Lords Sitting of 28 January 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Hesketh—Took the Oath.

GREAT OUSE RIVER BOARD (REVIVAL OF POWERS ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
NEWBURY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
RUNCORN-WIDNES BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WARKWORTH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.

PERSIAN OIL DEALINGS
2.37 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask whether Her Majesty's Government have intimated, or will intimate, to the Italian Government that Anglo-Italian relations are likely to be damaged by the attempts of Italian speculators to make money out of the gross injustice suffered by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, the Italian Government, among others, have been informed of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to transactions in oil from Persia. I can assure the noble Lord
24
that the attention of the Italian Government has again been drawn to our views on this matter in connection with a recent attempt to deal in Persian oil. The Italian Government have throughout fully appreciated the position.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I am very glad to hear the good account of the attitude of the Italian Government given by the noble Marquess. I presume that they are well aware also of the provisions of the Battle Act.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I think that that is a presumption which can be safely made.

PROPOSED BOND STREET HOTEL
2.39 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask whether Her Majesty's Government are aware of a proposal to erect a large hotel at the corner of Conduit Street and Bond Street; whether this proposal has been considered by the London Traffic Advisory Committee; whether it is realised that this road intersection is one of principal focal points of London traffic in the central area and that a hold-up here can obstruct the traffic of the main arteries in Piccadilly, Regent Street and Oxford Street and the whole central area, and, if so, can further consideration be given to the proposal before final approval is given.]
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are well aware of this proposal. It has not been referred to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, but I know that the London County Council, who are the planning and improvement authority, are anxious that when this site is being redeveloped the traffic flow at the intersection referred to shall be improved—for example, by widening the carriageway and perhaps by placing the present footway in Bond Street inside an arcade under the building. The noble Earl can be assured that the important point to which he has drawn attention will not be lost sight of.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that a really bad hold-up here will "chew up" the traffic in the central area of London to an incredible degree? Can the noble Earl assure us that this matter will be referred to the London Traffic Advisory Committee? After all, what is that Committee for, unless it is allowed to offer its observations on just such a proposal as this? Furthermore, is it not important to see that provision is made by those behind the proposition to provide for the parking of motor vehicles within the site—that is to say, on the underground floor of any building erected there'? It seems to me that this matter is of some urgency, and f hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us an assurance that the Traffic Advisory Committee will be enabled to express an opinion on the proposal.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, this matter has come to my attention somewhat late and I am unable to emulate the picturesque phraseology of the noble Earl; but I can assure him that I have listened very carefully to what he has just said and will go into it. And I will, if I may, report to him personally on this subject.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, is there not another consideration which has been lost sight of, and that is, that Bond Street is almost unique in its special characteristics and that it is not a place to put a great hotel?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, I am strongly opposed to building great hotels in beautiful streets, but that is apparently the position with which we are confronted. I do not think, however, that I can go any further at the present moment.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, when the noble Earl is communicating with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, can the answer be published in such a way that the rest of the House may be able to see it?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I shall be very pleased to see that that is done.

SUDANESE SELF-DETERMINATION
2.42 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask whether Her Majesty's Government have noted General Neguib's assertion on January 23 that the Sudan is the Southern part of Egypt, and whether this is considered the proper spirit in which to negotiate the conditions of Sudanese self-determination.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the information we have received from Egypt does not bear out the noble Lord's statement that General Neguib made so categorical an assertion. According to our information, what he did say, in the course of his account of past relations between Egypt and the Sudan, was that the first attempt of the British imperialists
"against our unity was to set Egyptians against the Sudanese. They organised a campaign of the peoples of the North and directed it against the peoples of the South."
Such a statement as that set out in the noble Lord's Question would certainly be contrary to the spirit in which we are negotiating the conditions of Sudanese self-determination, which is founded upon the assumption that both Governments believe in the right of the Sudanese to self-determination and the effective use of it.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, the words that I used were a verbatim quotation from the B.B.C. and from some of the leading organs of our Press here. May I presume that the attention of the noble Marquess has been drawn to the publication in The Times of Monday and Tuesday and in the Daily Telegraph of to-day of expressions of the reliance on us of the Southern tribes?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, we are perfectly aware of the attitude of the southern portion of the Sudan. We are anxious to see elections held in the Sudan at the earliest possible moment, but with proper safeguards for the interests of the South.
LORD VANSITTART: I presume that at this stage the noble Marquess would prefer to express no opinion on the antics, of the "dancing major."
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I think it would be preferable, in the interests of all concerned in those proceedings, if no comment were made.

MOTOR-CYCLISTS' CRASH HELMETS
2.44 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT rose to call attention to the high percentage of head injuries causing death of motor-cyclists, and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would consider making it compulsory that all motor-cyclists and pillion riders should wear crash helmets, as recommended in the Report to the Minister of Transport on motor-cycle accidents by the Committee on Road Safety. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise for having had, through illness, to postpone this Motion, which has been on the Order Paper for some considerable time. I have spoken before in your Lordships' House on the subject of road safety and I see that as long ago as July, 1950, the House had before it a Motion introduced by my noble friend Lord Llewellin. At that time there were (and I believe there are now, to the regret of us all) about 200,000 casualties on the roads each year—roughly speaking, 5,000 deaths and 30,000 or more seriously injured. This is an appalling tragedy that has been going on far too long, and although in your Lordships' House we have had very good debates on this subject, so far as I know little has been done to combat this position.
We now have zebra crossings. I do not know whether they have done any good. It is presumed that they have, but there still needs to be much education of the pedestrian and the motorist as to how to proceed over and towards the zebra crossing. Some time ago, we had an admirable debate, introduced, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. On that occasion, expression was given to the fact that there had been a reduction in the number of road casualties. It was not very much when you consider the figure of 200,000; the reduction was a mere fleabite, having regard to the general position. I think we have come now to a time when we have to get down to the problem and do something to stop the accidents that are continually taking place. Therefore, I am going to make certain
28
suggestions, which I hope will meet with the approval of your Lordships.
Your Lordships will be aware that in the accidents involving motor cars, only 25 per cent. of the accidents cause injury, whereas with accidents involving motor-bicycles in well over 50 per cent. of cases there is bound to be injury. I understand from the honourable Member in another place who made such an admirable broadcast the other night, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Braithwaite, that there are fifty-six times more chances of being killed on a motor-bicycle than in a car. Of course, a very high percentage of these accidents occur at night. No doubt, like myself, all your Lordships who drive at night pull up almost dead sometimes, owing to the frightful dazzle there is. It is quite impossible to see whether a motor-cycle or a pedestrian is in front of one. We know that in France they have a law about using a yellow light. Friends of mine and no doubt friends of your Lordships, who have been over there say that the diminution in visability ahead as a result of using the yellow light is very little compared with using the white light. Undoubtedly, it seems to be satisfactory. If your Lordships are contemplating taking your car abroad, the Automobile Association will say to you, "Although it is not compulsory in France for the tourist, it is compulsory for the resident to have these yellow headlights and we think it advisable that the tourist should do the same." It requires only a very simple operation to the headlights to make them conform to the law of France on this matter. The other day I asked somebody, "Have you ever seen anybody driving on the roads of France with a white light?" He replied, "I am bound to say that I never have. Everybody seems to have painted his headlights yellow." You get that yellow light—I think they call it the "amber light"—which is very much better, and reduces the dazzle a good deal.
Then again I think a good deal can be done with regard to dipping. I see a good deal of what I may call bad dipping, or not dipping at all, and now there is something which is simply terrifying to me—a sort of double dip with both lamps, which seems to me to reduce the dazzle very little indeed and which causes me to pull up very quickly. Moreover,

29
I do not see any advantage in that system, I understand from the Automobile Association that there are now being manufactured here on a big scale yellow bulbs which fit into our lamps and which will shortly be available to everybody. We must remember that a motor-cyclist has not the vision of anyone driving a car. He is much lower and nearer to the ground. Therefore, his vision in seeing what is coming towards him is very much less than that of the driver of a car.
Now I should like to turn for a moment to this question of purchase tax. I know that the other day in another place the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he could not deal with that question at all, and that purchase tax must remain. I feel very strongly that in trying to save life we should do all we can to reduce taxation in the form of purchase tax on these particular items. There is no question but that the use of crash helmets is growing and in the future will grow even more. Only yesterday I asked Scotland Yard whether they had to pay purchase tax on policemen's crash helmets. They told me they had, but that now they have given a very big order for the manufacture of crash helmets to supply all policemen riding motor-cycles. The official to whom I spoke understood that that policy would be put into operation all over the country.
I am wondering whether the Government would consider this point. Nobody likes compulsion. Some motor-cyclists say, "If I have to buy a crash helmet I shall have to pay purchase tax." From what I know of the motor-cycle clubs in my locality, I ant certain that there would be co-operation if there were compulsion. The curious thing is that there are a good many motor-cyclists now who, fearing ridicule, do not get a crash helmet, but if it were made compulsory I believe that a high percentage of them would be delighted and they would all wear them. It is quite understandable that a young, enthusiastic boy or girl hates being jeered at—"Look at you! You are putting on something which is perfectly ridiculous to look at." And so they say, "We are not going to do it." One can understand their taking that attitude. But make the use of these articles compulsory, and I am certain that it would relieve the minds of a great many, particularly those who have had accidents.
Now about the appearance of the crash helmet. I have here a picture that appeared in the Daily Sketch, of a rather nice looking girl wearing a crash helmet. It looks quite attractive. I see no reason why she should not have it in any colour she wishes, perhaps with the club badge painted on it. I see no reason why crash helmets should not be made attractive, no matter what the shape. The other day a member of your Lordships' House told me that in his official capacity in the Canal Zone he found that he could get about better on a motor-bicycle, and so he learned to ride one. He was given a splendid crash helmet of a beautiful colour, with the badge of his unit on it. He said that he saw no reason why that sort of thing should not be done here. I believe that in some places on the Continent crash helmets are compulsory. I am told that insurance companies will not pay if the victim of an accident was not wearing a crash helmet.
Look at the figures of accidents: is it not a dire necessity that we should do something about them? Only in the last few days I have had letters from coroners, one in Devon and another in Wiltshire. Both of them said that a high percentage of accidents involve head injuries. In one letter I have here the coroner says that since June of last year he has held inquests on six motor-cyclists who have been killed on the roads, that in every case death was the result of head injuries, and in no case was the cyclist wearing any protection for the head. The men who have to deal with this situation always give the same opinion—namely, that in a great many of these accidents involving injuries to the head, death would not ensue if a crash helmet were worn. Why is it that despatch riders in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, now the whole of the police motor-cyclists, and motor-cyclists in the Post Office, all wear crash helmets? There must be some very good reason for it. I believe the reason is that those in authority want to save the lives of the people who have to do that sort of work. There is complete evidence that the most vulnerable part of one's body is the head. Suppose you are riding a motor-cycle and you have a lady sitting on the pillion and there is an accident, what chance have you got to get clear? If you are shot forward the handlebars hit you and tip you on your head in

