HC Deb 31 May 1956 vol 553 cc506-24
  1. (1) On and after the first day of January, 1965 no diesel vehicle shall be used on any public road in the metropolitan police district.
  2. (2) Any person using a diesel vehicle in contravention of this section shall upon conviction be liable to a fine for a first offence not exceeding £10, and for a second or subsequent offence not exceeding £50.—[Mr. R. Bell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. R. Bell

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

With this Clause, we come to a very different aspect of road traffic. Hitherto we have mainly been discussing traffic from the point of view of its regulation on the roads. Now for a few minutes I invite the attention of the House to a different aspect, that of the noise and fumes resulting from a certain class of traffic.

At the outset, I would say that the form taken by my Clause is not one to which I attach particular importance. My right hon. Friend may well feel that the period of nine years which I propose is not a practical one. He may even feel that a prohibition in this form is itself not practicable. I have merely tabled my Clause in order to draw attention to the problem existing in relation to diesel vehicles.

7.0 p.m.

The context in which I move the Second Reading of this new Clause is that the London Transport Executive has decided to replace 1,800 electric trolley buses by diesel vehicles. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Shame"] Hon. Members say "Shame," and I agree. That has caused a good deal of concern to many who are interested in the health of people who live in or use the Metropolis. A disadvantage of the diesel vehicle in ordinary road safety is that it tends to belch out great clouds of black smoke through which one simply cannot see. I know that a diesel vehicle does that only when it is in bad condition. I am sorry to say that my experience is that very many diesel vehicles are in bad condition; especially is this seen when diesel lorries are going up hill. Clouds of black smoke coming from lorries or buses going up hill are not only very unpleasant but have a definite significance in road safety.

A second factor is the noise made by diesel vehicles when crammed together in London. There is an enormous number of diesel vehicles in London. One can be sentimental about the roar of London traffic, as I believe the British Broadcasting Corporation becomes so regularly, but it is not something of which we should be proud, nor something which should encourage us to replace silent vehicles with noisy ones. We recently had a debate about the evils of noise and about the very real harm it does to the populations of our great cities in its ever-rising crescendo. I should be sorry if we did anything to increase it.

The main purpose of the Clause is to draw attention to the injury to property and health caused by fumes from diesel vehicles. The streets of London receive a good deal of atmospheric pollution, and the House has recently given attention to that. However, the pollution which comes from our domestic fires and other sources of burning at least comes out at roof-top level, but the pollution that comes from the exhausts of motor vehicles comes out at a very low level, a matter of inches above the ground.

The streets of London are narrow canyons in which this pollution is gathered, held and where, on still days, it reaches an appalling concentration. The danger to property is, of course, well known. I am told that in the central areas of London windows are found to have a film of oil which comes from the exhausts of diesel buses. Since diesel buses have become universal in London, window cleaners have noticed that in the City and central areas they have to remove a film of oil before they can clean windows.

If films of oil form on glass, they also form on stonework and in the lungs of those who use the streets. That is the disturbing point in all this. The fumes are exceedingly foull smelling and unpleasant. That might be borne, but there can be no reasonable doubt that they are very injurious to health. I do not want to be alarmist, nor to exaggerate, because that would be very wrong, but I am sure that the fumes from traffic play a very large part in causing respiratory diseases in people in London.

Bronchitis is unquestionably increased and exacerbated by vehicle exhaust fumes. Above all, there is the problem of lung cancer. A few weeks ago my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health again drew our attention to the truly alarming figures of the increase of that disease. He reminded us that cigarette smoking might well be a contributory factor in causing it, but there is more than a suspicion that vehicle exhaust fumes also play a large part in the generation of this disease among city dwellers.

The number of non-smokers who die of cancer of the lung is nearly ten times as high in the cities as it is in the country-side. The death rate per hundred thousand from lung cancer is 14 in rural areas and 131 in urban areas. We might obviously disagree—indeed, no one can be sure—what the real explanation of that is, but it is a basic fact that more than nine times as many people in the cities die of lung cancer as die of it in the country-side. There can be very little doubt that in one way or another that is due to the atmospheric pollution of the cities.

