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

My Lords, in a letter to the United Nations Secretary-General on 12th July, the Five recorded the agreement of all parties to the constitutional principles proposed for the envisaged Constituent Assembly. In the course of informal consultations with the Front-Line States and SWAPO in New York, the Five have made encouraging progress towards the resolution of other outstanding issues relating to implementation of Security Council Resolution 435.

My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I press him a little further on what has happened since the publication of the letter? First, may I ask him whether he is aware that every word spoken in answer to my Question this morning will be reported back to Africa, where the final decision is bound to be made? May I also ask him whether he has read this week's South African press, which has reported that the South African Government are now linking continued negotiations with the Contact Group with two points—the first being the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola, and the second being the inclusion of at least one member of Unita, the rebel group in Angola, in the Angolan Government? That has been reported this week in the South African press.

Finally, may I ask the noble Lord, since it has been reported in this morning's press that two days ago his office assured the anti-apartheid movement that there were no formal preconditions relating to the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola—

Can he explain the meaning of the word "formal", which could cause some concern?

My Lords, the first and the last of the noble Lord's supplementary questions deal with the matter of withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. As a member of the Five, Britain agrees that while withdrawal of Cuban troops cannot be a formal precondition for a Namibia settlement, it is a desirable and interrelated objective. A Namibia solution provides an outstanding opportunity for a broader regional settlement. So far as the noble Lord's question about South African views of the Angolan Cabinet is concerned, I have no comments to make on that.

My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any progress has been made in agreeing on the electoral system to be employed?

My Lords, in their letter to the United Nations Secretary-General on 12th July, which I mentioned in my original reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, the Five stated their belief that a decision on the method to be employed to elect the Constituent Assembly should be made in accordance with the provisions of Security Council Resolution 435, without causing delay in the implementation of the resolution.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we very much welcome his statement about no preconditions over the Cuban troops in Angola, and that we all very much hope for peace in the whole region? May I ask whether he can comment on many statements in the press that Western diplomats in the United Nations are worried by what they call noises from the military in South Africa and the president's latest accusations against SWAPO?

My Lords, I am bound to say that we are concerned at any increase in violence in the Namibia context, by either side—and by that I mean both South Africa and SWAPO. We have always made it clear to both sides that increased violence cannot help the prospects of success for the Five's continuing efforts.

My Lords, in his first reply the noble Lord said that the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola was desirable; I felt that remark to be rather feeble, if I may say so. I would ask the noble Lord to assure us that the Government recognise that the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola is an essential element in the establishment of stable conditions in southern Africa.

My Lords, I think that the words I used were that a Namibia solution provides an outstanding opportunity for a broader regional settlement. I like to think that those words are robust; they are certainly meant so to be. I consider that this is a desirable and interrelated objective, even though it cannot be a formal precondition for Namibia.

My Lords, while I welcome the fact that the impossible dual electoral proposal has been withdrawn, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can indicate to us what is now the proposal for the election? Secondly, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Angolan Government have indicated that if the South African troops were withdrawn from Namibia a solution in the withdrawal of the Cuban armies would be more acceptable?

My Lords, so far as the noble Lord's second supplementary question is concerned, I think we must see how we go along those lines, but both the eventualities which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentions are, I think, wholly desirable. So far as the details are concerned—that is, the nuts and bolts of the electoral process being proposed by the Five—I can today only reiterate that the Five are doing their best to narrow the differences between the parties on the outstanding issues, and the two main outstanding issues are the electoral process and the composition and deployment of the United Nations Transitional Assistance Group.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to go one stage further so far as the Cuban troops are concerned? Is this not a matter which is just as much within the sovereignty of the Angolan Government as the presence of American troops in Europe is within the sovereignty of European countries? Further, would he tell us whether it is true that representatives of the Contact Group are now in Windhoek; and, if so, what are they doing there?

My Lords, so far as the first question is concerned, the presence of Cuban troops in Angola is a matter of concern to all who are concerned with the Namibia process; and I repeat that the process of trying to sort out the Namibia problem provides an outstanding opportunity for a broader regional settlement in this matter. So far as the presence of a mission of the Five in Windhoek is concerned, that mission is there in order to bring the internal parties up to date on developments in New York, and I think that is a highly desirable thing for the Five to do.

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

My Lords, the START talks, and the briefings which the Americans give to us and their other allies about them, are confidential. We have noted and welcomed the serious intentions with which the United States has entered these negotiations. We must hope that the Russians reciprocate.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether we can have an assurance that the Western Governments, supplementing the efforts of the unaligned Governments, will exert the fullest pressure, both on the American Government and on the Soviet Union, to make the necessary compromises in these discussions to enable a satisfactory solution to be reached?

My Lords, the United States, of course, has proposed to concentrate in the START talks on the most destabilising elements—the ballistic missiles, including, particularly, land-based ballistic missiles—but the Americans have also made clear their willingness to include in the negotiations other classes of system. Now we await the response of the Russians.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that this matter was raised during the recent defence debate? I also noticed that at an international gathering the Prime Minister stressed it, as well.

Yes, my Lords, I also had noted the reference to this in the debate.

My Lords, do the Government agree that the START talks are very closely related to the intermediate-range nuclear force reduction talks, that progress in either is very unlikely without progress in the other, and that both concern this country crucially?

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. The two sets of negotiations are proceeding in parallel, and, of course, they are proceeding together in Geneva. There is close co-ordination between the delegations.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that all sane people would wish to see, urgently, a massive reduction in all sorts of arms, strategic and otherwise, but that the thought in the mind of everyone is that when Governments agree, at whatever level, on talks about reductions, ordinary people ask themselves, "How do we know that they will honour what they have agreed at conferences?" Is it not now about time that the way in which agreements on the reduction of arms reached at summits or elsewhere are going to be made a reality, should be the main subject of discussion in all these debates on the reduction of arms? It is: Will the agreements be honoured, and how can they be proved to be honoured?

My Lords, the noble Lord's question gives me the opportunity to record that in the three sets of talks which are taking place at the present time—the START talks, the intermediate-range nuclear force reduction talks and also what are known as the MBFR talks (the mutual and balanced force reduction talks) in Vienna—the West has made proposals for reductions in force levels, and we await a response from the Russians. But those proposals rely, as the noble Lord so rightly says, upon the agreement as to what everybody has—in other words, data—and also verification, to see that both sides are playing the game in undertaking their reductions; and the talks will not be successful unless the questions of data and verification can be agreed.

But, my Lords, is it not the case, as indeed was indicated from the Front Bench, that the Soviet Union has now agreed to on-the-spot verification in relation to chemical weapons? Was that not welcomed from the Front Bench, and does that not give us hope that a system of verification may be completed?

My Lords, as the United Kingdom disposed of all its chemical weapons 10 years ago, naturally I agree with the noble Lord that we welcome this move by the Russians.

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

My Lords, the Government are anxious to encourage this welcome development as much as possible. Our current expenditure plans contain provision for a large expansion of demand, including an extra £100 million for the current financial year, compared with our original plans. In May, the Government announced the launching of a new prevocational qualification for 17-year-olds.

I thank my noble friend for his reply. In view of the Chancellor's Statement earlier this week on job sharing which is to come into force in January 1983, may I ask him whether it is possible that this has an effect on the numbers of 16 to 19-year-olds seeking full-time education, and could the Minister assure me that the Government will see that these groups have no obstacles placed in their way of continuing in part-time education? Could he also assure me that he is aware that there is a changing world in employment and that many skills are now needed to be learned—skills such as communications—which are not job-specific but would relate to many jobs and would increase the employment prospects of that age group?

My Lords, the job-splitting scheme, although it is experimental will, we hope, if people like it, provide real jobs which could be opened up for more people, including the 16- to 19-year-olds. Full details of this scheme will be announced in the autumn and the scheme itself will run from 1st January 1983 till 31st March 1984. We will not place obstacles in the way of young people wishing to remain in full-time or part-time education and the numbers doing so continue to rise to a remarkable level already.

My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that one of the few qualifications for which there is still an excess of demand over supply is computer programming and, in this Year of Information Technology, I wonder if the Government will consider financing education and training schemes within industry which would enable young people of this age group to get the two years' experience which is required by most employers before they will take on somebody in a paid job, and thereby enable more of this age group to get their feet on the first rung of that employment ladder?

My Lords, certainly the area to which the noble Lord has addressed himself is a very important one. Perhaps it should be considered in the context of what we are providing in the way of the Manpower Services Commission's proposals for the new training initiative. There will be, in that, full place for the sort of thing that the noble Lord is talking about and it is in fact a determined effort to produce a better-educated and better-trained workforce in all respects. I should tell your Lordships that by 1984–85 investment by the MSC will be around £1½ billion per year.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, without being churlish, nevertheless we welcome the extension and better attitude that is now taken to further education? Secondly, is he further aware that the young of today are the seed corn for the future of Britain and the future of this nation; and that for the following up of education it is essential—and I know this from people who have come to me only in the last year or so—for the 16- to 19-year-olds to have some supplementary monetary support, because many of the families cannot support the 16- to 19-year-olds in further education unless there are generous, understanding grants made to them?

My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord implies by, I think he said, "monitoring support", but we are very well aware (and I particularly am aware) of the great importance of this age group. It may help your Lordships to visualise what is going on if I say that our plans assumed an increase in pupils above school-leaving age in schools from 310,000 in 1980–81, to 340,000 in 1981–82 and the 16- to 19-year-olds on courses of full-time, non-advanced further education will be, in 1982–83, 266,000. There are a great many people doing this and we want to encourage it.

My Lords, may I remind my noble friend that, in his previous appointment last winter, he was so good as to tell us what the Government proposed to do about the further education of those mentally-handicapped young people who are capable of it? Will he bear in mind this in further developments in this matter?

My Lords, certainly, it will be borne in mind.

My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that, in the present circumstances of this country, there is a great deal to be said for paying these young people unemployment benefit but allowing them to continue in full-time education? It seems to me that we should make a virtue of necessity in the present state of this country.

My Lords, more and more young people recognise the importance of improving their qualifications and are staying on. Therefore, that seems to put the question of need for greater support than at present perhaps a little in question. But we shall keep the matter of a staying-on allowance of some sort under review. Our first priority must be the NTI (new training initiative) on which there will be major expenditure to which I have already referred.

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that, when you reach the age of 16, you pass the stage where general education is necessary and that from then on it is much more specialist education to suit the career which you are going to follow; and that, therefore, being the case, it will be a pity to have completely unselected education from 16 to 19 years of age at the expense of those who perhaps need it?

My Lords, a feature of present developments is the way that education is being extended right across the spectrum from the academic to the totally non-academic. The noble Lord is referring to the latter; and that is the area in which there is the greatest expansion. However, many who have undertaken university degree courses in their youth will recognise that there is room for general education as well as specialist education at about the age of 16.

My Lords, how does the noble Lord reconcile his statements about the expansion of education in the further and higher education field with the cutting back of the numbers to be admitted to universities and polytechnics? Would he not agree that it is much more sensible to use the institutions which now exist for the purpose of giving education to that age rather than to create new methods of very doubtful significance?

My Lords, we are using the existing plant. A feature of what we are doing is to use it more productively, and what we are doing, I think, is not doubtful but practical.

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

My Lords, the Government are aware of the results of this poll. The way in which the question is put is, of course, crucial to the result of any opinion poll. The Government believe that, when presented objectively with all the relevant facts, the majority of the population of the United Kingdom would be in favour of retaining the United Kingdom's independent strategic nuclear deterrent and of the choice of Trident as the most cost-effective way of maintaining this capability.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Government believe what they want to believe and that the reality of the situation is that there has been a fundamental shift in opinion, not only in this country but also in Europe, in favour of the view that we must get rid of the nuclear weapon or it will get rid of us?

My Lords, of course we believe what we wish to believe, just as the noble Lord does. We believe that unilateral nuclear disarmament would be a step away from and not towards continuing peace and security. The best prospect of reducing nuclear weapons is by concrete multilateral negotiations to limit the forces on both sides.

My Lords, would my noble friend agree that such polls conducted are quite worthless because the general public are not privy to the information which is necessary to come to a balanced judgment on such a subject?

My Lords, one of the difficulties is, as I have said, the presentation of the question.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that opinion polls are not the way to decide defence policy?

I do indeed, my Lords.

My Lords, will the noble Earl share my surprise that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, must apparently be in favour of the reintroduction of capital punishment since opinion polls have shown opinion to be in favour of it although Parliament in its wisdom has decreed against it?

My Lords, the noble Lord stresses the difficulty of governing by opinion polls.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, contrary to the opinion expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I am not suggesting a referendum on the subject? I am suggesting, however, that the Government should not remain immune from the development and trend of a public opinion in many parts of the world and that a simple reiteration of the Government's dependence upon nuclear weapons is not enough. Is it not the case that it is high time that the Government expressed abhorrence of this weapon, which is very widely shared, and their determination in their own way—multilateral, whatever it may be—to do their utmost to get rid of it?

My Lords, we do indeed share the abhorrence of these weapons. We do not believe that it would do any good if we were to disarm unilaterally. Russia would certainly not follow suit. I believe that the majority of people agree that we must keep our defences strong otherwise we shall put ourselves as well as our NATO partners at serious risk. The only way to achieve disarmament is through a realistic process and negotiated arms control arrangements, as were explained earlier by my noble friend Lord Belstead.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the responsible opinion of British people is expressed at general elections and that they have now elected eight Governments in succession, including a number of Labour Governments, all firmly committed to a policy of maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing out one of the points that I had in my brief.

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th July be approved.