31
the road, and the wretched girl probably gets tangled up in the wheels or something of that sort, and the first part of her to hit the tarmac is her head. This is a matter that the Government should take into serious consideration and do something about. Do not let us waste any more time. We have been tinkering with this question for too long. Let us get down to it and do something. His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh made some very wise remarks at the Motor-Cycle Show the other day, and I feel that his support is something of great value to this movement.
Now let us turn away from the official side of life to the sports side of life. National Hunt jockeys, when they ride in steeplechases, are compelled to wear a protection in the shape of a helmet. Many of your Lordships who have been foxhunting know that you can be saved by a good hard hat upon which you can jump—I know I have on many occasions. In polo you wear a crash helmet or something of that nature, and of course all the dirt track riders see to it that they wear one. The sad thing to me is that the fireman's helmet and the policeman's ordinary helmet is subject to purchase tax. I am going to ask my noble friend whether, in view of the fact that£300 million-odd is collected from the users of the road, and only£80 million-odd is spent on the roads, he can tell me how much it would mean to the Exchequer if the purchase tax were removed from, first of all, crash helmets for motor-cyclists. I shall be most grateful if my noble friend can give me some information in regard to that matter, because I feel that the sum would not be one of paramount importance.
Then I come to what I think is perhaps the worst aspect of this question. Whom are we losing? We are losing the young men and the young women of our country who have courage and who have dash. These are the young people who have everything we want for the future, and we should do everything we can to help them and to encourage them to protect themselves. If war came again, they are the type we should want. It is people of their type who made the Battle of Britain such a wonderful victory. It is these young people, these boys and girls, who rush about our roads—to the annoyance, it may be of a great many people—
32
who have the dash and the spirit, and who uphold the great traditions of bravery in our race. There is another point. Head injuries resulting from these accidents, if they are of any degree of seriousness, seldom leave the victims without some results which may affect them for the whole of their lives.
That is nearly all that I have to say, but I should like, before I close, to recall what the Minister of Transport himself said in this connection. He said:
"If you are a motor-cyclist you are flirting with death if you do not wear protective headgear. Remember that you are fifty-six times more likely to be killed than the car driver."
Those are the words of my right honourable friend Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd. I hope that if, unfortunately, he has made up his mind that we cannot have compulsion, and cannot have the abolition of purchase tax on these helmets, with these considerations before him he will make a further effort to do some of the things which I have suggested. In conclusion, I should like to thank most sincerely all those who have helped in the ventilation of ideas on this subject, particularly the Press, and also the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, of which my noble friend Lord Llewellin is President. I wish also to express my gratitude to my friend in another place for that admirable broadcast which he made the other night. As your Lordships know, I am not moving for Papers, and that is about all that I have to say at the moment. I hope that my noble friend, in his reply on behalf of the Government, will see his way to give us some ground for optimism; and for feeling that something will be done, and done soon.
3.5 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before I address myself to the subject of the noble Lord's remarks I should like to offer to the noble Lord the Secretary of State, Lord Leathers, and the Ministry of Transport, my congratulations upon this admirable document which has now been prepared, the Report on Road Accidents in 1951. It is the most exhaustive, factual statistical review that we have had of this great problem of road accidents. It tells us a lot. It removes from us the last vestige of an excuse that we do not know what are the causes of these accidents, and it

33
automatically removes from the Ministry of Transport the last conceivable alibi for any inaction. It also underlines the truth of what a good many of us have been saying for years; and it removes, I hope, once and for all, a great many preconceived prejudices.
I remember that I myself, in your Lordships' House not long ago, made a speech on a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on road accidents; and in the course of that speech I said that the greatest menace on the roads to-day was the pedestrian. I could almost feel the raising of the eyebrows that followed the making of that statement. But it is a fact—an ugly fact, but a fact none the less—which finds statistical proof in this Report. As The Times said when this Report came out,
"Pedestrians were the most vulnerable of all road users, amounting to 27.6 per cent. of the total casualties."
The paper went on to say some very pertinent things, in its Leader, and I quote the following:
"In spite of all the splendid efforts of road safety committees the stark fact remains that heedlessness of traffic by pedestrians accounted for 44,983 of the 183,151 contributory human factors in accidents mentioned in the report."
The same paper also says something which bears out the whole contention of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that compulsion is a cure. I take great heart from the preliminary figures showing the results for 1952. I think the Ministry of Transport, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and everyone connected with road safety during 1952 should be most sincerely congratulated.
With regard to what the noble Lord has said as to control of the pedestrian, a significant point which I would emphasise is the good results which have followed the introduction of zebra crossings and safety rails. This has undoubtedly been an important factor in the diminution of the number of accidents to pedestrians. It is not, of course, direct compulsion; it is indirect compulsion. On one question I cannot quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot: I do not look upon this diminution in the figures as a "fleabite." Perhaps the fleas down here bite harder than do the fleas in Scotland, but I think that it is a sizable reduction and I hope that it will continue.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has shown, the most vulnerable vehicle on
34
our roads to-day—and this again is a fact which is proved by the Report—is the motor-cycle. The Report says that:
"If we include all accidents resulting in material damage as well as those in which people are hurt or killed, the accident rate of motor-cycles in terms of the number of accidents per mile travelled may be about the same as that of other vehicles, but riders and passengers of motor-cycles are very vulnerable and work done by the Road Research Laboratory suggests that the riders of combination motor-cycles are twice, and solo motor-cyclists four times, as likely to be injured as the occupants of private cars."
That is something we have got to face. Before I left the Ministry of Transport, when I was Chairman of the Road Safety Committee, so appalled was I at the increase in the rate of motor-cycle accidents that I set up a special subcommittee to inquire into the whole subject. I insisted then that the motor-cycle manufacturers should be brought into that committee, because I hold that the manufacturers of a vehicle, whether it be a motor-cycle or any other road vehicle, are responsible to the public for the safety factors in that vehicle, and have a responsibility equal to that of anybody else. I was not satisfied that the motor-cycle manufacturers were playing their part and I thought that this would be the means of encouraging them.
We have received a Report from that Committee which, frankly, in my view is the flabbiest document I have ever read—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, will not mind my saying so. It is a charter making the commercial interests of the motor-cycle manufacturers sacrosanct. The section of recommendations is full of phrases like these: "Driving mirrors on motor-cycles should not be made compulsory;" "direction indicators on motor-cycles should not be made compulsory;" "the value of leg guards should be investigated;" "the use of goggles and side-shields should be encouraged;" "special restrictions on the speed of motor-cycles should not be imposed." The Report says what should not be done, but it does not say very much about what should be done.
Motor-cycling accidents take the cream of our youth, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has pointed out. Of the deaths due to motor-cycling accidents, 25 per cent. are of youths between the ages of twenty-one arid twenty-five. But it is the very virtues of youth—the ignoring

35
of danger, and the dash, which are such great assets to this country—that will make young motor-cyclists scorn the use of crash helmets unless their use is made compulsory. We shall not get a boy riding a high-powered motor-cycle to pay any regard to the danger; and if he did, he would not be a Britisher—not at that age, at any rate. So I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in his plea for compulsion. I have had reports that in one county 100 per cent. of the deaths of motor-cyclists in road accidents involved head injuries. I was appalled when I read the other day about the tragic accident in the fog on the Croydon by-pass, when six motor-cyclists ran into the back of vehicles and each other, and three died. The pathologist said—I quote now from the report in The Times—"All the deaths were due to fractured skulls."
As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has pointed out, the police now have approved a design, and the Army, the Post Office and other organisations make the use of crash helmets compulsory. But I believe the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, will be confronted with considerable difficulty in making this compulsory for every motor-cyclist. I can anticipate what the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, will say in reply. He is in a difficult position, as he has a past in this matter—he was a member of the Alness Committee some years ago. I am going to make a suggestion to the noble Earl which may go some way to meet the difficulty. I think that if he makes a search amongst the multitude of regulations which have been made by the Ministry of Transport over the past years, he will find some regulation which will enable the Minister to include in the "Construction and Use" regulations the supplying of a crash helmet with every new motor-cycle. I do not include assisted pedal-cycles but only what we recognise as the ordinary motor-cycle. It would be only poetic justice to make the manufacturers provide a crash helmet with every new vehicle and, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, suggests, if those helmets are also made picturesque and appealing to the feminine eye, they may become popular. I should like to see the use of helmets made compulsory, because I do not think we are going to
36
make much progress until they are. And we cannot go on with this appalling waste of the youth of this country.
I was struck by the figure given in the Report on road accidents in 1951 about the number of motor-cycle accidents due to dogs running lose in built-up areas. The Report says that dogs in the road contributed to 2,696 accidents, of which 1,500 involved motor-cyclists.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: How many was that out of the total?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH:Of the accidents caused by dogs, 57 per cent. involved motor-cyclists. The figure for 1949 was 46 per cent. That is perfectly understandable. If a dog runs into a four-wheeled vehicle, it is the dog which comes off worse; but if a dog runs into a motor-cycle it is always the cyclist who comes off worse—and very often suffers a cracked skull. Surely it should not be beyond us to enforce a regulation which would make it an offence to allow a dog to stray in a built-up area, and making it compulsory that, when let out, all dogs should be kept on a lead. I am as great a dog lover as anybody else, but I think it is criminal to keep dogs at all in built-up areas. The place for a dog is in the wilds and the open countryside, and there is no consideration shown for dogs in letting them run about the streets, befouling them, which is another thing I think is a disgrace in this country. This figure of 57 per cent. of motor-cycle accidents in which dogs running loose are a contributory factor gives a graphic illustration of this danger. Surely we are not interfering with the liberty of the subject too much of we say that dogs should be kept on a lead. I support the noble Lord, Lord Teviot: I hope that the Minister will take this matter seriously, and that, if he cannot do anything else at the present time, he will at least do this.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he proposes not only that dogs should be banished to the wilds but that pedestrians should be banished to the wilds, too?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not suggest that for a moment. I suggest all reasonable precautions to prevent pedestrians from acting in as silly a fashion as, and sometimes in even a sillier fashion than, many dogs.
3.20 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for putting this Question upon the Order Paper to-day, and especially those who, like myself, take some interest in trying to secure greater safety upon our roads. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has long been in favour of the encouragement of what, for the moment, for the want of a better term, are called crash helmets, being worn by motor-cyclists: that, indeed, has been part of the propaganda of the Society, and particularly at our Rospa House training centre. Although we are indebted to the noble Lord, it would perhaps be wise to point out that the terms of his Question are not quite accurate. He asks Her Majesty's Government
"whether they would consider making it compulsory that all motor-cyclists and pillion riders should wear crash helmets, as recommended in the Report to the Minister of Transport on motor-cycle accidents by the Committee on Road Safety."
That is not what the Committee on Road Safety reported. What they say in paragraph 19 of their Report is:
"We are convinced that the wearing of crash helmets by motor-cyclists would save many riders from serious head injuries. Until a suitable crash helmet has been designed and can be produced at a reasonable cost no useful purpose would he served by examining the question of whether the wearing of a crash helmet by civilian motor-cyclists should be made compulsory. we, ourselves, doubt whether compulsion would be desirable."
I feel sure the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will agree that the Report does not go so far as recommending their compulsory use—indeed, it rather tends the other way.
LORD TEVIOT: The noble Lord has corrected me, quite properly, but I imagine that if they did not feel the question was one of great importance, and that they would like to see this done, they would not have mentioned it at all. But perhaps I am wrong in taking that view of what they said.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think the words speak for themselves, and I have read them out. There may be a difference of opinion as to whether the best results are secured by compulsion, or by such measures of encouragement and example as can be given on all sides. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is
38
advocating that not only motor-cyclists, hut pillion riders, also, should always go out wearing crash helmets. When the noble Lord embarked on that rather hazardous adventure I looked round to see whether he had equipped himself with a crash helmet to come down to your Lordships' House this afternoon. We are all anxious to prevent as many of these head injuries as possible. I quite appreciate that a large number of these young men have great dash and daring. I do not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, when he says that they have all the qualities that we want, because I regret to say that many of them have not that sense of judgment in driving their motor-cycles that one would like to see, and that a large number of the crashes are caused by too much dash and daring, not modified with the necessary judgment and restraint. But none of us wants la see these people suffer from head injuries. I should like to pay my compliment to the Parliamentary Secretary on his broadcast, to which I listened with interest and to which I hope a number of your Lordships also listened. I hope, too, that a large number of motor-cyclists listened to that broadcast, because it was a direct encouragement to them to cast off all prejudices and to wear this additional safety device.
A great deal can be done by example. We have despatch riders in the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force, and the Police, all setting an example by wearing these helmets, and we may well get the ordinary civilians to follow their example. I have in mind another line of country in which the Royal Society have also taken an active part—namely, to try and get people who work in factories, where heavy weights are apt to be dropped about and heavy tools fall on people's toes, to wear steel-toed boots orshoes for their work. In cases where they are worn they have saved a great many serious accidents to feet. That has never been done by compulsion, but by persuasion and a little propaganda showing what has happened to a man's foot or his boots where that precaution has not been taken. Something on those lines would be more in accord with the way we try to do things in this country, rather than by creating another criminal offence, as we should be doing if we accepted compulsion.

39
A great deal can be done by encouragement. The day after the Parliamentary Secretary made his broadcast, the Daily Express offered a motor-cycle worth£150 for the best name for the crash helmet. Two days later, on January 23, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents offered a prize of£100 to the motor-cycle club which sent in the best proposals for popularising the use of these helmets. I hope that, as a result, many motor-cycle clubs will be competing one with the other and making suggestions as to how best to persuade their members, and others, to adopt this additional safety device. I must say that I agree with Lord Teviot in saying that the Government could well follow that lead. They could—and it would not cost very much—take off purchase tax, which would show that they had sympathy with this sort of idea. That would be more effective than the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the motor-cycle manufacturer should have to send a crash helmet with every new motorcycle he delivered. That would not mean that the person who received it would wear it, nor would it mean that in the end he did not pay for it, because I have not the slightest doubt that it would have to be included in the final cost of the motorcycle, and although somebody might think that he was getting something for nothing, in fact the cost of the motor cycle would have gone up by£1 or 30s., or whatever it may be.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We are all in favour of removing purchase tax from anything, but even removing purchase tax does not guarantee that it will be bought or worn.
LORD LLEWELLIN: No. All I was saying was that that was a way in which the Government could follow the encouragement which has been given by the Daily Express and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. The Royal Society is in close touch with what goes on in other countries on road and other safety matters, and I do not know of any country where it is compulsory to wear this kind of helmet. I personally would not go so far as to make it a criminal offence if anybody did not wear such a helmet. I think that the more we can ventilate a matter like this in your Lordships' House, or in the House of
40
Commons or anywhere, the better the propaganda will be, and the more people will take this extremely sensible safety precaution when in future they ride high-powered motor-cycles. It is because I hope that this debate to-day will have that effect, that I congratulate Lord Teviot on having put the subject down. I only hope that that will be the result.