Research carried out here and in the United States of America has raised a very strong suspicion that vehicle exhaust fumes and, in particular, diesel fumes are one of the main causes. There can be no doubt that benzpyrene is a constituent of diesel exhaust gases even when no black smoke is visible. Benzpyrene is an undoubted carcinogenic agent. That has attracted so much attention that last June the British Medical Association, at its annual representative meeting, passed a resolution which it sent to the Ministry of Transport. It read:

This meeting of the representative body of the British Medical Association urges the Council of the B.M.A. to draw the attention of transport authorities to the possible dangers of fumes from diesel engines; to the remarkable coincidence between the increased use of diesel oil for transport and the rise in mortality from lung cancer and other respiratory diseases; and views with alarm the forthcoming replacement, in London, of 1,800 electric trolley buses by diesel-engined vehicles. That resolution was forwarded to my right hon. Friend and the Council of the B.M.A. pointed out to the Ministry that it would be most unfortunate if research proved that diesel fumes were a contributory cause of lung cancer, after a large scale programme of replacement of trolley buses by diesel engined vehicles.

I am sorry to say that the Ministry, passing on the decision of London Transport Executive, after expressing sympathy with research in this subject and its interest in it, nevertheless said that London Transport was sticking to its decision. Its letter went on:

"Whatever the outcome of the research now being undertaken, it seems very doubtful whether the oil buses which will replace the trolley buses will make much difference to the London atmosphere or the health of Londoners. London Transport's present fleet of buses and coaches which numbers more than 8,000 is already operating exclusively on diesel oil. When one considers in addition the number of other diesel-engined road vehicles which can now be seen in the London area the planned addition to the Executive's fleet of buses is seen to be of little significance. The Government naturally take the closest interest in the question of atmospheric pollution, but your Association"— that is, the British Medical Association—

will understand that it will be impossible for my Minister to hold up the normal commercial development of road vehicles without much more definite information as to its effect upon public health than is at present available. My only comment upon that is that, taking into account the degree of suspicion which has been aroused; the amount of evidence which is available as to the possible danger from diesel fumes —inconclusive as it is; just as is the evidence about cigarette smoking—and also the very strong statistical evidence that nine times as many people die from lung cancer in the towns as in the country, together with strong medical evidence from various sources, such as the resolution of the British Medical Association, the burden of proof is shifted. I submit that it is for London Transport Executive and my right hon. Friend, as answerable in this House, to show that this very large change which has been planned will not be harmful to the health of the people of this city.

Nobody can suggest that electric trolley-buses cause cancer or bronchitis. They cause no fumes, and make no noise. It is not good enough to say, "The atmosphere of the metropolis is already heavily polluted, and a little more will not matter very much. We already have 8.000 public diesel vehicles on the roads, plus the private ones, and therefore another 2,000 will not make any difference. It is so bad that we cannot make it worse." That may be a slight overstatement of the position, but it is the main line of the argument.

My purpose in moving the Clause is not to cling to the form of it; it is not for a private Member to draft a Clause of this kind in a practical form I am merely raising the point, and my object in doing so is to place the onus of proof upon those who wish to increase the use of diesel propulsion in the metropolis, so that if they cannot discharge that burden over a period of, say, ten years, the mounting danger to public health should no longer be permitted.

Mr. Arthur Palmer (Cleveland)

I beg to second the Motion.

I also believe that the increasing pollution of the streets of our large cities by the operation of diesel-driven vehicles is a menace which has grown, is growing, and should be diminished. The advantage of the proposed new Clause would be that the number of diesel-driven vehicles in the Metropolitan police area would be tremendously diminished.