My Lords, at last we are approaching the final stage of this protracted effort to secure legislation for the compulsory wearing of seat belts. As the noble Lord the Minister has said, Parliament has clearly decided on the principle. Your Lordships' House approved by 132 to 92 votes the new clause introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, which made this provision. I should make it clear that although there was a free vote I was not neutral, and I was pleased to have the opportunity of supporting the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, in his effort.

When the new clause went to another place it was approved again, again on a free vote, by the substantial majority of 221 votes to 144; so the principle has been determined by both Houses. The debate concentrated on the freedom of choice and action of the individual, and again there was widespread concern about the tragic toll of fatalities and serious injuries on which the combined medical opinion had such a strong influence; and support for the principle came from a wide range of safety and other organisations. So the issue has been settled and the task of your Lordships today is to consider the regulations presented to us so carefully and clearly by the noble Minister, to whom I think we are all very grateful.

I must emphasise again that the regulations were approved by the Commons only last Friday by the very large majority of 181 votes to 59. The regulations follow the pattern laid down in the 1981 Act, and the noble Lord has clearly explained to us all the exemptions under Regulation 5. The exemptions (a), (b), (c) and (d) are the main ones as laid down in the Act. Most of the other additional exemptions were either set out in the details published by the Secretary of State last December or arose from the consultations. I am grateful to learn that so many useful consultations were conducted as a result of the publication of the Secretary of State's proposals.

The one exception that I queried right at the outset was the inclusion of paragraph (h)(ii), dealing with private hire vehicles. As distinct from the position of taxis, hire cars do not pick up passengers en route and they carry out journeys from point to point, just like other motorists. But I note the arguments which have been put about possible attack, and I assume that this category is included based on information about such occurrences. In any event, I would not wish a minor point of that kind to hold up the passage of these regulations.

Paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) in the exemption list appear to me reasonable, but I trust that the police and fire authorities will give clear instructions as to when their personnel must wear seat belts. It is essential that those authorities should set an example to the rest of the motorists. I am pleased to hear from the Minister this morning his emphasis on the steps that will be taken to publicise both the regulations and the exemptions that are open to individuals.

My major concern is the fee of £19, which is proposed by the BMA in connection with exemptions on medical grounds. In the other place, the Under-Secretary of State, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, said on 22nd July at col. 646 of the Official Report, that she took a sympathetic attitude, and went on:

"Nobody was sadder than I when the British Medical Association said that it would suggest to its doctor members a fee of £19 for a medical examination. The doctors do not need to charge that fee. A doctor may waive the fee, charge a pound or two, or charge nothing."

That position was set out further by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in his opening speech this morning. I appreciate that this is not a matter which is covered by the regulations now before us; but I hope that the Secretary of State will not take the BMA's proposal as the last word. More may be said about this when we deal with matters related to the seat belt provisions in our further discussions on the Transport Bill which is before your Lordships.

I have studied very carefully what was said in the other place and here this morning, in amplification, by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and what has been set out in the 30th Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments concerning Regulation 3(2). I think that the Joint Committee was right to draw attention to the implication of the provision for possible future amendments of the Construction and Use Regulations. I clearly understand the point made in the Department of Transport's memo and I appreciate the further clarification given this morning by the noble Lord the Minister.

Before concluding, I should like to ask two questions, but I shall readily understand if the Minister feels that he is unable to answer them this morning. First, will the medical exemption certificate be valid for British motorists when travelling in other countries which have seat belt legislation, as many of them do? If they will be valid, will travellers require an appropriate translation of their medical exemption certificate? Secondly, what will be the position of overseas visitors to this country? Presumably, they will be covered by our legislation—at least, constables will think so. If they have a medical exemption certificate from their own doctor, will they be expected to carry a translation in those circumstances?

Except for those two questions, and the other points which I have made, I welcome the regulations. I look forward to what I hope will be the unanimous approval of this House, so that we can move as quickly as possible to the implementation of this important piece of legislation.

My Lords, I rise to support the regulations that are before us this morning and will be very brief, because this is not the time to rehearse the pros and cons as to whether seat belts ought to be introduced. That decision has been taken and all we are discussing this morning are the regulations. We have had this question before us eight times since 1973, and from 1975 to 1978 I heard the arguments rehearsed at least three times when I was sitting where the noble Lord the Minister is now, and I have been convinced throughout the whole of our discussions over the years that this is a proper course of action to take.

What I am concerned about, and have some slight reservations over, is the exemptions for people doing short deliveries, because the statistics have sometimes shown that you are more liable to an accident on a very short journey than you are on a long one, and I would be in favour of people being encouraged to wear their seat belts at all times.

I am also concerned, like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and, indeed, the Minister, at the fact that £19 has been recommended as a possible certification fee. It seems to me that, if people have a genuine hardship and a genuine handicap, their own general practitioner ought to be able to certify that, without it taking up very much of his time or very much effort. The fact that a fee of up to £19 is likely to be charged may be open to abuse, in that people may be encouraged to shop around and go not to their own general practitioner, but to one who, perhaps, is not in favour of these regulations.

There is another point about the medical certificate on which I should like to be assured. For how long is that certificate valid? I can think of some circumstances where you would not want a certificate for life but only for a few months, and will that be specified on the medical exemption certificate when people get it? With those two qualifications, I congratulate the noble Lord on being privileged to bring forward these regulations, and I wish them a speedy passage.

My Lords, I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Bellwin on his clear and lucid exposition of these regulations, and, indeed, on his moving of them at the end of this long saga to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, have referred. It is the final act of a piece of legislation which, I believe, will bring much benefit to life and limb, and I should like to thank all those who have supported me over this long period.

I would remind noble Lords that these regulations have a life of only three years, according to the 1981 Act, and that is a sensible provision. It should comfort those who are still opposing the idea of compulsory seat belts, because it will give us time to see whether the hopes and beliefs of supporters are realised; because most people will wear seat belts when it is the law; because those, who are in the majority today, who feel that it is a bit of a nuisance to wear them, will be persuaded to wear them when it is a legal requirement to do so, and will find that it is really not much trouble and it becomes a habit, so that you do not notice it one way or the other.

Among the large fan mail that I had during the passage of this legislation, I had a letter from a man who wrote to me complaining about the prospect. I wrote back and explained the justification, to which he replied:

"I am a law-abiding man so I shall keep to the law, but I still shall not wear a seat belt. I shall always drive my car backwards in future."

I replied to him that next time I was in Brighton, where he lives, I would look for any car travelling backwards, because I would know that he was in it.

But the fact is that most people are law-abiding, and when it is the law they will make the little effort required to start wearing seat belts and will find that it is no trouble. Then I hope that we shall find the benefits which we believe will come from this provision, and I trust that everyone will be contented with what I believe is a reasonable measure. But, in any event, we can review it in three years' time, and if any of the regulations are not right we shall have a chance to propose amendments to my noble friend or his successor, whoever that may be, and also to look at the whole principle of compulsory seat belts, if we still have doubts about it.

There is just one point which I have noticed in the regulations and which I ask my noble friend to look at for the future. I refer to the taxi drivers. I understand that taxi drivers were left out in Australia to start with, but subsequently they asked to be included, because they felt, on the whole, that it gave them protection. Quite a few taxi drivers do wear seat belts, and it is a very rare occasion when one gets out of his seat and does anything for a passenger. All the taxi drivers I have ever driven behind sit tight all the time. Perhaps my noble friend will look at this. I know that the rationale behind it is that he particularly needs to protect himself against possible assault late at night, but I am not sure that it is a very good case. In the differentation between driving examiners and driving instructors, I think that my noble friend has got it right. The driving instructor is, on the whole, going to be safer with a seat belt. I was delighted to learn that the BSM have always made this a rule with their instructors. But the examiner is in rather a different position and it is probably right to give him an exception.

With regard to the medical exemption, as my noble friend has said, these exemptions have been drawn very tightly. The consultative document which the Accident Commission has sent out gives very strong advice to medical practitioners to give exemptions very sparingly. I do not doubt we shall hear from noble Lords who are medically qualified—my noble friend Lord Porritt and the noble Lord, Lord Richardson—that the view of the profession is that the regulations will be justified. But the charging of a fee of £19 does seem a lot. I am hopeful that many doctors will not feel it to be necessary to charge that amount. However, as my noble friend has said, the escape route is that the Department of Health and Social Security can give a free examination to the disabled and to those on low incomes. So I hope that that very important aspect of these regulations may prove to be satisfactory.

I believe that these regulations will bring great benefit to our community as a whole, and again I thank all those who have given such splendid support, especially RoSPA, the BMA and the AA, who have helped me so much in this long and now, I hope, eventually successful campaign.

My Lords, only due to the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and to an error in the administration who collect the names of those noble Lords who wish to speak am I now intervening very briefly. These regulations are the consummation of a long, hard fought fight, whose history is quite interesting. In 1974, by a majority of seven, your Lordships threw out a proposal in the Transport Bill of the Government of that day, the amendment being that the compulsory use of seat belts was to be introduced. The second victory for those who opposed was Lord Avebury's Bill in 1977 which the House rejected by a majority of 55 to 53. The third victory was over Lord Wigg's Bill, rejected by 86 votes to 82. Then Lord Nugent came along, and since then we have suffered nothing but defeat. The principles of Lord Nugent's Bill were accepted and incorporated by Her Majesty's Government. These regulations implement a Government victory over the opponents, of whom I have been at all times a fairly leading member. I do not like any of these regulations because they still impose the basic principle of compulsion, to which I object. Nevertheless, I shall not argue against these regulations in any detail but will accept defeat on the principle behind them.

I have had now, I regret to say, something over 53 years in Parliament, in both Houses, and I have learned—sometimes the hard way, sometimes not—that the will of Parliament must be accepted in the long run. That is why I think it would be a mistake today to try to counter these regulations. But, while I concede defeat on the main principle, this does not mean that I like all the draft regulations, the weaknesses of which will no doubt be exposed by subsequent speakers.

I conclude my speech of defeat by saying that those of your Lordships in this House old enough to remember Noel Coward's "Bitter Sweet" will remember the lovely song by Peggy Wood, "I'll see you again". These regulations have but a limited life, thanks to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, which the Government accepted. Therefore I shall see them all again—or, if I do not, I hope other noble Lords will see them again. And then, maybe, we shall see whether they were right or whether they were wrong.

My Lords, first may I pick up one small point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. He claimed that Australian taxi drivers had asked to to be made to wear seat belts compulsorily because they felt safer. This does seem strange. Surely there is nothing whatsoever to prevent them from wearing seat belts on a voluntary basis. But I will let that pass.

When we debated seat belt compulsion on numerous occasions last summer we were repeatedly assured by the Government that very serious consideration would be given to the many anxious pleas and suggestions for widespread and generous exemptions. Ministers naturally gave no promises; they were in no position to do so. But, perhaps naïvely, although the maximum fine was particularly draconian by world standards—ten times higher than the new 20 Deutschmark fine introduced in West Germany—we believed that the regulations, in a spirit of traditional British compromise, would not be harsh, given the widespread opposition in the country and given that a large majority of Conservatives were, and are, opposed to compulsion. And we do have a Conservative Government. In the event, the regulations have turned out to be very nearly the strictest in the world, comparable with those in that indelibly socialist country, Sweden. This being so, many noble Lords who voted, perhaps rather hesitantly, last year for compulsion may well wish to change their minds today.

Let me examine some of the regulations. Contrary to expectations, neither pregnant women nor nursing mothers are automatically exempted. One can only imagine the distress this will cause pregnant women who will be worried that their unborn child may be injured when the car in which they are driving brakes sharply at a roundabout or at an intersection, and the worry about discomfort and possibly pain that may be caused to nursing mothers in similar circumstances. No automatic exemption is given to short people—those under 1·5 metres or 5 feet in height. This is all the more surprising in view of a letter from an eye surgeon in The Times a few months ago which described how one of his patients, shorter than the average individual, had been thrown up against his seat belt when the car braked sharply. The seat belt had pressed against an artery in his neck and he had partially lost the sight of one or both eyes.

The Government say that short people can spend money on adapting their seat belts but, as the RAC points out, it is contrary to all normal practice to force motorists to spend money upon altering their cars to conform with regulations which did not exist when they bought their cars. Nor is there any exemption for those whose size or shape makes seat belt wearing difficult or dangerous but whose condition is not strictly a medical one, although 14 out of the 21 European countries, the Australian States and the Canadian Provinces listed do grant such an exemption, including New Zealand, Switzerland, West Germany and Israel. The exemption for those on delivery journeys seems to me to be inadequate. What about newsagents, who have to stop their cars every few yards to deliver newspapers in the morning? Next, there seems to be no provision to counteract the in-explicable failure last year to bring Section 27 of the Transport Act into line with Section 28, as logically should have occurred, by inserting the words, "without reasonable excuse", into the section. This omission is unfair, illogical and anomalous. It is true that exemptions have been given when an inertia reel locks when a car is on a hill. But as many motorists will know, the inertia reel frequently locks when a car is standing on the level. Are those living in the Cambridgeshire fens not to have this defence open to them? And what about the many occasions when passengers and sometimes drivers travel by car following minor or semi-serious accidents, when there has been no time to obtain a medical certificate?

It is really not enough to suggest that in these circumstances a court would almost certainly acquit. The point is that the individual should not have to attend the court in the first place. As the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has pointed out, driving examiners are not exempt, although driving instructors are: I believe that many people consider this to be totally illogical. After all, the driving instructor is dealing with total novices and he may have to make a grab for the brake at any time. A driving examiner, by the nature of things, deals with people who have had a certain amount of experience.