ARREST OF FORMER NAZIS
3.33 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I make a statement in regard to the arrests of former Nazis in the West German Republic? With the permission of the House, I would like to follow up my statement of January 20 about the recent arrests in the British Zone of Germany. I then informed the House that these arrests were made on the basis of information already available to the British authorities, which suggested that these former Nazis were plotting eventually to regain power in Western Germany and were propagating anti-Western views and policies. My right honourable friend said in another place on January 21 that the High Commissioner's first impression of the investigations still in progress was that their preliminary results tended to confirm that the activities of these men constituted a potential danger.
As I have already informed the House, it is bound to take some time to complete this investigation. The documents seized fill thirty large crates. All of these documents must be read and sorted and their significance determined. The arrested men will have to be questioned on the relevant documents, and such explanations as they may wish to give will have to be considered. The whole of this procedure will certainly take several weeks, although of course, instructions have been given that it should be carried out as expeditiously as possible.
Meanwhile my right honourable friend has now himself received and examined photostats of some of the documents. His reading of them has satisfied him that our action in detaining these men was fully justified. It would be wrong to go into any detail on matters which may later have to be proved in evidence. But it is only right that I should state the reasons why, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, the investigation of these

41
matters must continue. From the information previously available and from those documents which my right honourable friend has so far studied, it is clear that these men, some of whom were close to Hitler in 1945, regard it as their mission to form a mass movement based on Nazi ideology, with a view to capturing political power in Western Germany. Their leader has made it clear that it is his intention that the existing democratic parliamentary system should be brought to an end as soon as feasible. The group's activities are directed to this end. While content to work in secret for the present, their immediate purpose is to permeate all branches of society and to seek by degrees to transform certain of the existing Parties and organisations into National Socialist fighting groups (Kampfgruppen). With this purpose in view they have been planning to establish widespread contacts inside and outside Germany and have been seeking to place their agents secretly in positions of influence.
I would, however, emphasise once again that we are dealing with long-term plans and a potential danger, which can now, we believe, be nipped in the bud. We have never considered these activities to constitute an immediate threat to the German, democratic order. Nevertheless, I would remind the House that under Allied High Commission Law No. 14 it is a punishable offence to carry out
"acts or conduct in aid or support of any person, group or government hostile to the interests of the Allied forces, or intended to accomplish the reconstitution in any form whatsoever of any prohibited organisation."
In Allied High Commission Law No. 16 all National Socialist organisations and organisations of that kind are specifically designated as prohibited organisations. In the light of these facts no one, I hope, will question the necessity for a thorough and searching investigation.
Some questions have been asked about the attitude of the German authorities. I cannot do better than remind the House of the words of the German Federal Chancellor himself in the Bundestag on the 21st January. Dr. Adenauer referred to my right honourable friend's statement to the effect that the activities of this small group of unrepentant former Nazis were not an immediate danger to the demo-
42
cratic order in Germany. He went on to say:
"I think that this is an apt statement. I also agree with Mr. Eden that the development cannot be ignored. The affair itself must be discussed quite openly as soon as the investigation is completed. The population of the Federal Republic and everywhere abroad can rest assured that Germany will never return to National Socialism. Traces of National Socialist thought which may, as is inevitable, come to the surface here and there will be carefully watched. As soon as there is a basis for a legal case action will be taken against them and, what is more, with all severity."
It has also been asked why these men were detained by the British authorities and not by the Germans. I would point out to the House that the men are held under powers vested in the High Commissioner by the Occupation Statute enabling him to detain persons for inter-rogation without preferring any charge. The authorities of the German Federal Republic do not possess such powers and it would accordingly have been impossible for them to take this particular action under German law. But we fully realise that these are special powers and they must not be exercised to keep anyone in detention longer than is strictly required.
Until the present investigations have been completed I cannot say what action will be taken in regard to these men nor what precise charges may be brought against them in the event of their prosecution. That being so, the House will, I am sure, understand the need for restraint in discussion of this matter pending a decision on these points and pending the outcome of any subsequent judicial proceedings if they take place.
3.40 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition, I should like to say emphatically that we are clearly of opinion that Her Majesty's Government are entirely right in conducting a thorough and searching investigation—the words which, I think, the noble Marquess used—into this matter; and we welcome and thank the noble Marquess for the interim statement which he has made. We shall hope in due course to have a fuller statement, if such can he made without prejudicing any case which may be brought against any of these persons who hove been arrested. I think it good that this statement should have been made, since it emphasises the

43
fact that the action was taken by us, the British, because we have special powers of detention which are not available to the German authorities; and, as a corollary, it follows that our action does not imply any lack of confidence between ourselves and the German authorities. Indeed, as the noble Marquess has said, Dr. Adenauer has expressed himself in that sense in the passage which the noble Marquess quoted.
I should like to ask the noble Marquess two questions. First, can we be assured that, when the documents have been fully examined, there will be the fullest consultation between the British authorities and the Federal authorities as to the outcome and what is to be done? Secondly, since it has been suggested, or at any rate hinted, in some quarters that the action has been based on what is described as "ulterior political motives," will the noble Marquess take this opportunity of making it abundantly plain that there is no shadow of truth or justification in any such statement?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Earl for what he has said with regard to this statement. As to the first of the two specific questions which he has asked—consultation with the German Chancellor—I would say that the position is that the Chancellor has been assured by the High Commissioner that when the investigation is completed he will certainly be taken into consultation and will be shown the collected evidence. With regard to the question of ulterior motives, which has certainly, for some reason, been widely rumoured, particularly, I think, in Germany, there is, of course, no truth in it of any kind; and if these rumours for some reason did originate they should have been effectively disposed of by the Chancellor himself in the Press statement which he made, I think, only yesterday, in which he said in terms that the action of the British Government in this case had no connection, and never had had any connection, with ulterior political motives.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask two questions? First, at the appropriate time after what I may perhaps call the "discovery," could we have a White Paper or other document giving for the general information of Parliament a
44
selection of this documentary evidence? Secondly, has it emerged yet that there is any connection between this group of ex-Nazis and corresponding groups in East Germany?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's request for a White Paper, obviously I could undertake to publish no document until some decision had been arrived at as to whether or not a prosecution was going to follow. When a decision is taken upon that matter, should it be decided not to prosecute, then we might consider a White Paper; but until that decision is taken it would be utterly impossible and completely wrong even to think of adopting such a course. As regards the second part of the noble Lord's question, I did venture to say at the end of my statement that I thought the situation was one which requires restraint in this House, and I should not propose to disclose to the House further information than that given in the very carefully considered statement which I have made to your Lordships to-day.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, can the noble Marquess tell the House how long these special powers of arrest are likely to continue and whether he is satisfied that they will continue for long enough to protect us against any further recrudescence of this sort of thing?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am not sure whether I quite follow what is in the noble Viscount's mind—whether he means how long these powers will be exercised in this particular case or how long the powers will exist. If he means how long the powers will be exercised in this particular case, the answer is that they will presumably continue to be exercised until we are satisfied that the case had been disposed of by a decision. If he means how long the powers will continue in general, I answer that they will presumably continue until the ratification of the Contractual Agreement. But that is not quite the end of the matter, because in certain circumstances, very different from these, those powers would continue even after the ratification of the Bonn Agreement, but only in a case in which there arises what I think is called a state of emergency, or something of the kind, and it is necessary for the occupying Powers to go to the assistance of the German Government in the maintenance of order.

KENYA
3.47 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, I think the House would also like to hear a statement similar to one which has just been made in another place on Kenya.
Last week four major operations were carried out by the police and military, and 350 members of Mau Mau were detained. In the three Kikuyu districts there has been an increase of confidence in the Government and a number of Home Guard units led by anti-MauMau chiefs have been formed. Nearly 10,000 Kikuyu are enlisted altogether in Home Guards and resistance groups, and more Kikuyu are coming forward to take part in cleansing ceremonies. In the Nyeri district these Home Guard units dominate large areas. There is evidence that the area under Mau Mau influence is being reduced. These developments, and the closer policing of the Kikuyu districts, have driven some of the Mau Mau leaders to more desperate measures, and the danger of savage attacks by gangs may even for a time increase.
The news of the atrocious murder of Mr. and Mrs. Ruck and their small son and an African servant will have shocked the whole House, and I am sure that the House would wish to join with me in sending a message of deep sympathy to their relatives. The House will wish to know how our plans for dealing with the emergency have been developing. On Monday, 26th January, the Governor announced the appointment of Major-General Hinde, a senior officer specially selected for this purpose, who was formerly Deputy Military Governor of Berlin, to succeed Colonel Rimbault as his Personal Staff Officer for the period of the emergency. May I explain the duties of this officer and the Governor's powers? The powers of the Governor of Kenya are closely comparable with those of the High Commissioner in Malaya. In Malaya the High Commissioner is the supreme authority. Being a soldier, he has a deputy on the civil side. Equally, in Kenya the supreme authority is the Governor and, being a civilian, he has a military staff officer, who is charged with the duty of planning and controlling military and police operations. Just as General Templer's
46
deputy on the civil side acts in his name and under his authority, so does the military staff officer under Sir Evelyn Baring in the military and police sphere. The Governor has set up an Emergency Defence Council of all races to meet regularly and to advise him on emergency measures. The responsibility for the police is being transferred from the Attorney-General to the Chief Secretary, so that the former can concentrate on the other duties of his office, which have greatly increased.
Under the Emergency Powers Orders in Council, 1939, the Governor may make such regulations as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of the territory, the maintenance of public order and the suppression or mutiny, rebellion and riot and for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community. Since the last statement was made in Parliament, a number of new regulations have been made by the Governor under these emergency powers. These include the introduction of the death penalty for the administration of the Mau Mau oath in cases where the oath contains a promise to kill. The powers which the Governor now has are comprehensive, and he will continue to have the full support of my right honourable friend in exercising them.
There is, I know, in Kenya some criticism by the Europeans—understandable, for they are under great strain—of what is called "Colonial Office control"; that is, the control exercised by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. Since Her Majesty's Government and Parliament have the ultimate responsibility we must retain ultimate control, but I am under no illusion that an emergency of this kind can be handled in detail by someone 7,000 miles away. I can assure the House that there has been and will be no unreasonable interference from London and no avoidable delay in dealing with those matters of policy on which consultation may prove to be necessary. Law-abiding Europeans, Africans and Asians are living under conditions of great and daily strain and peril. The thoughts of this House are with them in their ordeal and I am sure I am speaking for everyone in your Lordships' House when I say that this House will support them in all the

47
measures required to end terrorism and the campaign of murder and mutilation and to restore peace and reopen the road to orderly progress.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the statement he has just made. We on these Benches, and I am sure all of your Lordships, would wish to join with the noble Viscount in condemning the dreadful murder of Mr. and Mrs. Ruck and their small son and expressing our sympathy with all those who are living under conditions of such strain in Kenya. As I understand it, both from the noble Viscount's statement and from statements that have been made in the Press, conditions in the Reserves are better than they were, but settlers living in isolated farmsteads are still in peril and are likely to be for some time. We on this side should like to consider carefully the statement and also the new organisation which the noble Viscount has announced.
I may say that I had the honour and pleasure of serving with General Hinde on his staff towards the end of the war and just after it, and I believe that no better man could have been found. He is a most active and able officer and he is a great friend of mine. At a suitable date we shall, I think, ask for a debate through the usual channels, because obviously this is a matter which must be discussed at considerable length, not only as to immediate steps but also as to the root causes behind all this, and what long-term plans there may be in the Government's mind, as well as their short-term plans. May I ask one question of the noble Viscount? The basis of this matter is still a police action. Would he say that it is primarily a police action?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Which action?
LORD OGMORE: Dealing with the Mau Mau.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes.
LORD OGMORE: The crux of any police action is information. We were told on an earlier occasion when we debated Mau Mau that very little information was coming to the ears of the authorities. Can the noble Viscount inform us whether the authorities are getting more information than they were getting as to this criminal movement, or is there still great difficulty in that respect?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I am sure that what he has said about General Hinde being an excellent choice will be greatly appreciated. As regards a debate, certainly we will arrange one through the usual channels. I am not quite sure—I should not wish to postpone the debate unduly—when the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies comes back: I think it is about February 7. If it is convenient to have a debate when the official spokesman for the Colonial Office is here, that obviously will be convenient, because, although I should be glad to handle it, if necessary, it is always better for the House to debate when they can hear from and catechise the Minister who comes directly from the responsible Department.
As regards police—yes, I should certainly say that this is primarily a police matter. The military are acting in support of the police, as required. I agree that intelligence is a vital matter and that certainly that was inadequate. I was rather shocked to find that intelligence had run down in more than one place. Steps were immediately taken, after my right honourable friend went out there, to make sure that intelligence was improved. A special officer with intelligence experience has been appointed and I think that the position is now better. Certainly the Government out there, and all the authorities, are fully alive to the importance of that and are concentrating upon it.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: Further to that, could the Secretary of State say whether he is not of opinion that the disarmament of the Kikuyu tribe would answer the problem of intelligence almost entirely?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am not quite sure that I follow that remark.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: If intelligence is not forthcoming and you completely disarm the Kikuyu tribe, as has been done in the past in Africa, you then know that everyone armed in the Kikuyu tribe is a criminal, without any intelligence.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If you disarm people and then find a man with arms you know, I quite agree, that he is an armed man, and, if it is forbidden to

49
carry arms, that he is disobeying an ordinance. But, as an old intelligence officer, I would say that the intelligence I should require would go a good deal deeper than that.