I do not propose to speak for very long upon this matter. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) has already referred to the controversy which has risen within the ranks of the British Medical Association, and I do not need to overstress the possible relationship between the use of the diesel vehicle and lung cancer. At one time I received some kind of scientific training, and I am always reluctant to commit myself to any theory or proposition without abundant proof. Nevertheless, with proper scientific caution, I still believe that the investigations which have been carried out so far show that there are grounds, at least, for grave suspicion that fumes from diesel vehicles are a danger to public health.

It is a tragedy for the comfort of the people in our crowded cities that much of this suffering from diesel vehicles is unnecessary. In large-scale passenger transport we have available an alternative and plentiful source of energy, namely, electricity.

Mr. Sparks

The trolley bus.

Mr. Palmer

Yes, the trolley bus—or, I would go so far as to say the much criticised and much-abused tramcar. At least that had a soul. All that the diesel bus has is a smell.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has left the Chamber—I am sure that his absence is temporary—because on one occasion, in the House, in view of my unashamed interest in electrical matters, he accused me of being an electrical fanatic. I plead guilty to that charge, but I believe that in being an electrical fanatic I am on the side of the angels, and not of the other side. For large-scale passenger transport electricity is cheap, convenient and completely clean.

Mr. Sparks

That is not true of the trolley bus.

Mr. Palmer

My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) talks about the trolley bus. If that vehicle is not popular with some experts of the London Transport Executive, it is pretty popular with the people who use it.

Mr. Sparks

It certainly is not in my constituency.

Mr. Palmer

I live in another part of the metropolitan police area. In the Wimbledon district there is a good service of trolley buses on Worple Road, on the way to Kingston. If the London Transport Executive took that service off, I believe that there would be many complaints from the public. Another advantake of the electric passenger vehicle is that the energy used is produced from home sources. It is produced from coal and, in the future, it will be produced increasingly from another source, which, for practical purposes, we can also regard as a home source, namely, nuclear fission. If electricity is used our country will be therefore less dependent upon imported fuel, which is an extremely important consideration.

7.15 p.m.

Last week, during the Parliamentary Recess, I was doing work of a kind at Torquay, at the 1956 British Electrical Power Convention. The main theme of the Convention this year was electricity and transport. Discussions went on about the great part that electricity will very soon play in the electrification of the railways, especially the main line routes. It would be rather ironical now if our railways were to become cleaner through the use of electricity while our streets became much dirtier because of the extended use of oil fuels.

The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South referred to the question of maintenance and the suggestion that diesel vehicles caused trouble purely because of lack of care. I agree with his comment that in that case there must be a vast number of vehicles on our roads which are extremely badly maintained. I know that trouble is often caused by drivers tampering with the fuel injection systems of diesel engines, but the engine permits of this tampering, and I feel that it is no answer to say that the trouble is caused because the engine is not working properly. The point is that these diesel vehicles are capable of being worked badly.

It might seem that the Clause, as worded, is a little drastic. It proposes to ban these vehicles completely from the Greater London area. It entails the complete banning of these vehicles within nine years. I am not so worried about that because, after all, nine years is quite a period of time, and should give ample opportunity for the owners of these vehicles, even the London Transport Executive, to mend and improve their ways and not to continue with the extension of a system of public transport which is, as I said at the beginning, probably a menace to public health and certainly a menace to public comfort.

Mr. Molson

A revolutionary Clause of this kind could be accepted by the Government only if the need for it was abundantly made out. It would, indeed, have a most revolutionary effect at the present time, because the tendency for a number of years past has been for diesel engines progressively to replace petrol engines. At the present time, of the vehicles registered with the London County Council, 94 per cent. of the buses and coaches with more than 14 seats, 49 per cent. of the taxis and 54 per cent. of the heavy goods vehicles are propelled by diesel engines. The tendency is for the proportion of diesel engines to increase. This is for the engineering reason that diesel oil is, on the whole, a more efficient propellant than petrol. If the House were to accept this Clause, it would not only completely dislocate London Transport but also have a most serious effect upon both the heavy and light motor production industry in this country. It would, therefore, be necesssary for those who support the Clause to show that the effect of diesel fumes upon the national health was of a most serious kind.