There is then the question of older cars. The Government themselves admitted in their consultative document—in Annexe B, paragraph 3—that until 1973 many types of belts were difficult to fasten and release. Given that within a few years there will not be many pre-1973 cars available, it seems extraordinary that they have not been exempted from the regulations. In order to conform with the regulations and in order to protect themselves, in providing buckles which release properly, drivers of such vehicles will have to spend money. I suggest that this will penalise the poorer sections of the community.

The question of fees has also already been mentioned. The Minister, in charge at the time told the House of Commons on 19th February 1980 that he envisaged fees in the region of £1 or £2. As we know, the fees have been set at a possible £19. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, also mentioned that this affirmative instrument can be modified by a negative procedure under the Construction and Use Regulations at a later date. The noble Lord the Minister assured us that no Government would think of taking advantage of such a loophole but as he surely knows, no Government can bind their successor.

Last but by no means least, there is no exemption for those who are prepared to testify before a commissioner for oaths that wearing a seatbelt adversely affects their driving ability, as many of us urged. I must expand on this extremely important point. We are told that 2,000 drivers and front seat passengers are killed on the roads each year—about one-tenth of the proportionate number 45 years ago—and that some of these lives will be saved if this order is approved. Perhaps this is true, but let us put the matter in perspective. We are not told that there are 4,000 people killed on the roads every year who are not drivers or front seat passengers. Some of them are passengers in the rear seats, lorry drivers, bus drivers or bus passengers—but most are pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists. Many of these may be at risk if this order is implemented.

Incidentally, we are not told that several hundred thousand people who are drivers and front seat passengers die every year of causes totally unconnected with motoring; from smoking too much, drinking too much, over-eating, falling off step ladders, engaging in hazardous sports and from old age. I merely mention this to put the statistics into perspective. In comparison with the 2,000 drivers and front-seat passengers who are killed, we are not told that each year between 25 and 30 million drivers and front seat passengers do not die for any reason whatsoever.

What is the relevance of this? If this order is approved several million of these 25 to 30 million will suffer irritation and discomfort. If the Government had permitted lap straps belts as opposed to lap and diagonal belts, like the sensible and pragmatic Dutch Government do, this problem might have been avoided. But such a concession has not been granted. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, told us last year that he felt no discomfort when wearing a seat belt. All I can say is that not all of us are as tall, slim and elegant as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. It is a normal human reaction to try to minimise discomfort. For the front-seat passenger the solution is relatively simple. He can tilt and slide his seat back as far as it will go, so as to take the pressure off his chest—or her chest, because one must stress that it is women above all who are going to suffer the discomfort and possibly even the danger of pressure across the chest. The driver, on the other hand, will face a dilemma.

Either he leaves his seat in the optimum position for good driving or he slides it back. Human nature being what it is, I believe that he will, perhaps even without realising it, slide his seat back away from the wheel and become somewhat more of a risk to other road users as a consequence. Nor is this all. We have seen from the events at Buckingham Palace recently how a sense of complacency and over-confidence can lead to slackness and inattentiveness. This applies equally the question of seat belts. An over-complacent driver is far more likely to lack alertness and be involved in accidents.

Furthermore we read in the Daily Telegraph of 23rd July 1981 that an institution called the Applied Psychology Unit of Cranfield Institute of Technology's School of Automotive Studies in Bedfordshire discovered that 14 per cent. of drivers risk their lives when overtaking. If drivers gain further confidence as the result of a false sense of security given by a seat belt, is not that 14 per cent. likely to rise to more than 20 per cent.?

Also, there is no dispute that some will be killed because they were wearing seat belts: for example on 4th August 1981 a woman was strangled by her seat belt. To be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, he did concede this point last year. In other words, if this order is agreed to, what is gained on the swings will be to some extent at least lost on the roundabouts.

Less than three weeks before his untimely death in February of this year, the late Sir Ronald Bell wrote to the then Minister suggesting that the general tenor of the proposals,

"is unduly influenced by the à l'outrance approach of the most militant campaigners. As the comparative table in the consultative document shows, the proposals are the strictest and most vehement of all the regulations in the world. When you are dealing with the British people, I cannot think that that is right".

I believe in traditional British moderation and compromise. We have not had this British moderation and compromise. The proponents of compulsion seem unwilling to see other points of view and have been totally inflexible. Traditionally, we have always had a free vote on this issue and I hope that those of your Lordships who agree with me will cast your votes accordingly.

My Lords—

My Lords, I believe it is the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, who is next to speak.

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, is right, as he is in so many things, when he says that the medical profession will apply medical exemptions very carefully and conscientiously, and will try to minimise their number because there is so little justification for them to do otherwise. I am equally sure that they will wish to follow the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that temporary exemption should be used, and that exemptions should be reviewed from time to time. I think that this means that doctors who will be concerned with giving exemption will be determined to do so scrupulously, and I hope that the fee that has been discussed between the Minister of Transport and the BMA will be seen as reflecting the possibility of a great deal of careful work having to go into the signing of, and estimating the justification for, the certificate.

I feel that in quite a number of instances the candidates for exemption would be well advised to discuss the matter with such consultants as orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists, perhaps obstetricians; but I will point out, I hope for the comfort of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that a series of 23 pregnant women who were wearing their seat belts when involved in accidents was followed up from the time of their accidents, accidents involving collisions from five miles up to over 70 miles an hour, and all those 23 were delivered normally at the normal time without any damage from the seat belts to themselves or to the foetus, to the baby.

I feel that considerable difficulty may arise with those who are severely disabled, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, will doubtless mention this. Proper adjustment of the car and of the seat belts, careful experimentation in design and modification will be part of the information which your Lordships will require when this matter comes up for review. I feel that this element of finding out what really is helpful, what can be done for the cars and for the fitting of the belts to people of various shapes, however eccentric, is a most important part of the programme of review, and I hope that it will take place with the greatest possible care.

I must confess to an interest in Motability, the organisation that helps people to make the best use of their mobility allowance. They are able to modify cars really rather simply; it is surprising how much can be done by simple measures. This, I hope, may enable most people to wear their seat belts; and I am sure that all doctors, when they are considering exemption or not, will consider whether the failure to wear a seat belt is more serious than any discomfort or potential disadvantage that might follow from wearing one.

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the very careful explanation of these regulations, to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention very shortly. I quite accept that Regulation 3, which relates to the Construction and Use Regulations, is desirable, because I would look forward within a very short time to those Construction and Use Regulations being very severely amended. It is of some great disappointment to me that since Parliament decided on the principle of compulsion the seat belt manufacturers have progressed so little in a uniformity of locking mechanism and a simplification of locking. So I would hope that they would be able to move a little more rapidly in the next few months without us having to come back to Parliament.

I turn to Regulation 5. That deals with the exemptions. I have to say that I am very disappointed with regard to the British Medical Association's attitude concerning fees. I am equally disappointed that Her Majesty's Government have not utilised the powers in the Bill to prescribe fees. It is my experience with most professional people that where their professional body suggests or recommends a fee, that is the fee that is paid. So much so that the then Under-Secretary at the Department, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, spoke at the Standing Committee's investigation into this matter of "a pound or two"; that has been quoted, and it is on the record. This matter is reinforced by the current Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mrs. Chalker—this has all already been quoted this morning—who said that she was sad that the BMA were going to suggest this £19 fee. She went on to say in the same paragraph (22nd July, col. 646):

"That is why we seek to ensure that people on low incomes and the disabled are covered by the DHSS Medical Service."

I understand there are some 7 million of those people. It could be that the DHSS is going to be faced with some fairly colossal cost if a large proportion of people decide to apply for exemption. I know we are going to return to this; I can promise your Lordships that we are going to return to this matter when we deal with the further parts of the current Transport Bill on Report stage in October. I would say this now. I think the Government should make further and more determined efforts to secure a fee that is going to be more acceptable. I would say this to the BMA, that they should examine whether they are really performing some part of their social duty in fixing this fee.

I turn to Regulation 5 (k). This is the one which exempts motor mechanics in the course of their job from wearing seat belts if they are operating under trade licence plate. I think I can understand the reason for putting in the trade licence plate, as amateur mechanics are thereby disbarred. There are, however, a great number of quite reputable little garages who do not operate on trade licences. The trade licence is normally only used where the vehicle itself does not have a current vehicle excise duty, the road fund licence. So I can see that some difficulties might arise. In a very large organisation, where there are perhaps eight or ten testers, there are unlikely to be sufficient trade plates to go round, because they may be used for the collection of unlicensed vehicles somewhere else. So I can see that the industry might be faced with some little difficulty here.

Regulation 7(a)(ii) refers to Construction and Use Regulations. I should like to see here a positive move by Government to encourage belt manufacturers to improve their belts. I do not think that we should wait for three years, as has been suggested. I should like to hear from my noble friend the Minister that there is continuing research, particularly at the TRRL, into seat belts. There is an exemption in the regulations with regard to an inertia reel belt that becomes jammed on an incline. That is not the only usual cause of failure. The usual cause of failure in inertia reel belts is the locking mechanism. It is of some concern to me that I was asked by one of your Lordships if I could obtain a new part for him. I was able to buy the part on the Continent for him. It was not available in this country from the seat belt manufacturer and nor, indeed, from any shop. They would only sell a set of seat belts—there were four pieces and we only wanted one. That seems to me to be rather a stupid arrangement. As regards the seat belt manufacturers, let me say that they also have a social responsibility.

The final point that I should like to make relates to the report that is going to be put before Parliament in three years' time, and that is provided for in the Act. I would like within the next few months—perhaps my noble friend could write to me—to be told exactly how the monitoring will be undertaken, and the base from which we are going to start. I do not accept some of the claims that have been made with regard to the saving of many lives. It may be argued that if only one life is saved then this Bill is a good thing. I have never felt this. I have never felt that compulsion should be applied to so many people for so very few people who, in the main, have made an individual choice. So I should like to see the base from which we will start the monitoring, and the figures. Otherwise I really feel that Parliament has expressed its will—quite contrary to my own, let me remind your Lordships—and compulsion is here. These are the regulations and I believe your Lordships should approve them.

My Lords, I think that we must all be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for giving us the original direction and stopping us discussing the original Act and sticking to the business of this morning; namely, the regulations concerned with that Act, which is of course, an enabling Act. I still have a vague feeling of Nero fiddling while Rome is burning. I say that because it is more than a year since the seat belt Bill was passed in this House. There were a number of discussions prior to that, as your Lordships know well. It will be at least another six months before the regulations can possibly come into force. I cannot help thinking that in the interval since the seat belt Act was passed, there have probably been something up to 750 deaths and thousands of serious injuries giving great human suffering and economic loss—both unnecessarily. I bow to my most courteous of opponents, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who does not believe these figures. I am not a great believer in figures either, but they have been checked in various parts of the world over and over again and whether the details are correct I do not know, but the general tendency is certainly to show that a lot of unnecessary lives are lost and a lot of unnecessary injuries take place.

I speak this morning purely medically as president—and incidentally some 20 years ago as founder—of the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention, which was the body which has been responsible for producing the guidelines for the Minister on which he has dealt with the question of medical exemptions in these regulations. They have shown in a very simple and straightforward document that the conditions which make it inadvisable for a driver of a car or his front seat passenger to wear restrictive belts are remarkably few. I am quite sure that the Government and the Minister have been grateful to them for the fact that they have simplified what might or might not have been a maze of contradictions and possible exemptions. In other words, I think that the giving of a permanent certificate on medical grounds will be quite rare. But there will be the necessity for temporary exemptions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, mentioned earlier on, after some more recent illness or traumatic incident or, for that matter, while the seat belts or the seats themselves in the car are being adjusted to the individual's needs.

As regards the disabled, I can only reiterate the words that we have heard so often from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, that the disabled need the protection of seat belts much more than the average person. In fact it has been shown that the disabled are almost habitual wearers of seat belts without any regulations or restrictions at all. The more they are disabled, the more they tend to wear seat belts. In passing, I should like to underline one point that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, made in our debate on 15th July. She said that for paraplegics it was very essential that, apart from their seat belts, which were also essential—they should also have headrests, because with their lack of control, "whiplash" is very likely.

On the question of medical exemptions, I think that it is a pretty good rule to say that anybody who is fit to drive a car is fit to wear a seat belt. It makes it fairly simple—perhaps too simple, as these things often are. But equally well I should like to say that all the owners of orange badges should certainly not claim automatic exemption.

Perhaps I may deal very briefly, as did the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention, with some of the conditions which have become "front runners" in the "exemption stakes", if I may put it that way. These have been quoted in the document produced by the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention. They deal with stiff necks and stiff shoulders. Your Lordships will remember that the procedures of "reversing" are already exempt. So that, to a large extent, copes with the trouble in that region. However, these conditions can very often be compensated by movements of the trunk or by the proper use and adjustment of either side or rear mirrors.

Chest scars are a common cause of trouble and argument. They can be avoided by properly adjusted belts to prevent friction and by varying the height of the seat or the point of fixation of the belt. The same applies to abdominal scars. The moot question of ileostomies and colostomies where the bowel opens on the abdominal wall are slightly more difficult, but I can only say as a very ex-surgeon, that the openings of colostomies and ileostomies should be out of the target area of a belt, if they have been properly made.

I hardly dare mention the word "pregnancy", because the last time I did so I was told in no uncertain terms by a number of noble Baronesses in this House that as I had had no personal experience of the condition my remarks were those of a male chauvinist pig. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will probably agree with those remarks. When the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, spoke about "short delivery" I wondered whether we were getting into more difficult problems on the pregnancy side, but apparently she was not talking about that at all. Because of the barrage that I got on the last occasion, I have gone to some trouble to try to find out all there is to be found out about the question of pregnancy and seat belts in other countries, some of which have been enforcing the wearing of seat belts for a considerable number of years and some for not so long.