MOTOR-CYCLISTS' CRASH HELMETS
3.58 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, naturally I am entirely in agreement with the desirability of doing everything we possibly can to encourage the wearing of cycle bowlers by motor-cyclists. I prefer the term "cycle bowler" because I believe the words "crash hat" or "crash helmet" are one of the biggest deterrents to their use. It gives the idea in the home that motor-cycling is dangerous if one asks, "Where is my crash hat?" If one asks merely for one's bowler, nobody gets alarmed. I cannot support in any way the suggestion that the use of these bowlers should be made compulsory. To my mind, it is not desirable; and, more important, it is not practicable. We have already far too many rules and regulations in this country. Are we really proposing to bring in a law to make it compulsory for the footballer to wear shin shields and a head cap? We are reaching the point where youth is to be wrapped up in cotton wool to such an extent as to destroy any incentive to venturesome ness or any lifelike activity that a boy expects to do. Moreover, the proposal is also completely impracticable.
The Motion suggests that it should be made compulsory for a pillion rider to wear a cycle bowler. Is it proposed that every motor-cyclist should keep a cupboard full of cycle bowlers for the benefit of his girl friends? A hat that does not fit is a bigger menace than no hat at all. If a boy's girl friend arrives in a red dress and he produces a green battle bowler, there is going to be a No. 1 row. It will mean that they do not go out on the motor-cycle at all. We have to view these things from a common-sense point of view, and it is not common sense to make people do things like that. If I am riding a motor-cycle down the road and I come across a crash in which somebody has been hurt, but not severely injured, am I not allowed to pick him up and carry him to hospital because I have not
50
with me a spare cycle bowler to put on his head? That strikes me as being nonsense.
There is another point, which is a serious one. It is not always desirable to wear a cycle bowler. So far as I know, the lightest type made weighs 12½oz. I do not know whether any noble Lord has lately weighed his hat, but I think he will find that a very solid hat weighs only about 5½oz. Can you see yourselves on a motor-cycle, riding perhaps 350 or 400 miles, with a thing weighing 12½oz. on your head? I venture to suggest that long before you came to the end of that journey you would be a menace to yourself and to everything else on the road.
After all, there is one way of being safe on the road, and that is by riding safely. The motor-cycle clubs are doing a tremendous amount to encourage safe riding. If we go through the motor-cycle accident figures, I think it will be found that a very small percentage of those involved are club members and that a very large percentage are people who have never been taught how to ride a motor-cycle—people who have just ridden up and down. How they passed their test, I do not know; nor does anybody else. I doubt whether there is any really efficient method of testing a motor-cyclist, but the clubs do teach. The members go out riding together, and the older club members point out when the newcomers are doing things which should not be done; and in that way we get a decent, sane type of motor-cyclist. I believe that the real thing for us to do is to encourage every motor-cyclist to join a club and to wear a bowler when the conditions permit. But please do not encourage him to wear it when he is going on such a long journey that fatigue is bound to add to any possible dangers which may arise. So far as purchase tax is concerned, I think there is a way in which the Government should and can help. It is ludicrous to put a tax on something, the sole object of which is the preservation of life.
4.4 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, listening to this debate, I could not help wondering whether, at some stage, one of your Lordships would get up and speak from practical experience of riding a motor-cycle. Unfortunately, we have been denied the

51
pleasure of listening to practical experience. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who introduced this debate and to whom I am deeply grateful for having raised it, will forgive me if I say that it is a little difficult to connect up yellow bulbs for head lamps with crash hats. His Question is perfectly distinct, and I am very glad that it has been brought forward.
My Lords, what is a motor-cycle? There are on the roads to-day various types of machines. There are many more in countries abroad than there are here, but no doubt before long we shall catch up. There are motor scooters, "Corgis," and motor-assisted cycles. According to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the number of motor-assisted cycles is increasing rapidly. They say:
"The number of motor-cycles, including motor assisted cycles, in use is at the moment increasing at a greater rate than that of other vehicles."
So we may look forward to a considerable increase in numbers. My Lords, are we going to tell the lady (if it be a lady) who goes out to do her shopping on a motor scooter or a motor-assisted cycle that before she goes round to the grocer, or wherever it is she is going, she has to put one of these rather fearsome objects on her head? It seems to me that compulsion is going too far. I do not believe that compulsion would work. It would certainly create another offence; it would certainly create more work for the police and the courts. It would take more constables away from their duty of defending us from violent crimes, in order to attend the courts whilst cases were being heard. I do not like the creation of more artificial offences if we can possibly get away from them, and I do not believe that it is really the answer. Again, the sidecar has not been mentioned to-day. Suppose a motor-cyclist goes off with a lady in a sidecar: is she also to wear one of these things?
Nevertheless, I am very much in favour of crash hats. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has suggested that it is impossible to wear for any length of time a crash helmet weighing about 12 oz. I think he suggested the limit as a distance of 300 miles. I have worn a crash hat at a stretch for over 2,000 miles and felt no particular inconvenience from it.
52
Furthermore, I know the value of a crash hat, because once in this country and twice in Italy I should certainly have been killed if I had not been wearing one. So I know that these things are desirable and I agree that the Government should certainly do everything possible to encourage their use. Of course, the Government could help by taking off purchase tax. That would be a definite incentive. It has been done in the case of miners. If a miner's crash hat is exempt from purchase tax, why cannot the Government equally well, and for the same very good reasons, remove purchase tax from the crash hat of the motor-cyclist? The most unfortunate thing is that some of the best of our people are losing their lives. Many of these young men who go off on their motor-cycles, not equipped with very sound judgment and apt to "cut a dash" on the road, are the young men we shall want if ever we get into trouble again; so let us have plenty of them about. Let us try and take care of them if we can.
Now I should like to ask the Government whether they would consider this proposition. There are over 400 motor-cycle clubs in this country. There are several organisations which are particularly interested in this question. One is the Royal Automobile Club, another the Auto-Cycle Union and another the Institute of Manufacturers. Could we not ask the Government to call an official conference of all these organisations? I suggest that they should get them all together round a table. And not only these organisations: they should also invite to the conference representatives of the insurance world, who could speak with authority. If we could have a conference of all those interested, including representatives of the motor-cycle clubs and the insurance world, and get them working together, I believe that they would be able to hammer out a scheme which might be of assistance to the Government. The insurance world, I feel, could exercise a great deal of indirect—I will not say "compulsion," that is hardly the word, but inducement, to the average motor-cyclist to adopt sensible precautions.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment to inform him that a conference is at the moment sitting—incidentally, under my chairmanship? It was summoned by the Royal

53
Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and all those interests to which he refers are represented. Those attending are discussing all questions of road safety including this one. Certainly we shall see that it is specially considered.
EARL HOWE: I am delighted to have that information. I hope that the conference which the noble Lord has mentioned will be productive of results. My point is that a conference summoned under the ægis of the Government (I say this with all due respect to the noble Lord) would bring this matter home to the minds of the people to whom we want to appeal in a far more effective manner than could—if I may so put it—a rather more unofficial conference. I agree that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, under the leadership of the noble Lord, are doing noble work up and down the country, and that we all owe Lord Llewellin and his fellow-workers a great debt of gratitude. But I feel that if we are going to do something effective, short of passing legislation, it would be a good thing to have the Government in it. If the Government feel that the matter could be dealt with by sending official representatives to the conference of which the noble Lord has spoken, that might be satisfactory. I do not mind how it is done, but I feel that if we could once get all the interests together, then results would follow. I do not know whether the noble Lord's conference also includes representatives of the insurance interests.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The conference was not called so unofficially as the noble Earl appears to think. It was opened by the present Minister of Transport and supported by Mr. Barnes, an ex-Minister of Transport. The conference is being attended by representatives of the Ministry of Transport; and insurance interests are also represented.
EARL HOWE: It is also being attended, I take it, by representatives of all the clubs.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not say that quite all the clubs are represented, but we certainly have at the conference representatives of all important organisations.
EARL HOWE: I am afraid that I did not know about the noble Lord's conference—no doubt I should have done. But I do want to see it brought
54
home to a very wide circle that there is need for action here; and I believe that if you could get all the motor-cycle clubs, the local clubs, into a conference, and get them really interested in this question, even if the gathering were only grafted on to the noble Lord's conference, it would bring this matter home to the members of the little motor-cycle clubs up and down the country. I hope that it will be found possible to do something on the lines I have suggested, whether the conference which I advocate is held in combination with that of which the noble Lord has spoken or not.
A certain amount of argument has taken place among motor-cyclists about the proper pattern of a crash hat. What would be a suitable crash hat? From such information as f have, I believe that the whole question was referred to the British Standards Institution, and I understand that that Institution has now practically decided on a special pattern of crash hat which can be recommended to the motor-cycle world. I do not know anything about the nature of this crash hat, or whether it has any particular peculiarities. But I understand that the matter has gone a long way and that the investigations of the Institution are almost complete. Let us never forget what the Road Research Board said, on page 24 of their Report for 1951:
"More than 50 per cent. of the total civilian motor-cyclists admitted to hospital had head injuries. This was about twice as great as the corresponding proportion of seriously injured Army motor-cyclists, all of whom were wearing crash helmets."
The matter speaks for itself, and I hope that anything the Government can do to help this movement along will be done. I am certain that the whole country ought to be very grateful to Lord Teviot for bringing this subject before your Lordships' House this afternoon.
4.15 p.m.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to what has been said, and also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for bringing this matter forward. It has been a good follow-up of the admirable broadcast of which he spoke. I am very much in sympathy with all that the noble Lord has said, hut my sympathy is somewhat obscured by rather grave doubt as to whether, for many reasons, compulsion