I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell), and I confess that I was astonished that any lawyer should put forward a proposal of this kind on such extraordinarily inadequate evidence. He began by saying that he was quite sure. That is no reason why the House should be quite sure. He said that there was more than a suspicion that these fumes were causing cancer, and later he went on to suggest that the evidence was such as to justify us in taking action. This matter is being investigated both by the Fuel Research Station and the Medical Research Council and, as yet, there is no evidence that exhaust fumes from diesel driven vehicles have any measurable effect on the health of those who breathe them.

That is the present position, and unless and until research is able to establish the need for something of this kind, it quite clearly would he impossible for the Government to accept the Clause. The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) quoted from a letter written by my Department in reply to the petition. I must say that it was very agreeable to me to hear such a very sensible letter publicly presented.

Mr. R. Bell

Would my right hon. Friend say that the British Medical Association passed a resolution and sent it to him without any evidence?

Mr. J. A. Sparks (Acton)

I am afraid that I cannot support the new Clause, largely because of some of the reasons which were advanced in support of it. It was fairly obvious that to some extent it was a battle between electric and diesel traction; and when my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) went on to stress the efficiency of electric traction, in so far as he referred to the trolley buses in London, I say that there he was absolutely right off the rails, or, shall I say, right off the wires.

One of the main reasons for replacing electric traction trolley buses by diesel-driven vehicles arises out of the problem of mobility and the difficulties of operation which experience has proved over the years. Trolley buses are responsible for a considerable amount of congestion and delay on many of the roads. If any hon. Member does not agree with that statement he has only to come to my constituency at any time he wishes, and I will introduce to him hundreds if not thousands of workpeople who have to use trolley buses to get to and from their work. One has only to hear what they have to say about the service to be absolutely convinced.

My local authority has for years been worrying the London Transport authority to provide an efficient road service on what is known as the 660 route. That is a trolley bus route which runs from Finchley, through Cricklewood, Willesden, Acton and Shepherds Bush to Hammersmith. That route is through some of the densest parts of west London. The only answer to this problem of operation is to take them off the roads and replace them with—What? There is only one alternative—dieseldriven vehicles. Thousands of workpeople in my constituency want them because those vehicles have greater mobility, there is not the tendency to congestion, and the service becomes more regular.

Therefore, this is a most reactionary proposal which my hon. Friend is supporting. I would ask him and the hon. Member who moved this new Clause to spend a few days with the London Transport Executive to see the effect on routes operated by diesel vehicles and electric trolley buses. There is no question whatever that the diesel method, or even the petrol method, is far superior in efficiency and operation and in the organisation of London's traffic. If my hon. Friend can show an alternative method of propelling a vehicle by electric power without the use of arms attached to wires—I do not know whether that can be done; he says that he knows something about science, and there is a problem for him—he will be a very famous man one day.

Mr. Palmer

Perhaps I shall.

Mr. Sparks

I feel that no substantial case has been made for the new Clause. There may or may not be something in the argument on medical grounds, but we cannot reach a judgment by considering only one small aspect of the problem. The problem is a major one of traffic organisation and operation, not only in the greatest city in the world but throughout the country. I am surprised that my hon. Friend should wish to go back to the days of the tram; I thought that trams had been dead a long time.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Palmer

In Europe generally, where they have very much experience of these traffic problems, the use of trams is extending, and one would not suggest that the transport systems in many large European cities are inefficient because of the increasing use of trams.

Mr. Sparks

Well, in small villages and rural areas it does not matter very much, but it is a different problem in congested areas like the Metropolis. Imagine running trams down Oxford Street or Regent Street, or any of the main arteries—or even trolley buses.