The noble Lord, Lord Richardson, has already told us more or less the result of those inquiries; namely, that none of the countries using seat belts has found any sound grounds for automatic exemption. That applies to any stage in pregnancy. Here again, very often one finds that the pregnant woman tends to be a habitual seat-belt wearer, for the simple reason that common sense tells her that she is not only saving herself but her unborn baby. As the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, has already said, there has been no report anywhere of an unborn baby being killed by a seat belt.

When we come to the question of obesity, stature, size and shape, I think that any fair person would agree that this is a much more difficult problem. But when—as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggests—we have more useful seat belts, I believe that these problems will be coped with as from individual to individual.

Claustrophobia is another popular reason for exemption and it is not easy to summarise. The claustrophobic can, in general, be persuaded that it is foolish to be frightened of a seat belt, particularly if he or she is not frightened of getting into a car, which after all is a little contained box in itself. If he can get into that, then to wear a seat belt is simply an extension of the claustrophobia which the car may or may not produce.

There is one other small point concerning pacemakers worn by people with heart conditions. I looked into this, because one might think that the pacemaker was in a pretty dangerous position qua seat belts. Nowhere has there been any report of damage to a pacemaker, although I gather that patients have been advised to have their pacemaker looked at after some incident in which the contact of the belt with the pacemaker might have been closer than comfortable. So it would seem that obvious medical conditions calling for exemption are really very few indeed.

If I must say something about the fee charged for examination—and I do not do so very happily—I should like to say how sad it is if the motivation of the general practitioner is in any way impugned by this fee, which was agreed between the Government and the BMA. I wonder how many of us here are really qualified to adjudicate on its correctness or not. What is the fee for in the first place? When we think of the number of people who will apply for this—and in view of these regulations they will not be very many—and when we think that, quite rightly, a large number of those who are poor or disabled will be paid for, I cannot envisage any doctor making a large fortune out of examinations for exemption fees. If a full examination is necessary—and it may come down to that—they would be so few that they would be rather special cases and would want investigation; so it may be that the fee will not be quite so gross as it seems to many people.

In conclusion, let us remember once again the number of eminent bodies which have hacked the wearing of seat belts to the hilt and which are equally well backing these regulations. Personally, I fervently hope that we have reached the stage where niggling, carping criticism can stop and that we shall be prepared to try to work this really great and major experiment in life-saving.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he kindly clear up one point which puzzles me? He mentions that he is President of the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention. Does he not agree that the wearing of seat belts will not and cannot prevent one single accident?

No, my Lords, I certainly cannot agree because I believe that they will prevent a lot.

My Lords, I and many thousands of people in this country had hoped that this day would never come, for over the years we have been told ad nauseam that this measure will save lives—so it may. But we all know of cases, and many Members of your Lordships' House have told us over the years of cases, where the wearing of a seat belt has trapped the wearer and has led to death. That is a well known fact which has never been statistically acknowledged by the Road Traffic Laboratory or by any Transport Ministries. Indeed, I have sometimes wondered whether people there ever read the newspapers in which the accidents are reported.

However, as we have been so ably told by the Minister, this morning we are not discussing the actual principle of this Act because the elected Chamber in the other part of the Palace of Westminster has voted for the compulsory wearing of seat belts. So it has been decided that this is to come into force.

Therefore, we are discussing the regulations and I want briefly to comment on some of them. First, I should like to comment on No. 5—which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman—as to what makes a "local" round of deliveries. As the noble Baroness said, I think it is well known that a large number of accidents happen locally when perhaps one's defences are down and one is not particularly thinking of what one is doing.

Regulation 5(b) is:

"driving the vehicle whilst performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing".

What is a manoeuvre? I would have substituted "driving in reverse gear".

Regulation 5(g) says:

"in the service of a fire brigade and is donning operational clothing or equipment".

Such a person need not be wearing a seat belt then; of course, it would be utterly impossible. However, I should like to take this a little further, because I hold the view very strongly that to wear a seat belt impedes one getting out of a vehicle speedily. As I said one year, although I have forgotten which year, I should like the police, when going to the scene of an accident or to investigate a burglary, ambulance crews and fire brigades to be exempt when on operational duties.

One then comes to Regulation 7 concerning the descriptions of seat belts. I should never be happy unless seat belts were able to be unhooked at the doorpost of a car. So far no one seems to have suggested that they should be. Otherwise a driver can be locked in and, without lifting gear, it would be quite impossible to get the door open. I do not know how many noble Lords present today saw in today's Daily Telegraph a report of an inquest on a man who died as a result of wearing a seat belt because his seat belt was improperly fastened and improperly adjusted. His intestines were made gangrenous by the pressure of the buckle, and he died. Until seat belts are compulsorily of a uniform design so that everybody knows where the buckles are, and how to unfasten them from the door posts, it is highly dangerous that they should be made compulsory.

The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, drew our attention—and so did the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—to the fact that these regulations will be in force for three years. I should like to know, as would my noble friend Lord Lucas, how we are going to get any statistics about what has happened as a result of accidents and as a result of either wearing a seat belt or not wearing a seat belt during those three years. I have asked many people who have been in accident wards in hospitals, and they never find out. Those that I have asked have never even asked whether the injured person was wearing a seat belt or not. I suggest that perhaps we should ask the police to keep statistics, because without them I do not think that in three years' time we shall be any further forward than we are now.

As a disabled person I am speaking personally. I have a great fear of being trapped in an accident, in water, or in a fire. However, I am pleased to hear my noble friend the Minister say that this issue is of a sensitive nature and that it is a difficult subject. If the Minister approaches it in that light then I hope that the end product will not be as bad as I fear.

My Lords, like a number of noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I am an honorary vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I am also a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which gave considerable thought to these regulations. Of course it must be accepted that seat belts will no more prevent every accident occurring than giving a child a shotgun and saying, "Well, you will have one cartridge instead of two". There are always going to be loopholes.

There is a strong case—there has been for a long time—for the standardisation of seat belts. I wonder whether the Government have really looked into this as carefully as they might in co-operation with the BSI. This is germane to the regulations we are discussing. If those who own old cars with seat belts fitted to cars with a B or a C registration—seat belts which could well be lethal—have to change those seat belts into modern-type seat belts to conform with the regulations, are they going to receive any kind of grant either off their road fund licence or elsewhere in order to do this? It is not always the case that drivers are wealthy people. Some need their cars, albeit old cars, for essential purposes and, while I believe in the main that these regulations are entirely desirable, some assistance should be given here.

We have heard the story of the liberty of the individual. I would make the point, even though it perhaps goes back to the legislation which will make these belts compulsory from January next year, that those who have relatives in the nursing or medical professions and who have seen and dealt with these accidents almost invariably say that if a seat belt had been worn, the injury would have been avoided.

Looking at the compulsory seat-belt wearing for adults and children in cars and the evidence about exemption submittted on 8th December 1981, one sees some rather strange anomalies. For example, in New Zealand it was said that drivers who were belted could not operate the brakes, dip switch, indicator, horn, wipers, choke, or sun visor. I do not believe this to be an adequate exemption at all. This must be the fault of the design of the car. Every driver, particularly in an emergency, has to use both the brake and the horn. If one has a blinding torrent of rain, as one could have in New Zealand as well as anywhere else, the same is true of the windscreen wipers. Also, in Norway we have low speed journeys involving frequent stops. We know that this presumably refers to newspaper vans and milk floats. Nevertheless, these are stretching the regulations rather far.

I believe that these regulations are desirable. There are snags in them. There are problems in every kind of legislation of this kind, but they are coming in for a trial period. Your Lordships will all hope that Her Majesty's Government will make a careful study in conjunction with ROSPA and the Road Research Unit and other bodies to see how this legislation works. We all want to see fewer and fewer accidents on the roads, particularly to children and elderly people, and notwithstanding any objection there may be, and any problems which undoubtedly exist, the wearing of seat belts will contribute substantially towards this end.

My Lords, I should like to support these regulations, although I admit to having had in the past some rather mixed feelings about them. However, I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, can give me some assurance on the main point that I am going to raise those feelings will disappear. The noble Lord said during his very able exposition of these regulations that one did not want to have too many exemptions. I entirely agree. One can have so many exemptions that one begins to wonder to whom the regulations apply. However, there are two slight exemptions that might be good. They may be there already, in which case I apologise. I am afraid I have not read the regulations as carefully as I should have done.

One is for those who are doing door to door deliveries—and here I use the word "deliveries" in the same sense as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and not that of my noble friend behind me—such as milk vans, for instance. If you are constantly getting in and out of your vehicle, the wearing of a seat belt is possibly rather an extra nuisance. The other is when you are manoeuvring a car in a car park. The trouble is that a seat belt often prevents you turning around while you are in the seat and seeing exactly where you are moving your car to. As you are not likely to have a head-on crash while manoeuvring the car in that situation, it might be a possible exemption.

The main point I wish to raise is that if we have these regulations it is absolutely essential that there should be some standardisation of belt, a point to which reference has already been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, and the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Auckland; and Lord Auckland raised the interesting point: if we have standardisation, how long will the car-owner be given before being compelled to have the standard type fitting?

I feel standardisation is essential because it is vital to have a quick release mechanism, since it is not unknown, for instance, for a car to catch fire, and if you cannot release your belt quickly, you may well become a victim. Time and again I have got into other people's cars and fiddled for five minutes or more before finding out exactly how the belt was fixed, or, worse still, how it was unfixed. The release mechanism should be instantaneous, and I suggest that something like a push button release would be ideal, and that should be easy to arrange. In any event, the important point is that the belts should be absolutely standardised. Before the debate, a noble Lord, in talking to me, suggested international standardisation, and that should be our aim; but before that can be achieved it is essential to have our own standardisation. To make that point was the main reason why I put my name down to speak, and I hope the Government will seriously consider it.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, said anyone fit to drive was fit to wear a seat belt. I hope I have not misquoted him. I would tend to agree with him if I were happier about the design of seat belts, but I am not happy about their design so as to be comfortable for all shapes and sizes of wearer, and I repeat that I rate comfort for the driver of a car very high indeed. An uncomfortable driver is an inattentive and even bad-tempered one, and that is very dangerous.

In view of the fact that the order has been pending for a year, I am amazed at how few cars have a variety of fixing points for seat belts, for this is a matter which needs urgent attention. A simple device to stop an inertia reel belt tightening itself beyond a point would overcome many problems, medical and other. Even more so would less fierce inertia reels. The difference between aircraft seat belts, which most people find acceptable, and car seat belts, which many people do not, is that aircraft belts, besides being lap belts only, have no inertia reel so that once adjusted so as to be comfortable, they remain comfortable. It is the too fierce—it may sound like the reaction of a wild animal, but I mean the too strongly sprung mechanism—inertia reel which is the culprit. It is not, as the Department of Transport and their advisers seem to think, the old-fashioned belt, which can be very comfortable indeed but is inconvenient in other ways.

Have the Government put any pressure on manufacturers to remedy these defects? Could it not be done by altering the Construction and Use Regulations? I am sorry that something has not been done already, long ago, to put pressure on manufacturers, because it is rather late now and one would like to see the results coming through before these regulations come into force.

As for the exemptions, I wish to consider first those on medical grounds, and I should like to know the composition of the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention. Does it include obstetricians, psychiatrists and specialists in other branches of medicine? If not, have such specialists been consulted? Particularly, have obstetricians been consulted about pregnant women and nursing mothers? If so, what was their advice? My experience of experts is that most of them are expert only in their own field and know nothing whatever about anything else, let alone everyday life. Their advice should be listened to but it should never be taken as gospel.

Some of the opinions expressed in the Guidelines for Practitioners by the Medical Commission for Accident Prevention suggest to me—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, as chairman, will forgive me for saying this—that the members go about in chauffeur driven cars, taxis or public conveyances and never drive themselves or, if they do, do not wear their seat belts. On page 2 they indicate that discomfort to the chest from seat belts occurs only when friction is caused by the seat belt being too loose. When I read that I went straight out and drove eight miles with my very tight-fitting inertia reel belt fastened. The movements necessary to drive the car caused continual friction. Had the belt been looser, the friction would have been much less, and had I been a passenger, I should not have needed to make the movements which caused the friction.

On page 4 they pooh-pooh the idea that very fat people might have a case for exemption on the grounds that the belt is not long enough. The fat man will obviously try to get a longer belt fitted in his own car, but what happens when he is a passenger in somebody else's car? I hope he will not be told to squeeze into the back seat of a Mini! What happens when he is a passenger in a sports car, or hires a self-drive car and the belt will not go round him? They go on to say that if his girth makes the belt uncomfortable, he can improve matters by,

"moving the seat and adjusting the belt".

All of those who drive cars know perfectly well that the vital thing for a driver is to position the seat so as to have maximum possible control over the car. Other considerations are neither here nor there. You cannot move the seat back so that your feet barely touch the pedals in order to make the belt comfortable.

On page 6 they say:

"Inertia reel seat belts do not restrict movement".

That is quite untrue. If they did not, there would be no point in having them. That is what they are for. They go on to say that shortness of stature is no obstacle to wearing a belt. There was a letter in Wednesday's Daily Express from a 5ft tall woman who said that seat belts cut her across the neck. No fixing point I have so far seen will prevent that. The Secretary of State's explanatory paper of last September said on page 9:

"Any driver who has difficulty, belt or no belt, in reaching the controls, should not be driving in such circumstances".