55
would do any good. Let me mention two of the reasons which readily come to mind. Our traffic police already have a heavy job, and they are still under strength. How would they carry out a task of this kind? Would they pursue those young men who did not have crash. helmets right up the Great West Road, it might be, until they caught them? At night they would not be able to see whether motor-cyclists were wearing crash helmets or not? It seems to me that it would be introducing just one more of those regulations—like the 30 m.p.h. regulation in built-up areas—which can be so easily broken without anyone being the wiser. One question, which has already been mentioned lightly by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, is that of the casual picking up of passengers. For instance, a fellow leaving a factory might give a lift to a workmate part of the way to his home. Has he to have a crash helmet for that casual passenger? If it is important for the controller of the motor-cycle to have a crash helmet, it is equally important for the pillion rider. That problem would give rise to immense difficulties. The motor-cyclist would require a supply of crash helmets of various shapes and sizes if he were desirous of giving some of his workmates a casual lift home.
We have to recognise that the whole question is seething with difficulties, although we must all have the greatest sympathy with the object of the noble Lord. I am certain that it cannot be beyond the wit of our hat manufacturers, if they carry out experiments, to produce something quite light which would meet the case. And it could well be quite pleasing to look at, as well as being light. I am thinking at the moment of the polo cap. In my younger days, when I had the good fortune in the Army to play polo, I remember coming down and being saved, at any rate from injury—I will not say from death—by my polo cap. The polo cap is little heavier than the ordinary bowler, yet it saved me from a bad concussion. It acts as a cushion, and although, when you land on it, it usually gets smashed in, it breaks the impact of the skull upon the ground, which is the important thing. So, as I say, a crash helmet for motor-cyclists need not necessarily be very heavy or
56
unsightly. What is wanted is just something which will act as a cushion before the rider's head actually comes in contact with some hard object.
I cannot help thinking that it might be a good thing if purchase tax was taken off such articles. I hope that the Government will consider that point, and that our manufacturers and our hatters will get to work to see whether they cannot produce something which will meet this need. Though I do not think compulsion would work, I feel that what we want would be achieved if the wearing of these crash helmets were made the fashion. If we could get all motor-cyclists' organisations, all the clubs and so on, on our side, and could induce them to insist that this should become the fashion—I do not know how they would do it, but no doubt they would find means—then these young fellows would all be anxious to follow the fashion. I think it is probably true to say that many wish to wear these things to-day, but do not like to be considered "Sissies"—especially by their pillion riders. But if the wearing of crash helmets once becomes the fashion, then I hope and believe that we shall see what we all want to see—namely, a greater measure of safety for our young motor-cyclists on the roads.
4.20 p.m.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, regrets that in this debate this afternoon experienced people who ride motor-cycles have not been heard. I should like to direct his attention to the fact that the majority of people in this country neither ride nor own a motor-cycle or a motor car, and if the experiences of those using the roads should be heard in a debate of this character, it might be desirable that those who are not in possession of these mechanical instruments should also be heard. Well, I am not the possessor of either a motor-cycle or a motor car. I have no objection in principle to mechanised transport, but I have an objection to the attitude of mind shown in debates of this character—the idea that the possessor of one of these pieces of mechanism, however propelled, should not have the greatest responsibility, but that he is the person who is to be protected. By all means protect him, but I object to the idea of compulsion in the

57
wearing of crash helmets just as much as the noble Earl arid other speakers.
I cannot help feeling that the figures brought forward by the noble Earl, Lad Howe, are rather unreliable, if we are to consider the question along practical lines, because no account is taken of the character of every accident. We hear a lot about these intrepid young men who ought to be preserved for the nation, and about their daring. I have seen some of these daring and intrepid young men and I think it would be far more useful if we were to have figures about the way in which they use the instruments they are riding. If we took that into account, a different picture might be painted about the whole problem at issue. There are bad motor-cyclists and bad motorists, as there are foolish pedestrians—I admit that. But the idea that pedestrians have to get off the earth seems to me to be wrong. The pedestrian has as much right to use the highway as anyone else and the onus should be on those who possess these powerful pieces of mechanism.
I have not sufficient knowledge of the technical details to burden the House with much more, except to say that I feel that if we are machine mad, as we seem to be, and if we want to be a highly mechanised civilisation, we ought to be prepared to take the consequences. I think we are going in a direction that eventually will mean barbarism, as a result of the reaction to the mechanised mind that seems to dominate people all over the world at the present time. I cannot help that, and noble Lords, whether they agree with me or not, cannot help the fact that we are progressing that way. We are not only being dominated by mechanisms, but we are becoming mechanised ourselves—and that ends in war and eventual barbarism. I have rather a reactionary type of mind on things of this kind. I feel more like a pre-Raphaelite, who had the idea of going back to the Middle Ages. I think we should be happier in some respects if we did.
I intervene in the debate to suggest that there is another point of view, which is that we are living in a beautiful world and we are spoiling that world terribly. We are thinking in terms of speed and motion, and the intrepidity and daring of speed, and we have to pay the penalty
58
for that. I think that motor-cyclists and motorists, and nobody else, should take the onus and the consequences. I am not prepared to weep tears over the, figures that are given to us. The best way of avoiding accidents on the road is to use the road properly. I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will agree with me that there are plenty of motorists who do not respect the use and enjoyment of the roads by the whole of the community. I do not know, but I should imagine that those are the people who expand the figures that are always brought forward to prove that pedestrians and puppy-dogs are the real culprits, and not the people who think that speed is more important than the salvation of the soul.
4.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for bringing forward this question to this time. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I say that I am deeply interested in the question of accident prevention, and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, I was a member of the Select Committee which was presided over with such great distinction by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alness. Why the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, thought that my membership of that Committee placed me in a condition of embarrassment I was at a loss to conjecture. On the contrary, I am very proud of it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The Committee sat a number of years ago and the noble Earl is so much older, though he does not look it.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: That graceful response is welcome to me, but I hope that the noble Lord will wait until I get a little further in my speech before he decides how much I have deteriorated in the meantime. The second personal thing I should like to say, and I say it most sincerely, is that I am afraid I shall have to make a much longer speech than I normally do. Since, like other noble Lords, I have been saying for the last few months how insufferable in length are the speeches from most members of the House, including myself, it ill becomes me to-day to offer such a speech. My excuse is that this is a subject of such importance that it would be wrong and improper if it were not ventilated by the Government in full detail.

59
As your Lordships know, there has been considerable public discussion, not only about making the wearing of crash helmets compulsory but also in respect of motor-cycling accidents generally. With your Lordships' permission. I should like to deal with the Motion immediately before us and then deal with the more general issues. If I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, the subjects of dazzle and the use of yellow lights in France, though of great importance, in my opinion do not fall within the Question he has put down to-day. They would raise many of the matters which we considered in the various Reports.
LORD TEVIOT:My Lords, may I explain why I referred to these questions? It was to instance the danger from dazzle which motorists and all road users experience—and for no other reason. It might have been a little out of order in another place, but I thought it would be all right here.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble Lord is drawing upon our special dispensation. I think the question of lighting is of vital importance. It is one in which I am closely interested. It would not be for me to say that the point was out of order in discussing this subject, but as the noble Lord says so himself, I am bound to admit that it was. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has mentioned the high percentage of motor-cyclists who meet with accidents involving head injuries. What he said is perfectly true. So, unfortunately, to a lesser degree, do other road users. But while I still feel that we ought to bring most of our energies to the prevention of accidents—which is, after all, better than their alleviation when they do occur—I am convinced that properly designed crash helmets, reducing the seriousness of head injuries, are the most important instrument in correcting this trouble. I should perhaps say a few words about how crash helmets are constructed, and how they work. I do so with considerable diffidence, in view of what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just said, and he must acquit me of any technical knowledge. So far as I understand it, the object of the crash helmet is to reduce the intensity of the blow by spreading it over a greater area—and I understand that in this way the noble
60
Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, two admirable members of your Lordships' House, have survived. This should reduce the likelihood of fracture. Even the best type of crash helmet will not, therefore, prevent injury, but it will substantially reduce the results of a crash. Provided that it is properly constructed, it may, for example, turn a fatal accident into a serious one, or a serious one into a light one.
I was going to correct a small point in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, but this has already been done by my noble friend Lord Llewellin. I shall not read paragraph 19 of the Report, because I think the point has been made quite clear. However, I should like to say this. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is greatly concerned about the production of a first-class crash helmet, and two things are being done at the present time to produce it. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, the Road Research Laboratory are conducting careful experiments into the construction of a helmet. They have made very reasonable progress in their research, and I hope that they will soon be able to say how a really good crash helmet should be made. In answer to other noble Lords, I would say that the Road Research Laboratory have always in mind the necessity for the helmet to look smart, and thus to be attractive to the young men and women motor-cyclists who ought to be wearing them. The British Standards Institution have also recently set up a committee, upon which the Road Research Laboratory and the Ministry of Transport are represented, to settle the terms of a specification which might eventually become the British standard. The noble Lord might care to know that only recently the British Standards Institution have settled a specification for a crash helmet for racing motor-cyclists, and this specification will no doubt assist not only in lowering the casualties on the motor-cycle or racing track but also in the search for a good specification for ordinary use.
I now come to the suggestion which has been made that the use of these crash helmets should be made compulsory. I must say at the outset that I profoundly doubt whether the compulsory principle is the right way of tackling this job in this country. I have been very much

61
encouraged—and, indeed, in some cases, surprised—by the unanimity on this subject which noble Lords have shown. In my view, there is no doubt about it at all. I am told by the police that they think such a law would be quite un-enforceable; and there is nothing more foolish than passing legislation which is honoured in the breach rather than in the observance. I may say that this view is fully shared, so far as I know, by expert reporters on the trade papers. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, asked why, if military despatch riders should be compelled to wear crash helmets, other people should not. I must say that when I was in the Army I kept asking myself why things were so different from what they were in civilian occupations. I feel that that is a somewhat false question. As I say, this view is shared by the trade Press, and a study of the correspondence columns in those papers has convinced me that among motor-cyclists, male and female, there is a strong general opposition to the compulsory principle. One lady motor-cyclist, for example, commented, not without dry humour:
"If motor cyclists are going to be forced to wear crash helmets—which Heaven forbid!—why should not holiday bathers he forced to wear lifebelts and snorts, and winter pond skaters to wear padded clothing? No motorcyclist goes out with the intention of committing suicide and, therefore, we should be left to choose our own protection."
That is very much to the point of what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said a moment ago, about the potential case of an old lady on a mechanically assisted vehicle having to clamp one of these things on her head. It is clearly ridiculous, in my opinion, and I am sure that such a law would not work. What I do believe is that if we could secure a really good-looking and safe crash helmet, and if our motor-cycle clubs would encourage their members—as I am certain they would—to wear these helmets with club colours or emblems on them, we should be able to get a large number of motorcyclists to wear crash helmets without applying compulsion. Many of your Lordships know how powerful and how public-spirited these motor-cycling clubs are, and I very much hope that any publicity given to this debate will bring that point strongly to their attention.
Several noble Lords have referred to the question of purchase tax on crash helmets. This is an extremely difficult
62
matter, and the Government have received a great many representations about it. But it must be remembered that it is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it would be quite improper for me to comment upon it. However, what I can do—and I guarantee to do this personally—is to see that all the observations and suggestions made in your Lordships' House to-day are brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should point out, however, that he has already said that it is a matter of great difficulty.
I should now like to deal with the more general aspects of this matter. We have all for some time been greatly concerned at the increase in the number of accidents to motor-cyclists. This increase is, of course, in some degree due to the large increase in the number of motor-cycles on the Toad. For example, in 1938 the number of motor-cycles licensed was approximately 450,000, but by 1951 the figure had swollen to 800,000. The number of casualties to motor-cyclists and their passengers, I ant happy to say, has not increased in the same proportion, but it is significant that whereas the total accident figures have diminished by some 10 per cent., as between 1938 and 1952, the provisional figures for accidents to motor-cyclists and their passengers over the same period has increased by approximately 30 per cent. This is a very grave state of affairs, and it is obvious to all of us that something drastic has got to be done to reduce these accidents. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate the Government's concern in this matter—certainly anyone who has taken an interest, as I have, in this subject, and particularly as the majority of motor-cycle casualties are between twenty and twenty-five years of age.
I entirely agree with everything which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, about this appalling toll of these young people, and I am perfectly certain that he is right when he says that these are the kind of people—however reckless they may appear to be, and however exuberant in youth—we can least afford to lose. It was with this situation in mind that the Committee on Road Safety reported to the Ministry this year, and I would advise noble Lords to read the Committee's recommendations most carefully.

