a number of the amendments, which various noble Lords have moved, have been accepted. In other cases the Government have been prepared to listen to the voice of the House—not on every issue, as has been evidenced this afternoon, but on a number of issues—and I believe that in that respect we have improved the Bill. I should also like to pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, because I believe that he has been assiduous in trying to get through the particular item on which I gave him some support. I think that the praise is mainly due to him. I can only hope that the other House takes the same view. I believe that the road safety provisions will be of great help to us. I am sorry that one or two other provisions have not been adopted, but I believe that the other House will see that since the Bill left them, the provisions of Part IV have been greatly improved, although I am sorry that there were not some equally reasonable improvements made to Parts I, II and III.