Unless I am very much mistaken, the 5ft tall woman—who can reach the controls perfectly well with the seat right forward, but then cannot wear her belt—should not be driving. That is nice! Her living even may depend on her being able to drive. But that does not matter; by not having grown tall enough to wear one of the types of belt at present available, she is to become a second-class citizen of a country in which Mr. Average Man is going to make sure that he is all right, but never mind anybody else. If she has a sensible, kindly doctor, he may take the risk of giving her an exemption certificate, though I do not quite know on what grounds he would do so. On the other hand, he may not.

Later in the Secretary of State's document we have Annex E which gives the exemptions in other countries. If I am right in my interpretation of the various phrases used, only three other countries do not have exemption for people who are unable to wear belts due to their size or shape. I regret that we are to be less civilised in this matter than our EEC partners and those other countries. Some countries also exempt passengers over 69 or 70—I think that that would be a good thing—and some exempt foreigners who are exempt in their own country. So what about our precious tourists?—both those exempt in their own countries, and those who are not compelled to wear seat belts at home.

Finally, can the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, assure the House that the £19 fee is the absolute maximum where detailed examination by a specialist is required?—otherwise it seems excessive. In any case, I query the justice of anyone being made to pay for a certificate which has become necessary only through a combination of misfortune and Government interference. Besides, the noble Lord indicated to us at the Report stage of the Transport Bill last year that the probable fee where examination was not required would be under £2.

My Lords, first, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Bellwin, and indeed my honourable friend the Minister in another place, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, for correspondence over the year in relation to the last Transport Bill, and in particular in relation to this subject. I followed the point made by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that we are not here to debate the principle of the matter, since, sadly, we agreed to that some time ago, and we are concerned mainly with the regulations that are before us. But there is one point that I should like to make, arising from words which were uttered probably without really thinking them out by both the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, and my noble friend Lord Auckland, to the effect that the introduction of compulsory wearing of seat belts will mean fewer accidents. It surely cannot result in that. Indeed, if the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is to be believed, it might cause even a few more accidents. What compulsory wearing might do, and what I am sure the doctors think it will do, is to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries arising from accidents; and that is a more accurate way of putting it. Those of us who are altogether against the legislation would argue that that is not likely to be the case; there is not sufficient evidence to show for it.

Like my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve, I believe that we must have good statistics, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Bellwin will take note of her suggestion that the police should be asked to provide the statistics. That would be very useful, so that in about 18 months' time, when we are beginning to consider the continuation of these rather unfortunate regulations, we shall have some sound statistics to go on in order to argue the point. I think that there is a great difference of opinion among many of us in this House and in another place.

I turn now to points in relation to the regulations themselves. I have given to my noble friend notice of the first two points that I want to make. The third point I shall spring as a surprise—but not a nasty one. First, when we earlier debated the general principle I asked the Government, in at least one amendment at what should have been the Committee stage, but which was in fact Report stage, to reassure themselves that there was a sufficient range of BSI-approved seat belt designs to meet the needs of users of all shapes, sizes and ages. Other noble Lords have made that point in other ways, but the key consideraton is that I asked the Government to reassure themselves on it before they brought the regulations into force, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me that reassurance.

In giving him notice I said that I would not be satisfied by a reference to the extremely detailed provisions in Regulation 17 of the Construction and Use Regulations, because they were introduced in 1979, and there is considerable evidence to show that the seat belts at present in use do not satisfy all shapes and sizes of people in the way on which I asked the Government to reassure themselves. Many people, including the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, have made it quite clear how important it is that the seat belt fits the person; otherwise wearing it can be more dangerous, rather than safer.

The next point on which I advised my noble friend relates to Regulation 5(a), in regard to which he gave as examples Post Office and laundry rounds. I should like him to tell me specifically whether that regulation applies also to deliveries of foodstuffs to shops in towns.

Now I come to the unexpected question, but it is relevant to what I was saying regarding my first point. The RAC sent me an interesting piece of paper which stated, among other things, that most other countries—I presume the RAC means other countries which have legislation on compulsory wearing—exempt short people from the obligation to wear a seat belt. This applies in, for example, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and West Germany, to people under 150 centimetres in height, which I am told is approximately 5 feet tall. The Australian states have exemption where a physical condition—which also covers large people—justifies the issue of a certificate.

I should like to ask my noble friend whether it is the case that under Regulation 5(d) short people will be issued with exemption certificates, as in all the other countries that I have mentioned. I think that what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said in this regard was very relevant, and I shall not repeat it, but perhaps in considering my request my noble friend will remind himself of the fact that short people who have seat belts that are not long enough either will not be able to drive at all, or will be under permanent strain and will not drive properly. I should be very grateful if I could have the answers to those points. In the meantime, I hope that we do not have to put up with the regulations for a moment longer than is necessary.

My Lords, my first aim today is to convey to your Lordships the views of the Royal Association of Disability and Rehabilitation, on which I serve as a vice-president. The association firmly considers that whenever it is at all possible disabled people should wear seat belts. Indeed, through figures provided by the BMA, it would appear that a higher proportion of disabled drivers already wear seat belts than is the case with the able-bodied. However, there are cases where the use of a seat belt causes unnecessary pain, or creates such other difficulties that the requirement to wear one prevents a disabled motorist from using a car. That indeed may cover one of the points mentioned today by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, in regard to the problem of the short person. The extra difficulties include those that are experienced by some trike drivers. RADAR believes that these cases, small in number as they are, should be given a certificate exempting them from wearing a seat belt.

RADAR claims that many disabled organisations are worried about the cost of the medical examination required—we have heard the cost mentioned today—before such a certificate may be issued. Although I understand that there is to be exemption of the charge in cases where a mobility allowance is payable, nevertheless there are some disabled people who do not fall within that category. For instance, there are disabled motorists whose age precludes them from receiving the mobility allowance.

In order that such occasional cases shall be accommodated, RADAR asks that medical examination, for the purpose of obtaining a certificate of exemption, should be free for any appropriate case that is already registered as disabled with the local authority. Where cases eligible for the exemption are not registered with the local authority, possession of an orange badge should be accepted as proof of registration. If an orange badge is not possessed, a letter from a social worker confirming registration would need to be obtained. These are RADAR's suggestions. RADAR stress that their wish is not to seek for orange badge holders or others registered with local authorities exemption for all from the seat belt regulations, but merely to absolve the very small number who may prove eligible for exemption from paying the £19 fee for the medical examination.

My Lords, I make one last plea on the much-discussed subject of seat belts themselves. It really is necessary that belts be made with quick and easy release, and of standard design, please. Easy release matters so much for people who have ungainly and awkward hands and arms and who have to use a car for travel to work and for other, extra special purposes. I am a little mystified that there is still this puzzlement about the type of seat belt. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will tell us why it is that we cannot use the best that is in use overseas. I am sure there is some very good reason for that.

I began by saying that it was RADAR's view that wherever it is at all possible disabled people should wear seat belts in the interests of their own safety. Certainly I happen to be one who always wears mine. Anyone who works with disabled people will feel as keenly as I do that people who are able-bodied should be required to "belt up" now, not only in their own interests of safety but also in the interests of relieving over-used hospital beds.

My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name down on the list of speakers, but I was not sure that I could be present. I want to make only one very small point. There will inevitably be people who will have been trapped in their crashed cars by not being able to release themselves from their seat belts, and some of these people may be haunted by the most terrible fear of this experience happening to them again. If they go to their doctor and he is satisfied that this experience really happened to them, and if he is satisfied with the advice of a psychiatrist if he thinks it is necessary, then I hope that on medical grounds these people will be exempt, and will not have to go on fastening themselves into cars after having had this terrible experience in the past.

My Lords, I must also apologise for not having put my name down on the list of speakers, but, with the leave of the House, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. Like my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I am also in favour of just one further exemption, and that is for people who are less than five feet tall. Of course, the danger with people who are less than five feet tall is that the belt comes across their neck and across their windpipe, and that is a very dangerous thing to happen. The Government may say that you can raise the seat, you can sit on a cushion or you can lower the anchorage point, but I do not think that in practice any of those things is likely to happen.

In this document, with which I know your Lordships will be familiar, Compulsory Seat-Belt Wearing for Adults and Children in Cars—Proposals by the Secretary of State for Transport, dated 8th December 1981, Annex E lists the exemptions. The countries in which, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone has said, there is exemption for people under five feet tall are no less than nine in number: Denmark, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, West Germany and Israel. There are a further three in which there is incapacity by reason of size by certificate. Those three are all the Australian States—and there are six of those—Tasmania and Canada. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister what is the reason why all those countries, all twelve of them, have thought fit to give small people an automatic exemption. I think there must be a good reason for that.

I can think of cases in this country of people living alone in the country who might take their cars when they go to the shops, say, once a week. Those people might be prevented from driving altogether, and in those circumstances, because they could not drive, might have literally to move house to somewhere else rather near the shops. I do not think the Government would want such an upheaval in quite a lot of cases. For those reasons, I ask the Government to make an exemption and to place the exemption I have suggested in these regulations. In concluding, may I ask the Minister one question? Do newspapers come within the category of goods? Would someone delivering newspapers be exempt from these regulations?

My Lords, I, too, should like to apologise for not putting my name down on the list of speakers, but I was sure that the two points I wanted to make would be made by other speakers. However, they have not been, so if your Lordships would bear with me I should like to make them. First and foremost, I should like to agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, about taxi drivers. When one thinks of the number of taxi drivers who drive out to London Airport, more than half the distance on a motorway, at very fast speeds, the fact that they are exempt from wearing seat belts is in my opinion quite ridiculous. What is more, as the noble Lord said, very few of them leave their seats anyway when carrying passengers in town. I think the question of taxi drivers is something which will need to be looked at.

The other point I want to make is this. I drive two cars and one has a very clear red light which flashes if I have not got my seat belt on and also makes quite a loud noise. When I drive that car, I very soon put on my seat belt if I have forgotten. In the other car there is simply a small red light which is out of my vision because I have to sit rather far back, and I very seldom have a seat belt on in that car. I think manufacturers should be encouraged to put such a warning light, together with the noise, in cars, to remind people that they have not got their seat belts on. I think it is a very necessary thing indeed. I think Stirling Moss had a seat belt the operation of which connected with the switch, and you could not start the car without putting on the seat belt. I would not go to that length, but I certainly think that a warning light and a noise is very necessary.

The question I should like to ask the Minister is this. Today, very few cars are made with bench seats in the front, but that does not preclude drivers from carrying two people on the passenger side if they have a large family, as I have. I have in fact done this many times. Since the advent of seat belts I have found that, if the passengers are not too big, you can get the seat belt around two persons. Will that be legal? It is not illegal to put two people in the front, but will it be legal to put one seat belt round two people to get over the difficulty?

My Lords, as I expected, we have had a very lively and interesting debate. Although I shall try to respond to most of the points which have been made, I am sure that your Lordships will perhaps excuse me if I do not cover each and every single one. However, I assure your Lordships that I shall carefully read Hansard, and if there are some points which clearly concern some of your Lordships but which I have not covered, though I ought to have done so, then I shall certainly write to the noble Lord concerned.

As I said at the start of the debate, it is important to remember that we are discussing the implementation of the principle of compulsory seat-belt wearing, not the principle itself. From the variety of points which have been raised, I am sure your Lordships appreciate even more clearly than may have been the case before that our task in drawing up the regulations has not been an easy one. If we had accepted all the cases made to us for exemption, there would be few motorists to whom compulsion would apply, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Somers, himself mentioned. The task of the police in enforcing the law would also have been an impossible one; and to have granted exemptions widely would also have given rise to a sense of unfairness among those who were not so exempt. It would have reduced the potential for saving casualties, which, after all, is the sole justification for compulsion.

If I can try to pick up some of the points that were made, the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Mottistone, and others too have been concerned about short people and how this covers them. Surely, there is no safety reason for them not to wear seat belts. Section 33(b) of the Transport Act 1982 will require children under 14 to wear seat belts when riding in the front of vehicles. There can be no logical reason to exempt short adults. Short drivers may have to move the seat and the upper anchorage point which may be too high in relation to their height so that the belt might rub against the neck. I must stress that this is not dangerous—uncomfortable, Yes—but in the event of an accident a short person not wearing a seat belt (this is the point) risks far greater injury than those which may occur if a seat belt does not lie comfortably over the shoulder and across the chest. This is true of other people, again coming to Lord Monson's point, whose size and shape make seat belt wearing uncomfortable. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, was also concerned about this.

It does not mean that nothing can be done to alleviate their problems. We have been in discussion with car and seat belt manufacturers to ensure that advice on the variety of ways in which seat belts can be made more comfortable is widely available to the public through the trade. One firm of seat belt manufacturers have set up a number of specialised seat-belt fitting centres throughout the country and I would urge anyone experiencing difficulty to go to their local garage or to contact the car manufactuers or seat belt manufacturers direct to find how their particular problem can be tackled.

In the same way, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, referred to elderly people and suggested that they should be exempt from compulsion. While I sympathise with those who may have difficulty in fastening and releasing seat belts, I do not think that we should value the lives of older people less highly than others. Furthermore, for those who have some medical problem, they can apply for exemption if on medical grounds and I think it important to remember that although drivers over 60 are the comparatively safe drivers, they represent 25 per cent. of car licence holders and exemption on such a scale would invalidate compulsion. On this same point, in any case—this is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised—it would be almost impossible to draft a regulation to cover all the circumstances for all the shapes and sizes. The driver or rider would not know whether he was exempt or not until he went to court to prove his case. Similarly, a constable would have to make difficult on-the-spot judgments and the mind boggles when one thinks of him trying to do that.