63
The Report has not been finally considered within the Ministry of Transport, but decisions are expected shortly. Some of the conclusions were borne out at the National Safety Congress of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, during which the Director of Road Research in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Dr. Glanville, stated that on the basis of interim accident rates per vehicle-mile, motor-cycles are almost five times as dangerous as private cars, and the driver is nearly sixty times more likely to be killed upon a motor-cycle than upon any other vehicle. I invite your Lordships to weigh those sombre statistics.
There is no simple solution to this problem, any more than there was to the problems which the Alness Committee considered and which other Committees have considered since. But in addition to the general measures affecting all road users, such as the improvement of road behaviour, of education and propaganda, I feel that there are many things which have a particular application to motor-cyclists. May I first suggest that motor-cyclists should beware of unduly high speed? Many motor-cycles are now very powerful. They are getting more powerful and more fast every year, and I am afraid that one cannot say that the roads are keeping pace with them in any way at all. They are easily manœuvrable and, of course, there is the temptation for the motor-cyclist to drive at high speed and indulge in the risky practice of weaving in and out of slow-moving traffic, as we have all seen them doing. For me to say this may sound like a counsel of perfection; it may sound like the sanguine advice of doctors to chain smokers to stop smoking, and to habitual drunkards to abandon alcohol. Nevertheless, I believe that if this point is persistently put forward it may have some effect. Of course, cornering at speed is dangerous; and violent braking on motor-cycles, especially on greasy roads, is highly dangerous—much more so than in a motor car.
While I am on the subject of brakes, your Lordships may be interested to know that two-thirds of motor-cycle accidents are at road junctions, and there is little doubt that many of these are due to defective brakes. Generally
64
speaking, the braking ability of motor-cycles is greatly inferior to that of other motor vehicles, and a motor-cyclist should therefore give himself more room when braking. Pillion passengers are an additional complication to the driver, who must exercise particular care in winter months when the weather makes road conditions dangerous.
My next point is addressed to the owners of dogs, and I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, introduced this subject. Owners of dogs—of which I gather Lord Lucas and I are two; and perhaps the least sentimental, in spite of our fondness for them—are extremely tender-hearted by nature. But I doubt very much whether they realise that straying dogs on the carriageway are responsible every year for one thousand deaths and injuries to motor-cyclists alone, quite apart from the casualties which they cause to other road users. There is, of course, only one remedy: keep your dog on a lead in built-up areas, to stop him from straying. A number of suggestions have been made from time to time, like the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we should exercise a more positive control over dogs in public places, and that we might even learn from methods used in American cities where, I believe, loose dogs are rounded up by the police, Although I like dogs, I am still old-fashioned enough to believe that, if anybody is to be killed on the Queen's highway, I should prefer that it was a dog rather than a human being. Some people are inclined to forget that fact. We all know that if a dog which is not on a lead runs into the carriageway, causing a man to swerve to avoid it, he may hit somebody else and then there is death and destruction.
My suggestions, whether addressed to motor-cyclists or anybody else, may appear to be elementary, but I think they need to be reiterated again and again until the accident rate amongst motor-cyclists has been substantially reduced. I am sure that, if due regard is paid to these points, the number of motor-cycle accidents will be reduced. I hope that I have said enough to convince your Lordships that this terrible problem of motor-cycle accidents, and in particular the accidents in which head injuries are sustained, is fully appreciated. It is no idle phrase to say that the Ministry and

65
the Government are really alert about this matter. I can assure your Lordships that that is so. Those engaged in this research which I have discussed are now pressing ahead very hopefully. Designers and manufacturers must search for cheaper and more attractive models. Whether they are to be called "bowlers" I cannot say. The opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, suggested to me a strong predilection for dress designing. I have never heard them called "bowlers" before, although the word may be less daunting than "crash helmets." I know that it is not easy in these days to produce anything cheaply, but I do not think my words will be wasted if I ask manufacturers of crash helmets to pay particular regard to the social aspects of their products, even at the risk of reducing their own profits in order to put a cheaper design on the market as soon as possible. As regards the limits of attractiveness, there has been comment in certain quarters that Her Majesty's Government are paying undue attention to the æsthetics of this grizzly business. I do not agree at all. Since we have to rely on persuasion, we must concentrate on making the helmet attractive.
Finally, may I appeal to a larger audience than is enclosed in these four walls—to the motor-cyclists themselves? Every time they venture on the roads they court death far more than does any other road user. May I beg them to observe the suggestions I have made, and to obtain a suitable crash helmet, in their own interests, and to wear it wherever they can? Any crash helmet is better than none, and some already on the market are quite good. If the result of our debate to-day stimulates the demand for these helmets I shall feel that we are beginning to make genuine progress. This is a dreadful problem, and the only answer to it lies in the heart of the motor-cyclist himself; and I hope that the powerful organisations interested in their welfare will bring the point forcibly to their notice. I would end by apologising once again to your Lordships for the length of my speech, but I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a problem which must be tackled.
EARL HOWE: Can the noble Earl say whether there is any prospect of a conference of motor-cycle clubs throughout
66
the country being called by the Government?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I cannot say now, but it seems an interesting idea. I should like to look into it, and I will give the noble Earl the opinion of my right honourable friend as soon as I can.

SPEED LIMIT FOR GOODS VEHICLES
4.51 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will amend the law so as to permit a uniform speed limit: for all ordinary goods-carrying vehicles, thus enabling manufacturers to design and produce vehicles for export competitive in price with those produced by other countries; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that in rising to move this Motion I shall not be out of order in offering a word of congratulation to the noble Earl who has just sat down on the excellent speech he has made. If I may say so, I liked his forthright manner, and I congratulate him sincerely. I do not suppose that any noble Lord in this House would dissent from me if I said that the greatest problem facing this country to-day is to increase its export trade. There is no magic wand which will achieve this. If the noble Lord the Secretary of State and his colleagues in. the Cabinet had a magic wand to wave and thus were able to solve this problem overnight in one way or another, they would do it. But the Secretary of State knows as well as I do that our exports can be increased only by a little here and a little there; there is no way in which the Government can hope to increase our exports by 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. overnight. I wonder whether, in all the discussions which those of us who are interested have had, we have not paid too much attention to incentives and not enough to disincentives. If we could remove the disincentives from our manufacturers, we might be able to save the Chancellor of the Exchequer a good many headaches caused through trying to think of monetary incentives. But I do not believe many people in this country ever realise the diverse effect of taxes upon our industrial economy and how

67
taxation influences our products, their design and their markets.
There is no better example of this than the motor industry. I do not think it necessary for me to declare any interest in the motor industry. I used to have a great interest, but my interest now is more academic. This is an industry which has done a greater job for the exports of this country over the last six years than has any other industry—and this in spite of the disincentives it has had. I remember that in one of the first speeches I made in your Lordships' House I made an appeal for the abolition of the horse-power tax, which was cutting our throats in the export market. After a great deal of argument we secured the abolition of the horse-power tax, and freed our designers to design vehicles to compete in the export markets of the world. But before those designs were off the drawing board, some bright individual thought of increasing the petrol tax—a tax which is slowly but surely driving us back to the position in which we were before, under the horse-power tax. It is a position in which manufacturers have to produce a multiplicity of models, because petrol is so high in price. The smaller the weight the greater the economy: would any of your Lordships have believed that that position could arise again? And soon, if petrol increases in price further, our manufacturers will be forced back to a smaller motor car and to the multiplicity of models that we swore we would do away with in order to free manufacturers to compete in the markets of the world. That is the general effect.
Take the particular effect of the vehicle taxation law mentioned in the Motion I have put down on the Order Paper. I ask your Lordships whether anybody in his senses could argue to-day in favour of an unladen weight tax on any commercial vehicle.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is a most ridiculous thing. If you want to tax a motor vehicle by weight, the way to do so is to tax it on the payload it carries and not on the weight of the manufacturer's product. The effect of all this is, as it was in the case of the horse-power tax on motor cars, that the designer of the vehicles is out to cheat
68
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In former days it was a battle of wits between the draughtsman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as a battle between the draughtsman and those who concoct the regulations regarding design at the Ministry of Transport. Although there is no longer a battle against the horse-power tax, there continues a battle to beat the weight tax. What is the result of this battle? The manufacturers skimp their vehicles to get them into the lower weight category. I could tell your Lordships some horrible stories of how manufacturers tried to get the weight down so that the tax to be paid would be lower. So fine was the margin that on the weigh-bridge if the wind blew one way, so to speak, it was in one tax category, and if it blew another way, it was in another. The result of all this is to the detriment of our overseas markets. The one great complaint we have from overseas is that our commercial vehicles will not stand comparison with those of our foreign competitors as regards sturdiness of construction. We have it from Canada, from America and from Africa. Why is this? It is because the manufacturer must always have one eye on keeping his vehicle down to the unladen weight of three tons so that it can travel at 30 miles an hour. That is what he does.
The net result of all this is that the manufacturer uses lighter brake mechanisms, lighter springs and lighter-gauge material, right the way through; and in the end the export buyer says that that is no good to him. The producer in this country has then to build two models: one for the export market and another which will satisfy the home market. In terms of sales resistance, that is what we are suffering abroad. There are noble Lords who are as knowledgeable on this subject as I am who will say this is a great deterrent. It is indeed a very real deterrent. Let us not forget that we have to meet huge competition from America where these refinements of taxation do not arise. The sellers' paradise in the export market has gone, and we have to come down to these hard facts.
Now let me take the case of a typical commercial vehicle of a chassis price of£1,500 or£1,600, of seven or eight tons unladen weight. Because he has to build two models of this

69
vehicle, it costs the manufacturer£200 more for the export model. This, on a vehicle of the price I have mentioned, is a great deal of money and can turn the scale. In other words, if he were allowed to produce one model for the home and the export market, his price would be somewhere in the region of about£170 to£200 cheaper—very likely the home market price would have to go up a little.
That is the competition factor; that is the cost factor. Another point is this. The 20 miles per hour limit puts an accent upon economy. The 20 miles per hour vehicle is designed to a schedule of about 16½miles per hour, whereas a 30 miles per hour vehicle is designed to a running schedule of somewhere in the region of 22–23 miles per hour. In our export markets, in Canada, in Africa and in South America, drivers will not drive these low-powered vehicles. They say the fatigue is too great. The heavy truck driver in Canada demands an engine in the vehicle he is going to drive of somewhere in the region of 160–180 horse power, and the proprietor who pays high wages out there is far more concerned with getting miles per driver than he is with getting miles per gallon. That is the competition we have to meet—and here we are, at the present time, being stultified.
We are the only country in the world, with the exception of (to be very accurate) the Transvaal, which to-day has a 20 miles per hour limit. Why? It is an anachronism, a relic of the past. There can be no argument—I am now dealing specifically with the export market—on the export case. The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, will agree with me that we cannot in the future afford to have this disincentive of price, quality and competitive value, however great a luxury it may have been in the past. I will cite to your Lordships what are stated to be the objections. The first one that will spring to everyone's mind is safety. All the uninitiated will ask: "Are you advocating that these huge juggernauts should go along the roads of this country at 30 miles per hour?" It is not the 7-ton, 8-ton, 9-ton and 10-ton vehicle with its load well within its carrying limit on the roads that is a danger. They are beautiful pieces of machinery, usually
70
well kept, with servo-assisted braking, power-assisted steering and always running within the factor of safety. The danger on the roads of this country is the skimped vehicle of under 3 tons unladen weight, always grossly overloaded, and the brakes of which are never in a condition to pull it up. This is usually the type of vehicle which is the most ill-kept on the roads.
Some figures have been prepared by the Road Research Laboratory. A test was made with a 20 miles per hour vehicle travelling a hundred miles on a main trunk road in this country. It was passed 183 times by other commercial vehicles—a positive danger factor. I had to laugh when I heard the noble Earl in the course of an excellent speech say, with righteous indignation and speaking from a Ministry of Transport brief, "What is the good of making crash helmets compulsory when you cannot enforce the law?" What a tragedy, what a disgrace, to bring the law into contempt by not being able to enforce it! The Secretary of State, Lord Leathers, saw me smile. The Road Research Laboratory, from tests all over this country, say quite definitely—and one of the directors gave this evidence before the British Association—that 90 per cent. of the vehicles that are subject to a 20 miles per hour limit never, in fact, travel at 20 miles per hour, but always over. So what is the good of having a law that is brought into contempt like that?
May I submit another point to your Lordships? A double-decker bus carrying a live load (notoriously the worst load to carry) of fifty people, is allowed to travel at 30 miles per hour. A 3-ton vehicle with a load of 9 tons—and, my Lords, there are 3-ton unladen weight vehicles with loads of 9 tons—is allowed to travel at 30 miles per hour. A 3½-ton vehicle with nothing in it at all has to travel at 20 miles per hour. That sounds ridiculous to me. I do not know how it appeals to other noble Lords. Yet that is the position to-day. There is the safety factor, but the safety factor is just the other way about. Noble Lords who have knowledge of the huge fleets of some of our big concerns, maintained by their own maintenance staffs, know that they cannot afford to spend the huge amount of money