The policy of the London Transport Executive is to extend the use of diesel vehicles and largely to supplant the trolley-bus services where they have proved to be inadequate. Trolley-buses may serve a useful purpose here and there, for instance in the little village of Wimbledon, but where it has been demonstrated that this method of operation creates traffic delays and problems and increases the dangerous conditions on the roads, there is a sound case for replacing them by diesel vehicles. We should be committing ourselves to a wrong and rash policy if we attempted to suppress this new development, which is giving us speedier transport and greater mobility in operation, particularly in the Metropolis and other large centres of population.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)

I want to oppose the new Clause on two grounds which have not so far been fully detailed. The Clause would have the effect of forcing London Transport entirely to replace its omnibuses by 1st January, 1965. It would also mean that all the many coaches which come into the London area and a very large number of lorries would have to be replaced before that date. We should need a very good reason before we took a revolutionary step of that sort.

My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) gave as his reason the volume of fumes and black smoke, as he described it, coming from diesel vehicles. and, perhaps without realising it, he gave the explanation why that is happening; he said the worst offenders were lorries being driven uphill. Did he appreciate that buses being driven uphill do not emit black smoke, and that there is a great difference between the manner in which diesel lorries and diesel buses are operated, which I think possibly arises from the economics of the situation?

A bus owner is particularly anxious that his fuel consumption should be economic, and he therefore pays attention to maintenance and to the manner in which the fuel is used. A lorry owner, however, and a lorry driver in particular, gives much less thought to that matter; his great anxiety is to get the greatest amount of power. particularly going uphill.

I am afraid it is a fact that quite a number of drivers tamper with the fuel setting of their diesel lorries, so that an excessive amount of fuel is used, in order to enable the driver to get a little more power. Possibly the owner does not take much notice of that either; so long as the vehicle gets to its destination quickly that is all he worries about, because any extra charges can be passed on elsewhere, which is not the case with a bus. If properly maintained and worked, the diesel vehicle gives off less fumes than a petrol lorry.

I will try to deal with the question of the effect on health as shortly as possible, because we have heard the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's views on the matter. Far from there being no evidence at all of the effect of diesel fumes on lung cancer, such evidence as exists suggests strongly the opinion that diesel fumes have nothing whatever to do with lung cancer.

Mr. E. Partridge (Battersea, South)

Oh.

Mr. Wilson

The greatest authority on this matter is probably Dr. Richard Doll, of the Statistical Research Unit of the Medical Research Council. On 12th December last that authority wrote a letter which has been widely mentioned in the technical Press. It was referred to in Motor Transport on 30th December and in Modern Transport on 3Ist December. I have a copy of the letter here. It has been referred to in the House, but as there seems to be some doubt about this matter I think it right that I should make a quotation from it.

The letter is from Dr. Doll to one of the transport organisations connected with buses, and states:

Some seven years ago Professor Bradford Hill and I began a study of the causes of lung cancer. It had become apparent that the disease was rapidly increasing in incidence and this suggested that one or more of the causes might be found in those conditions of the environment which had become more prevalent in the last 50 years. When we began the investigation we listed those conditions which, on these grounds, seemed potentially capable of being associated with the disease and tried to find if there was any evidence that people who were specially exposed to them were more susceptible to lung cancer. The results of our investigations and of many similar ones in other countries have been to demonstrate that there is a close relationship between the number of cigarettes smoked a day and the liability to lung cancer, and to confirm, what was known previously from the work of Stocks and others, that people who lived in urban areas were also more susceptible to the disease (though the relationship to urban dwelling did not appear to be as close as the relationship to cigarette smoking). We failed to demonstrate that the relationship to urban dwelling was due to any specific major occupations although it is, of course, well known that a few occupations, which do not altogether employ more than a small proportion of the total population, carry with them a special risk of the disease. In particular, we did not find any greater proportion of the patients with lung cancer than of patients with other diseases who had been employed in such occupations as the driving of cars, lorries or buses, or who had worked on the roads or in garages. This would suggest that such occupations carry no specific risk of lung cancer. Our observation agrees with observations made by other workers, as for example, Wynder and Graham in the United States, who have also failed to find an excessively high proportion of men with the occupations specified above amongst lung cancer patients. In the absence of any direct evidence to suggest that persons specifically exposed to diesel or other motor fumes, by reason of their occupation, suffer any undue liability to the disease, it would not seem reasonable to attribute the excess mortality from lung cancer which is recorded in towns to pollution of the air with exhaust vapours. On more general grounds"—