In response to my noble friend Lord Mottistone on this point, we are satisfied that the range and flexibility of seat belts, taken with booster cushions, if necessary, are proved, for the purpose of the construction and use regulations, to be sufficient except in very rare cases. These rare cases could be covered by medical certificates if that was justified. I would want to say also that to prove the concern that one has in these matters, the construction and use regulations themselves have twice been amended in this respect since 1979, which is not a long time ago.

If I may try to pick up some of the other general points the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether certificates can be used abroad. The answer is that this is currently being discussed with the ECE—not the EEC—to see if a uniform arrangement on certificates across Europe can be reached. We hope that we shall progress on this. My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, deeply involved in this whole matter and for whom I think many have cause to be very grateful, asked about the taxi and private hire car driver position.

The exemption we are giving is solely on the grounds of the possibility of attack. In saloon cars, the drivers are vulnerable. This aspect influenced us very much.

On the point of foreign visitors, they will have to use seat belts if they are fitted. Regulation 6(b)(ii) covers that. As to certificates abroad, this is something which has to be taken up. At the present time, foreign certificates in Great Britain are unlikely to be used. The registered medical practitioners will include a foreign doctor if suitably qualified. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, coming back to the point about short people, that the easiest way to alter the lock for those people is to lower the upper anchorage points; and the brackets for this, I am told, costs about £1 which I should not have thought was a major expense.

The point which without doubt has caused the most concern, I think it is fair to say, is that which concerns the medical certificate; the fee of £19 and all that surrounds it. What can one say about this? I tried to explain in my opening remarks why the Government have not used their powers to prescribe a fee. I would not accept that every doctor will automatically charge the recommended fee, regardless of the amount of work he has done. However, it has always been accepted in the earlier debates over the years on the principle of compulsion the doctors should be able to charge a fee. That will be a matter for agreement between the doctor and the patient who will be free to approach any doctor for a certificate. It would also be unreasonable to expect a doctor to consider carefully an application for exemption, and perhaps have to carry out a full examination, and then only allow the doctor to be paid if he decides that the certificate should be granted. That has been put forward.

When I look at some of the other suggestions that were put forward, the mind boggles. There were such suggestions as people should not be unreasonably requested to wear seat belts. That would take a little interpretation. There were one or two other similar suggestions. Coming back to the point of the fee, the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, I thought, spoke very clearly on this. I would correct one point that he made. The fee has not been agreed between the Government and the BMA. It is entirely for the BMA to decide how much to recommend to its members. We have discussed it with them at length. They still felt that that was the right amount. On the £19, if that should be the figure, I stressed when we covered this in the Transport Bill the other day—was it, my Lords, only the other day? At this stage I am not clear which day it was we took it on. I said then that, of course, there will be cases where the fee will be paid for those who cannot afford to pay it and it will be paid for through the avenues I mentioned then.

Several noble Lords expressed so much concern about the fee—my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and almost every one—that we have to recognise that this is a matter of concern. I hope that the very fact that we have discussed it as we have today will come to the attention of all concerned and that it will receive still more consideration in due course.

May I say on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised about the psychological effect upon people who had been in an accident of some kind, that it would be up to the doctor to decide whether the wearing of a belt in their case would be inadvisable, and if he did so decide then he would issue a certificate.

The point that troubled the noble Lord, Lord Somers, on the release mechanism is also very important. I know that many people are concerned about the possibility of not being able to release a seat belt if they become involved in an accident, and also about the difficulties that some people may experience when fastening a belt. Someone who fails to wear a seat belt runs a much greater risk of being killed in an accident than a person who wears a belt and cannot release it. That is not an answer but I think it is fair to say that.

However, since 1973 all belts fitted in new vehicles must be capable of being fastened and unfastened with one hand. The release mechanism must be marked in red and display the word "press" so that it is easily identified. The regulations also require the release mechanism to be within easy reach of the wearer and readily accessible to a rescuer. It is important that a rescuer is able to release both belts from one side of the car, especially as in some instances it is not possible to gain entry to one side of the vehicle. That is why the release mechanisms are in the centre of the vehicle. We certainly have not received any complaints from the emergency services about the difficulties of rescuing road accident victims who have been wearing seat belts. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that any slight differences in the types of release mechanism which may be found in different vehicles do not justify the rejection of the introduction of compulsion at this stage.

May I say to my noble friend Lady Macleod that I, too, have read the Daily Telegraph today and the article to which she referred. I would only say that seat belts are certainly necessary but they must be properly worn and fitted. There is no argument about that. Regarding the concern of my noble friend Lord Auckland about older belts, if someone wishes to change a belt he of course is free to do so so long as it complies with the construction and use regulations. However, there is no need for someone to change unless the belt is defective. If he does not, then of course there is no financial involvement.

I would comment to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who referred to an observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, that belts are not designed to prevent accidents but to reduce the chances of death and injury when an accident occurs. We believe they will reduce these chances by 50 per cent. My noble friend Lord Mottistone asked whether these regulations will apply to vehicles delivering foodstuffs to shops in towns. Exemptions for vehicles constructed or adapted for the delivery of goods, and foodstuffs to shops will be covered if such vehicles are used but not if goods are delivered in saloon cars.

On the point of monitoring statistics, which troubled several of your Lordships, may I say that first of all the police already provide casualty figures which are used for the department's annual publication, Road accidents, Great Britain. It is our intention quite clearly that if we have a three-year experimental period, which is what we are talking about, then one would expect at the end of that time, in coming forward either for an end or for a renewal, to be able to give the kind of statistical information that people would expect to enable them to make a proper judgment as to where one would go from there.

I am sorry that I am not giving a detailed reply to the many fair points that were raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, but she knows that I will be in touch with her and will take the matter from there. What the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, suggests is not on. I can tell him that the construction and use regulations do apply. The noble Lord, Lord Richardson, referred to medical exemption; the Act says a medical practitioner. It is for the applicant to choose whom he approaches. He may always get a second or third opinion which is not unusual and unknown in medical matters.

I opened this debate by reminding noble Lords—and I have done so again—that this House has approved the principle of compulsion. We have now moved into the final stage of introducing compulsory seat belt wearing. However, might I also remind the House, as my noble friend Lord Nugent said, that three years after these regulations come into effect they must be renewed by both Houses before compulsion can continue. I can assure the House that the Government will be closely monitoring the effects of the law during this period so that we can report the results to your Lordships when we take the decision on whether or not compulsion should continue.

Until that time, whatever our views now, we have to accept that Parliament has decided in favour of compulsion, and that it is our responsibility to ensure that the law is sensible and is fair to everyone. To be fair, the law must allow an exemption only where there is a strong case for it. Moreover, it must only allow exemptions in as consistent a manner as possible. The more the number of exemptions, the more people will ask why they too were not exempt in their particular circumstances I can inform the House that we have had many diverse requests for exemption: from window cleaners to wildlife photographers. Some exemptions, like elderly drivers, would have exempted such a large proportion of the driving population that the law would have been very difficult to enforce. Other exemptions would have exempted so few people that they would equally have brought the law into disrepute. If we had exempted some people on certain short journeys, other than that allowed in the Act for goods vehicles, in fairness we would have had to exempt many more. In no time at all, we would have discovered that more people were exempt than were required to wear belts. The law would have been brought into disrepute before it even started, and Parliament's underlying aim to save lives and avoid serious injuries, would have been negated completely.

Even so, I should like to give one final assurance, to those who are still concerned that the exemptions have been drawn too tightly. This is an important change in the law, affecting many of us who travel by road. We believe we have found the right balance between those who have a justified claim for exemption, and the needs for an enforceable law. But let me stress that this does not mean that the regulations cannot be changed. If, after a reasonable period, we saw a need to reconsider any particular aspect, then we would, of course, do so.

On the one hand, we have those who fervently await the commencement of compulsory use of seat belts—many even want compulsory rear belts. They would prefer that there be less exemptions. On the other side, as we have heard, there are those equally firm and genuine in their beliefs. I was most impressed and moved by the way—not what she said—my noble friend Lady Macleod referred to her attitude in this matter. There are those who patently want to weaken—some would say to undermine—the parliamentary decision, by seeking to incorporate exemptions which would clearly make compulsion unenforceable. Neither extreme is acceptable, and certainly to make it all unworkable is not an option.

My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye referred to this as a Government victory. I would have to remind him that the decision was taken on a free vote. The Government were neutral in the original decision-taking but, as he fairly and popularly reminded us yet again, now it is the will of Parliament that this be the law for a three-year experimental period. What we have before us for approval today, is a balanced régime, which is carefully thought through, which is practical and sensible. I think that this House, with its great reputation for fairness, for rectitude, and above all constitutional propriety, should now approve this order in good spirit and let all concerned get on with it.

Parliament decided on the principle. As promised, the Government have now produced the draft regulations necessary to implement that decision. I commend them to the House today for approval.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, when he says that Parliament has approved the principle of compulsion, would he not concede that eight days ago no fewer than 59 honourable Members and right honourable Members in another place, including the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Jo Grimond, Mr. Enoch Powell, Sir Angus Maude and Mr. Mark Carlisle, all voted against this particular order?

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says, but I do not see that it in any way affects anything that I have said.

My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

• Finance Act,
• Appropriation Act,
• Stock Transfer Act,
• Derelict Land Act,
• Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act,
• Woolworths (Aberdeen Development) Order Confirmation Act,
• Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Limited (Merger) Act,
• Derwent Valley Railway Act,
• West Yorkshire (Parking and Transport) Act,
• Greater London Council (Money) Act,

rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 6th July be approved.

My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for explaining the purpose of this order. It was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which had no comment to offer. The well maintained allowance is something which, as the noble Lord said, was introduced some years ago and it remedied an ill at that time which arose in slum clearance schemes. I am sure that the proposal that the multiplier should be increased is the correct one. It is true that the well maintained allowance would have increased automatically when there was an increase in the rateable value, and from time to time during the past 10 years the amount of the rateable value will have been increased as various revaluations took place. I wonder whether the noble Lord could say how these two factors will affect the amount of the allowance. Also, is this new multiplier now being introduced because the last revaluation of properties has not come forward as quickly as might have been expected? My Lords, we support the order.

My Lords, I think that what the noble Lord is asking is what would be the effect of the order on a house. If I may, I will give an example which could help. A wholly well maintained payment on a house with a rateable value of, for example £75 would be £243·37½ at present, whereas the new payment would be £1,050, which is quite substantial. For a partially well maintained house, the existing payment would be £117·19 and the new payment would be £525. They are quite substantial increases—and so they should be, after all this time.

My Lords, the point I was making was that if there was a revaluation of rateable values in an area and, in the process the rateable values were brought up to date and doubled, that would similarly have an effect on the well maintained allowance.

My Lords, it would. But of course, as the noble Lord knows, there has been no revaluation since 1973.

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th July be approved.

My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his somewhat brief summary of these extremely complex orders, which hit hard at the worst-off sections of the community. The noble Lord, as usual, was extremely competent in dealing with a difficult and complex situation. The noble Lord really is becoming quite expert in defending the indefensible.

One agrees with the concept of unified benefit which these orders and the Act from which they spring are claimed by the Government to achieve. But the method which the Government have chosen means that nearly 2 million people will be worse off when this scheme comes into operation. Once again, as with other social security measures introduced by this Government, it is designed to achieve financial savings at the expense of the worst-off—probably in the region of £16 million net. Local authorities face a tremendous task in operating these orders. Staff will obviously have to be increased just at a time when the Government's aim is to reduce local authority manpower. Mind you, my Lords, it is only fair to add that the Government are financially to compensate local authorities, at a time when they are introducing strict financial curbs on local authority spending in other directions.

The orders, particularly the Housing Benefits Regulations 1982, which contain some 51 regulations, are complex in the extreme, baffling, I might say, and a mass of gobbledegook. How local authority officers will cope, heaven alone knows! Certainly the beneficiaries, victims of extreme bureaucracy, will find it difficult to ascertain their rights, as will Citizens' Advice Bureaux and others helping people in difficulties and trying to translate into simple language complicated legislation for the benefit of those who are in difficulties.

As a former member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I am well aware that the committee have no power to comment on or examine the merits on policy grounds of statutory instruments, but concern themselves only as to whether a Minister has exceeded his powers. Dealing with the draft Housing Benefit Regulations 1982, the committee have expressed concern over Regulation 42, and, for the benefit of the House, I will quote:

"That the Committee draw the special attention of both Houses to an unusual feature in Regulation 42 of the draft. Under this regulation a local authority is empowered to recover overpayment of housing benefit even when the authority itself had made the overpayment by its own mistake—even when the mistake is not one of fact but consists of a misinterpretation of the regulations. In oral evidence to the Committee, officials of the Department of Health and Social Security have stated that such a power is not unprecedented: a similar power can be found in paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 to the Housing (Finance) Act 1972. The Committee note, however, that this is not altogether a parallel case because the power given in that Act is confined to recovery by way of deduction from future payments. The Committee note with concern that this wide-ranging power could operate unfairly on sections of the community least able to protect themselves.

"The Committee learnt in evidence that a circular will be issued to authorities giving guidance on how they should exercise this power with care, for example by establishing whether a claimant could reasonably know that he was being overpaid. This circular is not mentioned in the Explanatory Note on the instrument and the Committee consider that in respect of a provision of this nature the widest publicity should be given to such guidance."