71
in purchasing these very fine vehicles and not have them well looked after.
I hope the Secretary of State will not hide behind the skirts of the trade union movement, because I do not believe the trade unions in this country object to this proposal. Surely a British trade union is not going to argue that there must be a speed limit regulation so that it can enforce a wages and conditions of employment agreement. The two things are entirely divorced. Running schedules are negotiated between employers' representatives and employees' representatives. I am not asking the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, to have a regulation under Section 10 of the 1930 Act that a commercial vehicle "must" travel at 30 miles per hour. I am asking him to have a regulation saying that it "may" travelat 30 miles per hour. If the unions and the employers cannot agree upon revised running schedules—very well, then the vehicles do not run at 30 miles per hour; that is all. But my proposal would free the British manufacturer in the export market. That is all I am worried about. I am not asking the noble Lord to put into force a regulation that is going to force the unions to agree to something they do not want to agree to—nothing of the kind. That is right outside the whole question, and to drag it in would be to put up nothing more nor less than an alibi and an excuse which does not hold water. As I tried to illustrate the other afternoon when I was speaking to your Lordships on the Copyright Act, I maintain that in these matters there should be nothing which interferes with free negotiation as between employer and employee. I can quite conceive that if this uniform speed limit were adopted the employee would be better off. I have cited the case of Canada. The heavy duty vehicle driver will not drive a vehicle that keeps him down to the kind of tortuous nerve-wracking experience that your Lordships may have seen when travelling on the road to Scotland. Have you ever tried to get up Shap and had to pass about a hundred heavy commercial vehicles, grinding themselves out over that tortuous six or seven miles at 5 miles an hour, to the nervous and physical discomfort of the driver? This is the result of the law forcing these vehicles to have too small engines.
72
My Lords, trade union opposition to this proposal is a myth, and, as I have said, I hope that the noble Lord is not going to hide behind the skirts of the trade unions in this matter. I want a regulation introducing a universal speed limit. One of the greatest factors in safety is uniform speed. I have not attempted to make a case for greater efficiency in British industry; that has been well done outside your Lordships' House. But on this narrow point I know that I do not have to convince the noble Lord, as he is a good business man. We cannot afford to retard our export market; we must free from some of its disincentives this industry which has done such outstanding work. Therefore, my Lords, in that spirit, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name upon the Order Paper.
5.12 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I followed his remarks with great interest, and I certainly feel that an increase in the speed limit for heavy vehicles, which is, of course, bound up in this Motion, would undoubtedly increase the productivity of the country at the present time and would also assist our export trade. What really is the position at the present moment with regard to the transport operators? As it is now, these operators are compelled to work out their route schedules on the basis of 20 miles per hour, and therefore industry is provided with a slower and less efficient transport service than it need be. If the speed limit were raised, the cost of transporting goods by road would become less, and the consumers themselves would benefit; and, what is more, a greater tonnage of goods would be carried with the fleets available at the present time.
There is another very important factor, which has been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; and that is the question of road safety. Your Lordships will remember that the Report of the Committee on Road Safety indicated that, having regard to improvements in braking equipment, they saw no objection on grounds of road safety to the increase of the speed limit of 20 miles per hour at present applicable to heavy goods vehicles. There is no doubt that overtaking is one of the greatest dangers on the

73
road at the present time, in particular when one heavy vehicle travelling at 30 miles per hour tries to overtake another heavy vehicle adhering to the 20 m.p.h. limit. We know that that is happening every day on all the roads round the country. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned this point, but I did not hear the figures which he gave.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: They were that on a stretch of 100 miles upon one of our trunk roads a vehicle travelling strictly at 20 miles per hour was passed by 183 other commercial vehicles.
LORD TEYNHAM: That is quite right. It is also the fact that when the speed of this vehicle was increased to 30 miles per hour, the number of passings was, I believe, in the nature of only forty-two or forty-three.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Thirty-five, I think.
LORD TEYNHAM: It is clear that the raising of the limit to 30 miles per hour would undoubtedly eliminate very much overtaking and would increase the safety on the roads.
Another point of view which I think should be carefully examined (this was also touched on by the noble Lord) is a tendency to overload lighter vehicles, which is undoubtedly caused by this restriction of the speed limit. I believe that there are a number of firms who advertise such things as helper springs and body-strengthening devices in order to enable much lighter vehicles to carry heavier loads. That is a very dangerous practice indeed. I think it can also be shown that when these heavy vehicles are travelling at 30 miles per hour there are fewer gear changes to be made by the driver, and the actual fatigue of driving is less. It is also interesting to note, as the noble Lord also mentioned, that in other countries there are no speed limits for heavy vehicles. I believe that in the United States and Canada scheduled speeds are as high as 50 miles per hour. There is also the anomaly as regards passenger vehicles of seven or eight tons, which may travel at 30 miles per hour even in a built-up area.
What do the British Transport Commission say about this matter? On page 125 of their Report for 1951 they say:
74
"The continued restriction to 20 m.p.h. of modern goods vehicles that are well maintained and fitted with up-to-date and efficient brakes militates against efficiency and economy of vehicle operation."
The Commission must know a good deal about road transport by this time. I think it is true that some sections of drivers have claimed that all the benefits from the proposed increase in speed should be passed on to them. It is clear that if this were the case there would be no advantage to the country in making any change, but I think we shall all agree that the men's earnings should not suffer, nor should drivers be asked to spend longer hours upon the road for the same wages as at present.
I think it is true to say that the present Minister of Transport and his predecessor have shown some hesitation in accepting the advice of so many responsible organisations owing to the reaction of the trade unions—this point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I cannot help feeling that a satisfactory arrangement could be made between the employers and the trade union. The noble Lord says that union opposition is a myth. I hope it is. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government can give some indication that such an agreement is in the process of completion. I would say, in conclusion, that the raising of the speed limit is desirable in the national interest, as it would ensure higher productivity, lower transport costs, help road safety, and also enable manufacturers to produce vehicles which would be better able to compete in the export market.
5.19 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am delighted to have an opportunity to support this Motion. Before saying anything more. I would at the outset declare an interest. I am interested in the manufacture of the heavy commercial vehicle, but that does not prevent me, as an ordinary road user, from knowing a little about conditions on the roads to-day. I am sorry to have to say that Her Majesty's Government have not given the slightest attention to the position that is now developing upon the roads of this country. On many of our principal highways we are definitely arriving at stagnation point.
We have a higher density of traffic than any other country in the world—over

75
eighteen vehicles per mile, I think, if my memory serves me aright. And, speaking broadly, with the exception of the elimination of "black spots" all major road improvement has ceased. Her Majesty's Government have given us no sort of idea how long that state of affairs is to continue. But with every day and every month that it continues the deterioration of the road position is getting more acute. The roads themselves are getting worse; the numbers of vehicles trying to get along them are increasing. Unless Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give consideration to this problem it will have repercussions on industry. Of that I am absolutely certain. It was stated by the Road Research Board—in 1951 I think—that 40 per cent. of the vehicles using the main traffic roads of this country are commercial vehicles. That stagnation is slowly coming many of your Lordships who have great experience and who drive regularly around the country will, I am sure, agree, and I beg Her Majesty's Government to give this matter their most earnest consideration while there is still a little time left.
We have listened to a forthright and emphatic speech from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He described this particular question of the 20 m.p.h. limit as an anachronism of the past. While he was speaking, I could not help wondering whether we really did have a Socialist Government from 1945 to 1951. And I could not help wondering also—I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for saying this—whether, in fact, he impressed his point of view upon successive Ministers of Transport with the same emphasis that he has used this afternoon in addressing your Lordships. Perhaps he did.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Earl and I have known each other for forty years, I should think. Has he ever heard me say one thing contrary to what I have said across the Floor of the House this afternoon?
EARL HOWE: I am very glad to hear that; I am sure we all are. I am also sure that, whatever may have happened in the past, the noble Lord is now "as keen as mustard" to try to get this question of the 20 m.p.h. limit reconsidered. What is this limit imposed for? Will the noble Lord who is going to reply to the debate tell us? Is
76
it imposed for reasons of safety, or is it just a sort of haphazard restriction, which was placed on traffic in the old days? The only valid excuse, it seems to me, for a restriction of this sort must be one that has something to do with public safety. There does not seem to be any point in having a 20 m.p.h. limit if it is not required in the interests of public safety. The Ministry of Transport, in their own publications and otherwise, have indicated that there is no objection to what is suggested by Lord Lucas on the score that it would affect public safety. Why, then, have we still got this restriction? Surely the Government ought to be able to say, "If it is not required in the interest of public safety, let us do away with it."
Then take the question of enforcement. Is it really a good thing, from the point of view of maintaining respect for the law in this country, that we should have a restriction which all the evidence goes to show is disregarded by the drivers of 94 per cent. of the vehicles affected? Surely that cannot be right. One of the principal troubles from which we are suffering in this country to-day arises from the fact that the law is to a certain extent regarded with disrespect—we know that in other connections. It seems to me that if this restriction is not required in the interests of public safety, if it is being disregarded wholesale, it cannot be a very good thing to have it still in force. Again, on the question of enforcement, surely it cannot really be necessary to have police cars hunting lorries, as they do, up and down A.5 and A.1, trying to detect whether drivers are exceeding the limit. Would the police not be more usefully employed in watching for cases of really dangerous driving than in trying to catch some humble lorry driver exceeding the limit of 20 miles per hour? It seems to me that it is silly to allow the present state of things to continue. Yet one can see the police doing this work every day. We cannot blame the police; it is their duty to enforce the law. The law is there, and it is the fault of Parliament if the law is wrong.
Now as to the number of vehicles affected. It has been estimated that about 94,000 vehicles are subject to this speed limit. As one who is engaged in the manufacture of such vehicles, I can assure your Lordships that every word

77
which fell from the lips of Lord Lucas in this connection is only too desperately true. Trading conditions in the world are becoming much more competitive; and that applies especially to the heavy vehicle market. It is becoming much more difficult to sell our vehicles overseas. Yet all the time, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer, quite rightly, encourages manufacturers to go into overseas markets—and we all know how desperately important that is—we have here something which makes it difficult for us to compete effectively. It forces us to produce for use in this country a type of vehicle different from the sort we should sell in any other country. That, I suggest, is another very obvious point against this restriction.
Reference has already been made in the debate to the appalling congestion on our roads, and everyone knows of its existence. Lord Teynham mentioned the matter of a small commercial vehicle trying to overtake one of the large, heavy lorries. Everyone who uses the roads knows well what happens in such a case. The result is an appalling congestion, with vehicles behind, waiting their opportunity to pass. And, very likely, just when the two vehicles concerned draw level something comes from the other direction; the vehicle trying to pass has to drop back, and the whole business has to begin over again. The roads are not getting bigger, and they are getting more and more congested. Stagnation, as I have said, is well on the way. If it were not for the magnificent way in which these heavy motor vehicles are handled on the roads, conditions would be far worse than they are. In my humble judgment—and my view is reinforced by many drivers of far greater experience than myself—the greatest gentlemen you can find on the roads today are the drivers of heavy commercial vehicles. Thank heaven for it! What is 20 miles per hour? It is a limit too silly for words. Just think of it for half a minute. At school sports the mile race is usually run, and won, at a speed of about 12 miles an hour. To impose a limit of 20 miles per hour on commercial vehicles is really too silly.
Further, it seems to me that it must be a very trying experience—indeed, I know it is—to drive these vehicles with very big loads within this limit, especially on the overcrowded and badly designed roads
78
which some have to use. The natural speed is the sort of speed one wants to adopt. I suggest that the natural speed of one of these large heavy vehicles is something roughly in the neighbourhood of 25 to 30 miles per hour. That is the sort of speed at which it is suitable for them to travel. They can be driven at such a speed as that without risk of undue fatigue on the part of the driver. I think it was Lord Teynham who pointed out to your Lordships that far less gear-changing is called for in the case of a vehicle which travels at 25 to 30 miles per hour than with one driven within the legal limit of 20 miles per hour. The question of the passenger vehicle has been mentioned. A passenger vehicle can go at 30 miles per hour, and very likely it is larger and more cumbersome than the goods vehicle that is restricted to 20 miles per hour. Practically every organisation interested in road transport has supported the demand to do away with the 20 m.p.h. limit. In 1951, 200 Members of Parliament supported a Motion in another place to abolish it.
The question of wages and conditions has been mentioned. In 1948, the Wages Councils Act was passed, under which a Road Haulage Wages Council was set up, and I am perfectly certain that if there are any difficulties on the score of wages and conditions arising out of the doing away with the 20 m.p.h. speed limit, this Council ought to be able to straighten them out and see that everybody concerned gets a square deal. I hope that the Government will give most careful consideration to this matter. But I hope they will not stop at consideration: I hope they will act. I am certain that unless something is done, the conditions on the road, bad as they are already, will become considerably worse; and in the not too distant future. I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting the noble Lord and in congratulating him on bringing this Motion before the House.
5.32 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, on this matter I cannot speak with that knowledge with which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, speak, but, as a simple pedestrian who has listened to these discussions on the wholesale killing of men, women and children on the roads and streets of this country, I have been astonished at what has been said. I rise to