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Wilson

This is an important matter. The letter continues— On more general grounds"—

Mr. Partridge

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wilson

Not until I have finished the sentence. It continues: one can be fairly confident that the recent great increase in mortality from lung cancer has not been due to diesel fumes, since the increase in lung cancer has been almost contemporan- eous with the increase in the use of diesel engines—if, indeed, the increase in mortality did not precede it. From what is known of industrial cancers in man, one would not expect to find cancer induced by diesel fumes occurring until 10, 20 or more years after exposure to the fumes. That is a pretty definite opinion.

Mr. Partridge

But surely my hon. Friend, as a lawyer, knows that he can get an expert to swear to anything? If he really wants some evidence, he sees it standing in front of him now.

Mr. Wilson

I do not know to what the hon. Member is referring. The evidence which I was reading was a letter from Dr. Richard Doll of the Statistical Research Unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. He is known as one of the great authorities on this disease. I was suggesting, on a point about which there has been some doubt before, that there is a medical opinion suggesting that diesel fumes have nothing to do with causing lung cancer, whatever the cause may be. For those reasons I think it would be a most retrograde step were a Clause of this sort added to the Bill.

Mr. R. Bell

I have in my hand another opinion by Dr. Doll with a slightly different effect—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] Unlike my hon. Friend I will not read it.

After the completely unsatisfactory reply of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and out of a quite undeserved pity for London Transport, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(USE OF VEHICLES ON FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS.)

The following additional subsections shall be inserted at the end of section-fourteen of the Act of 1930 (Prohibition of driving motor vehicles elsewhere than on roads):— (3) The expression 'lawful authority' in subsection (1) of this section shall mean, in relation to the use of vehicles on any road being a footway or bridleway, otherwise than in the normal course of husbandry or for the purposes of lawful access to or egress from any building, the consent in writing of the owner or occupier of the land over which the footway or bridleway passes: Provided that such consent shall not be given except with the prior approval in writing of the highway authority. (4) The foregoing subsection shall not have effect unless it has been adopted by the highway authority (when such authority is not the Minister) by a resolution passed at a meeting of the authority".—[Mr. Ede.] Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

This is an alternative to the proposed new Clause dealing with the same subject which appeared on page 3427 of the Order Paper, and it has been redrafted in an effort to meet what I understand were difficulties which the Ministry might have found in accepting the other Clause. I hope that in its redrafted form the Minister will find that these difficulties have disappeared. The Clause proposes to give a definition, in certain circumstances, to what is meant by the phrase "lawful authority" in Section 14 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, I930, which reads as follows: If without lawful authority any person drives a motor vehicle on to or upon any common land, moor land or other land of whatsoever description…or on any road being a bridleway or footway, he shall be guilty of an offence… This new Clause is designed to deal with the problem of what is known as a motor cycle scramble, a form of enjoyment indulged in by certain people in this country, and from which I do not dissent where it is carried on under conditions which have regard to the reasonable comfort of other people who may be using the track, or wish to use the track, where the scramble is taking place. This pastime involves the climbing of tracks up steep hills and provides a form of excitement to a number of young people who are motor cyclists and who indulge in this pastime during weekends. They may be found on the escarpment of the North Devons, driving up from the Reigate to Guildford Road, on Ranmore Common and similar places and along footpaths which are not normally traversed by vehicles. These paths could not be used even by pedal cyclists because it would be too dangerous to go down them and impossible to ride a pedal cycle up them. I understand that scrambles also occur in the neighbourhood of The Peak and in various parts of Lancashire, Yorkshire and Derbyshire.