The suggested circular by the Department of Health and Social Security may possibly assist officials and local authorities, but it does not go far enough. What about the individual citizen? What plain language guide will be available to those sections of the community least able to protect themselves and, furthermore, to those worthy voluntary bodies who do their best to help people to obtain their rights. This House has a right to know the Government's intentions and to examine and discuss the Government's effort to translate this horrible mass of complicated gobbledegook into plain English.

I fully appreciate that a person's rights are set out in Regulations 44 to 50. So far so good. But the difficulty arises in formulating objections and appeals against decisions. To achieve this, detailed study of these regulations is involved, and that is where a simple, plain, straightforward explanation of the regulations is needed.

This leads me to the question of appeals. During all stages of the Bill in this House I continually raised, by amendments, the need for an independent appeals tribunal. The Government resisted these attempts every time. At least the Government have, at the last moment, come forward with something approaching an appeal body. The Government's proposals for an appeal body consisting of councillors—members of the local authority making decisions—is simply not good enough. How can local councillors who are members of a local authority make decisions and then sit independently. It is true that they will be dealing with appeals against decisions by their officials, but although proceedings will be private, councillors will also be dealing with private and confidential affairs of local citizens, some of whom they may know. I am not reflecting on the integrity of the average councillor, but let us face it, such an appeal body is not completely independent, but of course it is a cheap way out and typical of the Government's approach.

There is also the problem of course—as I know from former local authority experience—of getting councillors to find the time to sit on such bodies. It is sometimes very difficult to get an adequate number. Another very important point is that not all people are able to put their own case. Is it possible, (is it allowed?) that some person may represent an individual and speak for him? Unless that is done there cannot be proper justice carried out.

It is because of all this that I welcome the decision to monitor the effect of appeals and possibly to reconsider. I assume that the results will be given by the Minister in a report to Parliament. The final decision on the effect of monitoring and the success or otherwise of the appeal system should be taken by Parliament and not left to a Minister and his officials.

In many ways the regulations are undemocratic and unfair. In some cases they can divide families, particularly on the question of non-householders— the 16-and 17-year olds with one on low pay and the other unemployed. The Act and these orders have all been designed with one objective: to save money at the expense of the worst off sections of the community. This is not new; it follows the 5 per cent. reduction in unemployment benefit and the whole series of social security legislation and orders which continue to pour from this Government whose period of life is becoming all too slowly shorter. If one wants further evidence one has only to study the report of the Social Services Select Committee of another place to realise the extent and the effect of three years' erosion of the social services.

A democratically elected Chamber has passed these orders by a majority. Because of that it is not the practice of this House to oppose them, although recently, and a few moments ago, we have had examples showing that it does sometimes happen. However, it is a regrettable fact and we have no option. However, at least we have some consolation. All of us on this side of the House—and I include all Benches—have done our best and our share to improve the Act to some minor extent. To that extent, I am content, but I am not content with these orders which are complex and grossly unfair.

My Lords, I should like once again to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his lucid explanation of a complicated matter. I made clear when we discussed the Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill that we on these Benches wanted a unified housing benefit, but that we had misgivings about the actual proposals which the Government had put forward. In particular, we regretted the fact that the Government had decided to proceed on a no-cost basis, in spite of the fact that the Supplementary Benefit Commission had suggested that a scheme of this kind was not likely to be satisfactory unless there were some additional resources made available to it. We doubted the wisdom of giving the bulk of the administration to local authorities, first, because of the burden on the local authorities themselves and, secondly, because of the number of offices to which people would have to go. Those entitled to housing benefit supplement, for example, may have to deal both with the local authority and with the DHSS, instead of just with the DHSS, as is the case now.

I am afraid that our fears on these various points have not been mitigated by reading the 51 regulations. Indeed, too much has been left to the regulations. There was too little in the Bill, so that inadequate parliamentary discussion would be given to the details of the Bill in its final form. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, the whole matter is tremendously complicated. Indeed, we were saying this about the supplementary benefit regulations when they were introduced in 1980. It seems that our social security system and our legislative system together are incapable of simplicity. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security said at column 789 in another place on 26th of this month:

"… there is no set of regulations in the whole of social security which would be widely understood by most of the claimants seeking benefit."

I wonder whether the Government are confident that potential claimants will know what their entitlement is or, indeed, have any idea of what it might be. In view of the complication, I also wonder whether the Government think that they are allowing sufficient time for the detail to be absorbed and for the people who will have to handle the matter to be trained. After all, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, pointed out, for some of the people involved the scheme will begin this autumn.

On the question of gains and losses, to which the noble Lord referred, some 2 million people will lose out, although maximum losses are limited to 75p per week, but that limit is only to be observed for one year. Even then, 75p per week is quite a lot for those on low incomes, and nearly 500,000 will pay more after the first year has elapsed. I should like to ask the noble Lord this question: Is it correct that to ensure no losers at all would cost only about £30 million or 1 per cent. of expenditure on housing benefits in 1981–82? If that is so, would it not have been better to spend that 1 per cent. in order to ensure that the scheme got off to a better start?

Is it not true also that the proposed new system of deduction from housing benefits for non-dependants' contributions can leave a tenant with up to £2·15 per week less? This would be £1·40 resulting from the change in the system of deductions and 75p from the change in the tapers. Am I right in thinking that in these cases the 75p limit does not apply overall? How do the Government propose to make sure that those who are entitled to housing benefit supplement actually get it? There is no statutory requirement for local authorities to assess entitlement to housing benefit supplement. Should there not be such a requirement?

So far as the processing of applications is concerned—and this is a point to which the noble Lord himself referred—is not the regulation requiring that applications be processed by local authorities within 14 days rendered ineffective by its own wording? It reads:

"An authority shall determine a claim within 14 days of being furnished with such information and evidence as it reasonably requires for the purpose of determining that claim, or if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as possible thereafter."

Does not that phrase—

"if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as possible thereafter"—

provide potential justification for widespread and lengthy delays? These regulations have been produced, if not in a hurry, at least quickly, and I suppose it is inevitable that mistakes will be made, as they were in the case of the Supplementary Benefit Regulations in 1980. Can the Minister give us an assurance that immediate steps will be taken to amend the regulations if anomalies are discovered?

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to the appeal system. As I made clear during our discussion of the Bill, we on these Benches share the feelings which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, expressed about the appeals procedure which is included in the regulations. In our view it is unsatisfactory. We do not accept that the way to arrange this is through committees of councillors who may have a direct interest in the matter, and who may be advised by those who have made the original decision. We think an independent appeal machinery, operated through the Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunals with further appeal to the Social Security Commissioners, would be much more satisfactory. I shall not detain the House any longer. I think I have said enough to indicate why we on these Benches are not at all happy about the introduction on a no-cost basis of this cumbersome and complex system.

My Lords, from this Bench I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his rapid review of the principal regulations. We agree on balance with the concept of a unified housing benefit. As a result of the change to a direct waiver of rent and rates by local authorities people will not have to worry about getting into arrears, or retaining money for rent at the expense of food or heating. On the other hand they will not receive the rebate money, and will thus lose a certain flexibility in the use of resources. In a tight week it will no longer be possible to borrow from the rent to keep going.

As I said, it is a question of balance, and on the whole we support this scheme. However, along with my ally, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I have certain reservations and there are one or two questions I should like to put to the Minister. First, is it true, as was suggested in another place and as was alleged by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, that a saving of £16 million will be made by the Government under the new arrangements? In another place the Minister introducing these regulations spoke of "an overall cost neutral basis". The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, used a similar phrase. I think his phrase was "an overall nil cost basis".

Can the noble Lord assure the House that this principle of neutral costing has been strictly adhered to? As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said there are many grounds on which it would have been desirable for an increase of resources to have been made available, but the Government's claim is that this is a cost neutral basis. I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he could give us the assurance that that is in fact the case.

Next, the implication for local authority staffing. Regulation 28, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pointed out, imposes an obligation on authorities to determine all claims within 14 days, or as soon as possible thereafter. They must provide a written statement explaining their decision within 14 days, if so required. Then there is the responsibility for the whole new appeal procedure. Quite apart from the merits or, demerits, of these proposals, are there not important implications here for the level of the rate support grant? Is there not a danger that heavy new responsibilities are being put on to authorities at a time when they are being told to reduce their staffs? Finally, what about the accounting procedures between the DHSS and local authorities? Will the department promptly fund the authorities for the rents and rebates that they have forgone?

My Lords, perhaps I should first deal with the point made by all three noble Lords who have spoken—and I am grateful to them for their contribution to this debate—about the nil cost aspect of these proposals. I can confirm that these proposals have been devised on the assumption that they should not cost any more, but equally they are not a measure of any saving. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, suggested £16 million as being a net saving from the proposals. I assure him, as I said earlier, that we have taken great pains to achieve a nil cost to these regulations, and that means a nil saving as well, and I hope that is the assurance the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is seeking.

Turning to the main thrust of the main points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, when he criticised the complexity of the regulations and emphasised the need for plain English leaflets explaining the individual rights, the complexity of subordinate legislation is often criticised and I certainly accept that social security legislation tends to be more complex than most. But as your Lordships will appreciate, we are dealing with people's entitlement to benefit in a wide range of circumstances and it is surely right that his entitlement should be given the force of law. The alternative, in this example, is to give authorities a very wide range of discretion, and the inevitable outcome of widely varying decisions throughout the country and almost certainly widespread public dissatisfaction. The aim must be to strike the right balance, and I think we have done so. Entitlement to benefit is set out in detail at the price, I confess, of some complexity of drafting, but authorities are also given the power—if your Lordships will refer to Regulation 22—to pay more benefit in exceptional circumstances.

Having said that, I recognise that the regulations, while forming the essential legal foundation, must be translated into plain English, both for the benefit of those who will administer the scheme and for the recipients, potential or actual, of the benefit; so they will be supplemented by other material. First, we shall shortly be issuing a full circular on the scheme. That will provide a detailed guide to the regulations and will make clear the way in which authorities will be expected to administer the scheme. The circular will be a public document available to those who advise claimants.

In the circular—this picks up another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in connection with overpayments—we shall spell out how we expect authorities to use their recovery powers. Where the overpayment arises because of claimant error, we will expect authorities to make a serious attempt to recover the money. Where an overpayment arises because of an official error, authorities are expected to consider the circumstances of the case. If the claimant could reasonably have been expected to know he was receiving too much money, authorities are expected to seek recovery, unless that would result in hardship to the claimant. Where the overpayment arises because of an official mistake—for example, because the authority has miscalculated the claimant's entitlement—authorities will be expected either to take no recovery action or not to pursue recovery beyond an initial request for repayment. This will be particularly relevant when the amount overpaid in each week was sufficiently small and there was no reason for the claimant to have spotted the error.

Reverting to the way in which we shall publicise these arrangements—particularly the plain English arrangements, if I may refer to them in that way— there will, secondly, be a number of ways in which the scheme will be explained to claimants. Each supplementary benefit claimant will be told how the change affects him; the present leaflets on rebates and allowances will be amalgamated into one general leaflet explaining the scheme; posters will be produced for display; and a detailed explanation of the revised supplementary benefit rules for housing costs will be contained in the supplementary benefit leaflets SP8 and SP9.

As I said in my opening remarks, claimants will for the first time have the right to request a detailed explanation of how their housing benefit has been assessed. Therefore we have aimed to ensure that claimants are given a proper explanation of the changed arrangements for help with housing costs, and I can assure your Lordships that we shall do our best—it is not always easy, if we are to avoid potentially misleading advice—to ensure that the material for which we are responsible will be written in language which the claimant can understand.

I turn now to the question of appeals which was raised by the noble Lord. We believe that we have gone a long way to meet the concerns that have been expressed on this score. I realise that some people say that we have not gone far enough, but I should like to make two points. First, people inclined to cricitise should perhaps compare carefully what we are proposing with what is formally provided for in the existing regulations, and we hope that we shall be given appropriate credit for the improvements. Secondly, we have every confidence that councillors, busy people though they are, will take seriously the task of reviewing their officials' decisions in the light of claimants' representations. That seems to us a quite proper role for councillors. Some of the comments on the review provisions imply little faith in the independence of elected representatives, but that certainly was not the view of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, this afternoon.

We believe that the review arrangements will work well as a protection of claimants' interests. However, we accept that we must keep an eye on what happens in this important area, and we shall certainly make arrangements to monitor the workings of the review procedures. In that context the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked me about the question of representation before the councillors. Regulation 48(5) gives the claimant the right to be accompanied or represented at the hearing by another person—which I hope is what the noble Lord had in mind.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked me about the estimated cost of avoiding any loss to anybody under the arrangements—I think that that was the thrust of his question. We estimate that the cost would be £50 million to make it a zero-loss situation. The noble Lord mentioned a figure of, I think, £30 million. As I say, in our estimation it is nearer £50 million, and I am sorry to say that the funds were simply not available to achieve that objective. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, also asked about the timetable for the introduction of the arrangements. For the most part the local authority associations have accepted that the operational timetable that we have for the introduction of housing benefit is feasible.

The noble Lord asked me finally about the 14-day rule. I think that there might be a misunderstanding in this connection. The noble Lord asked me in particular why local authorities do not have a duty to assess the topping up amounts, should they be applicable. To calculate housing benefit supplement it is first necessary to assess how much money a person has in excess of his supplementary benefit requirements. That can be done only in the context of a claim for supplementary benefit. I hope that that clarifies the point that the noble Lord had in mind.

Those are, I think, the principal points that were put to me. If I have missed any, I shall hasten to write to the noble Lord in question. In the meantime, I hope that your Lordships will see fit to approve the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper—namely, that the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (Electoral Scheme) Order 1982 be approved.