7.45 p.m.

It is not desired to prohibit this form of pastime but to ensure that the sport shall be conducted in such a way that ordinary people are given sufficient protection from some of its worst and most incommoding features. It is proposed that "lawful authority" shall mean. in relation to the use of vehicles on any road being a footway or bridleway, otherwise than in the normal course of husbandry or for the purposes of lawful access to or egress from any building, the consent in writing of the owner or occupier of the land over which the footway or bridleway passes: Provided that such consent shall not be given except with the prior approval in writing of the highway authority. That is the essential part of the proposal. Virtually, it means that in most rural areas the county council would have to be consulted before these scrambles take place.

It was represented to the County Councils' Association that one objection was that not all the county councils desired the power. But, if a county council does not want the power, that is no reason why the Clause should not be accepted, because other county councils, including Surrey and Derbyshire—those I can speak for positively—do desire it. Therefore subsection (4) was added to the Clause, which means that this will be an adoptive provision. If a county council does not want it, that authority will not adopt subsection (3). If it does want it, the authority will avail itself of the provisions of subsection (4) and pass the necessary resolution.

I wish to make plain that this Clause is not aimed at this particular form of exciting Sunday diversion practised by a large number of young people in different parts of the country. It is not a form of excitement that has ever appealed much to me, because occasionally I have met people taking part in a motor cycle scramble when I have been leading a rambling party down one of the paths which they have selected. It is a most terrifying experience. The noise, hustle and bustle associated with this pastime is such that it should not take place on public highways, because after all a footpath or a bridleway is a public highway over which the Queen's lieges have the right to traverse in reasonable comfort and security.

This new Clause has the support of the County Councils' Association, of which I am president, of the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, of which I am president, and of the Ramblers' Association, Southern Area, also of which I am president. Generally speaking, I find these diverse presidencies occasionally involve me in highly judicial considerations before I decide which one of the three I shall support in a given cause, which they all have at heart, but which they wish to serve in totally different ways. On this occasion, however, there is complete unanimity that there is a need for such a provision as is proposed in the new Clause.

If the wording is not quite as the Minister would like it, I can only say that I never believe that an official draftsman will accept the effort of a non-official draftsman. I venture to suggest that the case is entirely reasonable and, indeed, overwhelming. If the Minister does not like this wording, and if he or the official draftsman can think of any other wording which will have the effect we desire, I can assure him that we are not wedded to any particular form of words.

I do ask him to have regard to the normal users of these tracks, and to give them some assistance in dealing with the problems produced by the extraordinary uses to which they are put. I want to assure him that this new Clause is not aimed at the suppression of motor cycle scrambles. I want him to feel that this is not aimed at their suppression but at bringing them under a control, which will enable all persons who desire to use footpaths on Sunday afternoons to be able to use them in reasonable comfort and security.

Mr. Charles Doughty (Surrey, East)

I rise to support the proposed new Clause, moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). When he began his speech I wondered at what point he would declare his own interest, whether he would say that as the winner of a number of these trophies or races he hoped to win some more cups and required this new Clause to assist him in doing so; but it was in a different capacity that he told the House of his interest in weekend occupations.

I am sure that nobody in this House wants this or any other form of reasonable sport to be in any way curtailed or restricted, but owing to modern mechanical devices and inventions motor cycles are much more powerful and much more capable of traversing the hills, slopes and paths of the country than they were, certainly when I was young enough to ride a motor cycle, whether I rode one or not. We live on a very small island, and we must see that a limited amount of land is used for everybody's amusement and recreation, and is used in a reasonable way.

I am sure that if we accept this new Clause, in its present or some amended form, we shall—if I may use what is perhaps an unfortunate expression when discussing motor cycles—kill two birds with one stone; we shall be putting some form of control on those who might be tempted to use over-dangerous types of route for their scrambles, and at the same time we shall be protecting the interests of those who, like the right hon. Gentleman, have a more sober and leisurely way of traversing the country.