Some of your Lordships may be familiar with the setting up of the United Kingdom Central Council and four national boards for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979, but I will very briefly go over the background and bring your Lordships up to date on what has happened since the Act received Royal Assent in April 1979, and how the election scheme fits in.

The Act arose out of the report in 1972 of the Committee on Nursing chaired by Professor Asa Briggs—now, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Briggs—which recommended a unified statutory structure for nurses, midwives and health visitors. The bringing together of all specialist interests into one structure should make it possible to identify needs across the board, and to examine the interrelationship between basic and post-basic training. The ensuing Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979 made provision with respect to the education, training, regulation and discipline of nurses, midwives and health visitors, and the maintenance of a single professional register. It does not implement any of the detailed Briggs recommendations on nurses' education and training, but establishes the framework on which future changes can be made. This framework is provided by the establishment of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, and of four national boards, one for each country in the United Kingdom. They will replace the nine existing statutory and other training bodies which will be dissolved under the Act.

The Government see the setting up of the five new bodies as the means of developing the education and training of nurses, midwives and health visitors throughout the four countries of the United Kingdom, and we place a high priority on this task. Most of the Act has riot yet come into force, but the United Kingdom Central Council and the four national boards were set up in November and September 1980 respectively.

With effect from 15th September 1983, each of the national boards will consist partly of members directly appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and partly of elected members. The elected members will be elected under an electoral scheme proposed by the Central Council and approved by my right honourable friend, and shall, in accordance with the Act, form the majority of each national board. The electoral scheme is being given effect to by the order before your Lordships.

I turn now to the details of the scheme. It is made up of three main elements: the creation of an electoral roll, the securing of candidates and the voting method. The electoral roll has been created on the basis that nurses, midwives and health visitors will be invited to "opt in" to the election scheme. Following a publicity exercise, all nurses, midwives and health visitors will be invited to take part in the election, and their eligibility to do so will be confirmed from existing records. Secondly, on the securing of candidates, the scheme proposes that there should be three categories of candidates; namely, practising nurses, either registered or enrolled; practising midwives; and practising health visitors. It also proposes that the proportion between these three categories should be four practising nurses to one practising midwife and one practising health visitor.

It is also hoped, and expected, that the third aspect of the election, the voting method, will enable the various professional groups to achieve adequate representation. The single transferable vote method was chosen as being the most likely to secure a broad representation, as the experience of the Electoral Reform Society, who have been advising the Central Council on the scheme, had shown. During consultation, considerable support for this system was demonstrated. Should the interests of minority groups fail to secure adequate representation, my right honourable friend would look at the range of experience of the elected members in considering his appointments, and would thus have an opportunity to rectify such gaps in representation.

Finally, the election scheme is designed for the first election only. It will be thoroughly evaluated by the Electoral Reform Society, to assess, for example, the extent to which representative assemblies are achieved, and the evaluation study will consider in time for future elections whether this is the most appropriate arrangement. My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his explanation of this order, and assure him that he is on a less sticky wicket than he was in the case of the previous discussion. In general, I would welcome this move; and no doubt the House will probably have the beneficial advice of the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, who has had a most distinguished career in the nursing field. This is a body which is partly-elected, partly-appointed. I am wondering how the appointed members will be selected. I assume that the Minister will have a submission of a panel of names from which he can make a choice. I assume that probably some of the non-elected might even he on that list. One of the worrying features of this is the representation of nurses involved in the mental health field which, we know, is rather overlooked and has been neglected for some years. The Minister gave some assurance that any balance would be adjusted when the names are appointed by the Minister.

Another matter which intrigues me is this. I notice that on the nomination paper the date of birth entry is optional. I do not know whether this is an attempt at sexual discrimination by the Government or the Government exercising absolute discretion. One knows that some ladies are a bit sensitive about their age, and some of us males are. That is a light point. I hope that this scheme will work adequately. We have an assurance that it will be monitored. I think it is a step in the right direction. I support the order.

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his explanation and to say that we on these Benches support the order. I rise principally to welcome the adoption of the system of the single transferable vote, and I am glad that the noble Lord has told us that this was felt to be the way in which fair representation could be obtained. I look forward to the Government's adoption of this system in other spheres.

My Lords, I rise to thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for placing this order before the House and to support it. In doing so, I would declare my interests, because I am a member of the United Kingdom Council for Nursing, Health Visiting and Midwifery, chairman of the English National Board and also chairman of one of the boards which will be dissolved as the Act becomes operative—that is, the Joint Board of Clinical Nursing Studies. In these capacities I have been party to the discussions on the electoral scheme before the House, and I give it my full support.

The noble Lord has outlined the background to the 1979 Nurses Midwives and Health Visitors Act which followed closely the recommendations of the report of a committee on nursing chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Briggs. It is in achieving the structural background for the advances in nursing that this electoral scheme is before the House. I think that the profession regard the electoral scheme as being highly important to see that we get representative assemblies. It is important not just to the profession but in the public interest, because the reforms envisaged by the Briggs Report are now long overdue and, as we enter a highly technical age with a modern health service, a service which needs to be highly sensitive not only to the physical needs, but also the phychological and social needs of the long-term sick, the mentally handicapped, mentally ill and elderly people, the proper governance of the profession is in the interests not only of the progress of the profession but of the service of society.

The representative members of the four national boards and the members appointed directly by the Secretary of State to the United Kingdom Central Council, after consultation with the professions, have been conscious that their first responsibility must be to develop an electoral scheme which would lead to representative assemblies and to submit a scheme to the Secretary of State within two years. This has occasioned a great deal of work, and I should like to enlarge on what the noble Lord has laid before us as to the mechanism whereby the scheme has been evolved and the wide consultation that the council undertook in order to achieve this scheme. It had a five-part staging in consulting the professions. First, a working group of the United Kingdom Central Council was set up. This was very ably chaired by Miss Sheila Jack, herself a qualified nurse, health visitor and midwife.

The scheme evolved by the working group was submitted to the four national boards. After consideration and modification by the boards, it went back to the working group for modification and then out to the profession for consultation. The comments of the profession were received back by the working group and the final report was submitted to the United Kingdom Central Council, debated and approved by them. I think that we can say therefore that there was the very widest possible professional discussion before this scheme was evolved, although the conflicting views of special groups in the profession nonetheless have been considered and been given careful consideration.

As members of this House will have heard, after examination of different voting methods it was agreed with very few reservations that the single transferable vote method was that most likely to ensure a broad representation of different interests in the profession. The three professions have a highly complex internal structure with major specialisations such as—as the noble Lord mentioned—psychiatric nursing, mental handicap nursing and district nursing as well as midwifery and health visiting, nursing education and nurse management. Indeed, a piece of research recently carried out in my own department of nursing in the University of Manchester attempted to identify the specialties in nursing as seen by the nurses themselves and by their employers.

My recollection is that over 50 specialties were named and there was no consensus about the bases on which the specialties should be identified. This clearly creates an anomalous situation if the council chose to specify some specialties for reserve categories, and not others. Some, like psychiatric nursing and mental handicap nursing, are long-standing specialties and have held special statutory qualifications for many years. Others, like occupational health nursing and district nursing, were named in the 1979 Act. Still other groups of specialists within the profession—nurse educators and those with special clinical qualifications—have been equally anxious to have reserved places in the electoral scheme for occupational groups within the nursing category.

The position was forcefully put to the council by professional organisations and unions. But the council was of a view that such was the multiplicity of specialist groups within the profession seeking reserve places that it would be almost impossible to administer on an equitable basis, and that any attempt to do so would erode the effectiveness of the single transferable vote in achieving broad representation of interests. So the council reached their conclusion as an attempt to reconcile the wide-ranging and conflicting views of the bodies it consulted.

I have singled out what I believe to be the most contentious decision of the council in respect of the electoral scheme in an attempt to underline some of the reasons for the scheme put forward. I would suggest that the interests of special groups within the profession will be ensured, first, by the single transferable vote and its ability to secure wide representation, and also by the appointment of statutory and other committees for the special educational interests of special groups by the appointments made by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the profession and, in the last resort, by the evaluation of the whole scheme to be carried out by the Electoral Reform Society after the first election. In the meantime, after meeting nurses, midwives and health visitors in many parts of the country, listening to their representations and receiving deputations, as chairman of the English National Board, from mental nurses and speaking to many other groups of interested bodies, I am convinced that the scheme as laid before the House is worthy of support.

My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for your reception of this Motion, and I am particularly grateful for the informed intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane. I hope that your Lordships will now approve the order.

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th July be approved.

My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Lord for the very detailed and clear explanation he has given of these regulations. It will not have escaped notice that, although sometimes regulations meet with disagreement among those Members of your Lordships' House who happen to be members of the legal profession, when they concern the accounting profession, as these regulations undoubtedly do, there is a striking degree of unanimity. In fact, the explanation that has been given, with his customary clarity, by the noble Lord enables me to agree with him entirely and to say that we on this side of the House believe that these regulations should be brought into force.

At the same time, and since the accountancy profession is in unanimity across the Chamber on these matters, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that these are further regulations, among many, which underline the necessity for some consolidation of company law. We agree about and accept the necessity for much argument among the legal profession over the various aspects of company law, but it is the accountancy profession that in the main is concerned, together with those directors of companies and managements of enterprises which are vitally concerned by Companies Act provisions.

I know I am knocking at an open door when I ask the noble Lord opposite to bear in mind that for some considerable time we have had the Companies Act 1948 as the main provision, since when we have had the Companies Act 1967, the Companies Act 1976, the Companies Act 1980 and the Companies Act 1981, certain important sections of the last two Acts having been brought in because of European Community legislation. But the time has now come when there really must be some consolidation. Even this particular section of the 1948 Act which is amended by the 1981 Act and under which this regulation is issued has already given rise to a number of regulations. I refer only to Section 18 or, in the old Act which is amended, to Section 454.

In this section alone there are cross-references to the Banking Companies Accounts Regulations 1970, the Companies Accounts Regulations 1970, the Companies Accounts Regulations 1971, the Companies Accounts Regulations 1973, the Companies Annual Return Regulations 1977, the Companies Accounts Regulations 1979, the Companies Directors' Report (Political and Charitable Contributions) Regulations 1980 and the Companies Directors' Report (Employment of Disabled Persons) Regulations 1980. These are regulations which have been issued in respect of one section of the Companies Act 1948, as amended by Section 18 of the 1981 Act alone. Members of the legal profession in your Lordships' House and in another place may find these regulations fertile ground for argument and perhaps litigation, although it is not noticeable that those Members of your Lordships' House who are of the legal profession are abundantly represented here this afternoon. However, businessmen and directors of companies are vitally concerned with these matters. Therefore, if only for the sake of students of the accountancy profession who have to wade through this mass of regulations and Acts before they are able to acquire a working knowledge of them, may I implore the noble Lord, who belongs to the same profession as I do, to make representations to his right honourable friend that at the earliest possible opportunity there ought to be a consolidation Bill. There ought to be a comprehensive measure that is readily available to the businessman and to the company director, as well as to the student, in order that we do not have to cross refer and cross refer, to a point where tracing even the meaning of a regulation and its impact on a business becomes a matter of very arduous labour.

I gave notice to the noble Lord of the fact that I was going to raise this aspect. It does not, however, detract from our support for the regulations themselves; nor does it detract from our admiration for the very clear manner in which the noble Lord has presented them on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

My Lords, failing further discussion of the detailed regulations which are before us today—I look round your Lordships' House and, alas! I find nobody willing to join the lists with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and myself in these, if not abstruse, certainly complicated fields of company accountancy—first I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reception of these regulations which we believe are detailed but, above all, are important. I feel very much for the noble Lord. Indeed, every time that I go to my little cupboard to remove what I call my "company package", it is something akin to a Charles Atlas course because, as the noble Lord will know—because he read out the particular Acts—it requires some feat of strength to extract and, above all, to hold on to all the Acts, let alone every single one of the regulations which were so clearly introduced and mentioned by the noble Lord. All these Acts and regulations have to be tied in, and allocated to, the "master" Act, the 1948 Act, which itself was in the nature of a consolidation Act of all the companies legislation up to 1948.

I am very pleased to assure the House, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who speaks with a very sure and robust voice for the accountancy profession in which he is currently engaged, that consideration of the matters he has mentioned and, above all, consolidation of all the regulations and disparate Acts, is now a major priority of the Department of Trade in the field of company law.

I am able to assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that good progress is being made, but, as the noble Lord and I are exceptionally well-qualified to know after our experiences with the 1980 and 1981 Acts, it is and will remain a mammoth job. Even to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I cannot say when we shall have consolidated companies Acts. But I will assure him and your Lordships that every effort is being made to achieve that happy outcome at the earliest possible date. It is a major priority in the department and I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that.

I am afraid we are not able to say in which year the new consolidated Acts will appear, but we do appreciate the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, not least in respect of the young students who, perhaps, are currently involved this year in attempting to master the entire field of company law. It is close to 18 years ago since I was studying this particular Act, and I am pleased to see that Section 245 is still in its appointed place. I recall entering in some exam papers the powers of the liquidator, and I am pleased that they still come to mind, as I am sure they will still be fresh in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.

I hope that I have answered to the best of my ability, and with the usual clarity that is afforded to me by the department, the queries raised by the noble Lord. I hope that I have put to rest some of the fears which were in his mind—not least as a forceful and robust spokesman for the accountancy profession. I hope that they will note our concern for consolidation of all the companies Acts. With that, I beg to move the regulations before us this afternoon.