I hope that the Minister will see his way to adopting the new Clause, at any rate, in some form.

Mr. F. H. Hayman (Falmouth and Camborne)

There is just one point which has not yet been made, either by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) or by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty). That is the danger to the grass along our paths and on our moors from motor vehicles and motor cycles destroying it. On the slopes which these vehicles so often use the heavy rains of winter wash away the paths themselves. One can see over many parts of the moors in many parts of the country the tracks of cars and motor cycles which are destroying the moor itself, and the vegetation.

Sir Frank Medlicott (Norfolk, Central)

I am glad to have an opportunity of saying a few words in support of this proposed new Clause, which has, if I may say so, been so ably brought before the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). It is a very happy occasion when anyone can disclose such a variety of important and useful interests as he has told us of tonight.

I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister has been doubtful about this proposal on two grounds, the first being, I think, the suggestion that this is only a relatively small problem, or a problem affecting only a small part of the country. I am given to understand that complaints in regard to this kind of scramble have been made by the counties of Cheshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Westmorland, Yorkshire, and Denbighshire—and we have heard this evening of the addition of Surrey—all counties, if I may say so, next to my own native county of Somerset, which can claim to be amongst the most beautiful in England. Their interests do need to be protected.

In the second place, I understand that the Minister has, perhaps, felt that the existing Section 14 of the 1930 Road Traffic Act does provide adequate powers in regard to this problem. It is, however, true to say that it is all too easy under the existing law for the promoters of these events to obtain some kind of authority, either from the owner or, perhaps, even from the occupier of the site of the footpath or bridle way, and, thus armed with some kind of lawful authority, they are able to hold these scrambles in almost any part of the country.

As has been said, there is no reason whatever to interfere unduly with the activities of these motor cycle clubs. Nevertheless, we do wish to restrict them, to some extent at least, in the place where they are to carry on those activities. We live in an age which is dominated by noise and petrol; one of the great tragedies nowadays is that no longer, in any part of the country, is it possible to be away even from the noise of aircraft. We want to feel that there are some places where people can get away from the roads, from noise, and from the fumes of petrol, and enjoy the peace and quiet of the countryside. That is the object of the new Clause.

Mr. Watkinson

I do not know whether a third Surrey Member ought to speak on this matter. I want to be quite fair, As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) has just said, it was my view that this new Clause should not be accepted. It has, however, been our practice all through the consideration of this Bill, at least so long as I have been in charge of it—and it is a practice which I have much appreciated—to try to bring a reasonably open mind to bear upon it. I must say that I am impressed by the points made by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and by my hon and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) and the Member for Norfolk, Central. I like walking on these bridle tracks as much as any of them.

On the other hand, what has rather changed my view is the right hon. Gentleman's point, which he reiterated, that he is not trying to limit or stop the sport of motor cycle scrambling, which, I think, is a quite legitimate sport. To some of us, it may appear to be noisy and otherwise unpleasant; but it is a legitimate sport, and those who wish to pursue it have as much right to do so as others have to take part in other legitimate activities.

Therefore, what I think is the right way of dealing with this new Clause—I do not want to detain the House for long, because we still have a great deal to do—is for me to give an undertaking to try to find a way of dealing with this matter in another place. I want to make three points. It must not appear to limit severely the sport itself. That, I think, would be wrong, as I think the right hon. Gentleman accepts. It must enable a county council which does not want to do this to opt out of it. Thirdly, it must be quite clear that the approval in writing of the highway authority must not be unreasonably withheld.

If the right hon. Gentleman would accept that assurance, I think we can meet those three points. I will then undertake to introduce an appropriate Amendment in another place.

Mr. Ede

I should like to thank the Minister for the sympathetic way in which he has met the case which has been put forward. In view of the assurance that he has given us, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.