79
say only this to your Lordships. In face of the annual massacre of people on the roads, I think any Government would have to give a much simpler and more forceful defence of an increase of the speed limit in this country than has yet been given in this debate. I feel I must tell your Lordships that if a vote were being taken on this matter. I certainly would vote against an increase in the speed limit.
5.33 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, except for one dissenting voice, there seems to be remarkable unanimity in the Chamber this afternoon. I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in this Motion. I admit that I cannot forget that for several years, with all his persuasiveness, he could not persuade his own Government to put this proposal into effect, but that is no reason why he should not persuade the present Government to do so, and I sincerely hope that he will. There are at least four main grounds making the removal of the 20 miles per hour speed limit essential. The first is road safety, which is closely connected with the point of design and manufacture for export, which I count as number two. Thirdly, there is the reduction of the cost of articles manufactured for export, and fourthly, there is the reduction in the cost of living in this country. I should like to eleborate these points briefly.
In regard to road safety, the 20 miles per hour limit causes four main dangers. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, we find that the design of light chassis is totally unsuitable and unsafe for the loads they have to carry—chassis which, in any case, would not stand up to the work of any roads that have not the perfect surface ours have got. Secondly, there is overloading of vehicles which have already been too lightly built for the loads they are designed to carry. Thirdly, there is unnecessary passing on main roads of heavy commercial vehicles by light commercial vehicles, and, to my mind still more serious than that, the unnecessary passing on by-roads of heavy vehicles by private cars. We get a heavy vehicle going along at 20 miles per hour and a private car passing because it wants to travel at 30 miles per hour. It would be safe
80
for both to do 30 miles an hour, and it is unwise for either to do over. Fourthly, a point which I do not think has been mentioned is the question of driver fatigue. I know of this from personal experience. I could have spoken from personal experience in the last debate. I did not, but this time I am going to do so in case the noble Earl, Lord Howe, should call me to order for not doing so. Speaking from personal experience, I would say that driving a heavy vehicle at 20 miles per tour is a most tiring job. If one drives it at 30 miles per hour, the fatigue is nothing like the same. It is not only a question of additional gear-changing. The steering is lighter and everything is easier.
Another point which I do not think many people have taken into account or thought about is the question of safety. If one is driving a modern vehicle with big pneumatic tyres at 30 miles per hour and a tyre bursts, it is not nearly so dangerous as a tyre burst at 20 miles per hour. That may sound an extraordinary statement, but it is an actual fact. If a tyre bursts at 20 miles per hour, the action it takes is so quick that unless the driver is ready and waiting for it, he has no time to grab his vehicle, but if he is travelling at 30 miles per hour, that speed just gives the initial velocity to the vehicle to enable him to grab it and hold on. That may be a point which is not generally recognised. I did not know it myself until I was told by a lorry driver who had experienced tyre bursts at both speeds. I think it is a point which should be remembered. There is another thing about the 20 miles per hour speed limit which, to my mind, is dangerous—that is, the effect on the mental attitude of the driver. He is sitting there more or less dawdling along. Mentally, he stops, counts the number of partridges he sees beside the road, watches the pheasants and rabbits, and sees anything except the road in front of him—he is tired to death of looking at that. His mind is not on his job. At 30 miles per how it would be, because it has got to be and he knows it.
So far as design and manufacture for export is concerned, that point has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I think it is an obvious fact that no manufacturer can produce two articles designed to do the same job

81
as economically as he can produce one. My final point is regarding the resultant reduction in the cost of articles for export and home consumption. I think it is fairly obvious that anything that can reduce the price of transport must have a great effect on the cost of any finished article. The removal of the 20 miles per hour speed limit—here I am rather going to join issue with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin—would permit increased wages to the driver and still make a material difference in the cost of transport. The driver could receive more for his extra production, and yet the extra production would show a material difference in cost to the manufacturer.
The time has long since passed when action should have been taken. This Government must not try to shelter behind the hypothetical opposition of unions. Employers and unions cannot be expected to spend their time arguing out new schedules of speed and new rates of pay on an increase of a speed limit that may never take place. Let the Government say that in four months' time—or whatever date they like, but let them make it as short as possible—the 20 miles per hour speed limit will be abolished. I am sure that if they do that, the unions and the employers will get together and thresh out their schedules and wages schemes, and at the end of four months they will be ready to start. The result will be that the cost of our transport will be reduced and the safety of our roads will be greatly increased. Above all, let us remember, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, that the lorry drivers of this country—and incidentally I may say that here I restrict myself to long-distance lorry drivers—are the finest drivers on the road to-day. They are the most courteous, the most helpful and the best drivers, and most of them work the longest hours. Those men have the interests of this country at heart just as much as we have. There may be a minority who want to save time—which they can do on the existing schedules at 20 miles per hour by exceeding the limit—and spend the time saved playing dominoes, but that is a very small minority to whom this Government, at least, should pay no attention—they would not get their votes, anyway. This job was funked by the last Government. We have now a Government who came in and said they were going to do un-
82
pleasant things and make us do unpleasant things; and they said they were going to have courage in doing them. There is nothing unpleasant about this, and the only courage needed is the courage to stand up to any discontented Communistic voice that says: "Do not let us raise the limit, because if we do the men will have to work harder."
5.40 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I propose to be brief, because this subject has been fully covered by the previous speakers. I agree with almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, and I fail to see how anybody, having listened to four speeches by noble Lords with great knowledge of road transport, could feel that any other course was right than to raise this speed limit for heavy vehicles from 20 to 30 miles per Hour. The argument on the export side is unanswerable. It is essential that our manufacturers should be able to produce a vehicle that is world-wide in use. I would say only one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I suggest that it is more a case of lighter and more expensive materials, such as aluminium, having to he used in these vehicles, which raises the cost, but does not necessarily make them, as he rather indicated, dangerous vehicles on the road.
There is no doubt that this 20 m.p.h. speed limit is an absolute anachronism. It was introduced at a time when brakes were an entirely different piece of mechanism from what they are now, and I am quite certain that there would be no ill-effects from the safety point of view if the speed limit were raised. Unfortunately, a large body of uninformed people remain unconvinced. One of them, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, has spoken here to-day. I think he represents a body of people who argue quite fallaciously on the following lines. They say, "There are far too many accidents when these vehicles are going at 20 miles per hour; they would be very much worse if we let them go 10 miles per hour faster." The other argument put forward is this: "They have a limit of 20 miles per hour now, and they all go at 30 miles per hour: if you put it up to 30 miles per hour, they would all go at 40 miles per hour."
I mention this because one or two Members of this House have said that

83
to me, and I know that a number of unthinking people take that view. I feel that the arguments put forward to-day by other noble Lords—I am not going to repeat them—blow that theory to pieces. If all commercial vehicles were allowed to proceed at 30 miles per hour there would be an orderly queue on the road; there would not be so much passing, and the law would be far easier to enforce. A policeman in a car or on a motor-cycle could see many miles ahead a vehicle which was getting out of line and passing others, and he would not have to tell what sort of vehicle it was, or what regulation it was under, because he would know that every commercial vehicle on the road had the same speed limit. I will not labour the point, because it has been well put by other speakers, but I am convinced that from all points of view, including that of safety, the raising of the speed limit would be a tremendous advantage.
5.48 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF TRANSPORT FUEL AND POWER (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, first of all, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for having given us this opportunity to debate this most important subject. I would, if I may, go further and extend to him my personal appreciation of the clear and forthright way in which he has made all his points. I must say that my debt of gratitude in this matter would have been even greater if he had shown that same forthrightness during his period of office. I think one might justifiably ask why the noble Lord and his friends did not practise what they now preach. They had the opportunity, and the years rolled by. The noble Lord will forgive tile for making that incidental observation, because it is the true position.
This proposal to increase the speed limit has been before Governments for a long time. I remember having the same matter before me when I was Minister of War Transport in 1944. But at that time the road safety experts could not tell what the change would mean in the days to come at the end of the war. In matters of life and death it was quite understandable that the risks could not be taken. The result could be only a
84
guess. But in my opinion the situation gained quite a new look when, in 1947, the Committee on Road Safety said that they had no objection to the proposal. The late Government then certainly started discussions with the two sides of industry to try to get agreement to the change. But perhaps I may be permitted to say that I do not think they proved themselves sufficiently vigorous in their discussions, or indeed courageous enough—this despite the fact that the political atmosphere was surely not unfavourable to the change.
There is little that I can or need add to what noble Lords have already said in favour of the proposal. So far as I am aware, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, there is only one other State in the world, the Transvaal, where they impose so low a speed limit as 20 miles per hour. That is no inducement for us necessarily to continue to follow such a lead. I do not think anyone would gainsay that thievery restrictive provision is a handicap to our motor manufacturers in their efforts to capture markets abroad. The noble Lord made that very clear, and I subscribe to all he said. The imposition of the law means that the home market demands in the heavier classes a vehicle which is under-engined for the higher speeds needed overseas. That is the crux of the whole position. Conversely, manufacturers, in their strenuous efforts to keep vehicles below three tons in unladen weight, produce lorries which are not robust enough for the exacting demands of the export market.
Again, so far as the speed limit of 20 miles per hour is observed, it means that an important adjunct of our industrial equipment is not being put to the best use. It means that time is being wasted and that transport costs are unnecessarily inflated. It adds to the cost of exports. In point of fact, it is common knowledge that this speed limit is frequently disregarded. In a recent survey—and this has been partly referred to already—the Road Research Laboratory found that only per cent. of the vehicles concerned were travelling at or below the legal maximum, and that no less than 38 per cent. were travelling at over 30 miles per hour. Obviously this is a deplorable state of affairs. It brings the law relating to road traffic into disrepute. None of us, I am sure, would wish to criticise the

85
police for this. They do their best—and in the circumstances it is a very good best—to enforce a law the difficulties of which are obvious. Indeed, it might almost be said that the time of the police could be spent on better—or perhaps I should say worse—things.
Now a word about road safety. One factor is the great technical advance made in recent years, particularly in brakes, which makes most modern heavy vehicles as safe at 30 miles per hour as the older ones were at 20—or safer. There is also the point that greater uniformity of speed between different types of vehicle would tend to reduce the amount of overtaking, which on our crowded roads is often a source of danger. I am told that when in 1948 Mr. Barnes took soundings in this matter, objections to the proposal on grounds of safety were received from a number of organisations. I certainly do not pretend that the arguments are entirely one way. There may well be some road safety factors which still tell against the uplifting of the limit. For example, we agree that pre-war lorries would still have to be subject to the lower limit. A much smaller number of vehicles—probably well under a quarter of those now subject to the limit—would be affected. The police would be able to distinguish them because they would still carry the familiar "20" plate at the rear. I have not heard this point mentioned to-day but it is a fact that there is this quite formidable number of lorries built, I should think, around and before 1942, which would not be equal to the higher speed. We must be careful to protect that position so that we do not fall into a trap.
But when one balances it all up, it is our view that considerations of road safety need not hold up the change, and in this we are fortified by the view expressed by the Road Safety Committee in 1947. What then has delayed the carrying out of this proposal? It is well known—it has been mentioned this afternoon—that the stumbling block has been the attitude of the employees in the industry. The drivers fear that the change would lead to a reduction in their earnings, and they are not prepared to accept the change willingly until they can be sure that their interests in this matter are adequately safeguarded. Negotiations between the two sides of the industry began nearly six years ago, but
86
so far no conclusion satisfactory to both sides has been reached. This is the position which faced the last Administration.
I think your Lordships would acquit me of any charge of generally making Party points. But I cannot on this occasion resist pointing out that, during all their years of office, the Party opposite failed to come to grips with this deadlock between the two sides of the industry. There was this stalemate. Why did they not get hold of some of the pieces on the chessboard and move them into more useful positions? I myself feel that this failure to reach agreement between employers and employees was largely due to the fact that they were dealing with a rather vague and uncertain situation in those early times. There was no certainty that the change was going to come about. The discussions, therefore, went on in an atmosphere of unreality. I believe that if Parliament had made the change, the negotiating machinery between the two sides of the industry would have acted effectively, and that a reasonable and satisfactory solution would have been found. The change in the speed limit can be made by the Minister of Transport by regulation, but the regulation must be approved by an Affirmative Resolution in each House of Parliament. It would be a thousand pities if, on a Resolution of this nature, there were a cleavage along Party lines. For this reason, I now propose to ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, two questions.
My first question is this. May we take it that he is the official spokesman of his Party on this occasion, and that the terms of his Motion represent the official view of his Party? My second question is: If my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport were to introduce the regulation, may we take it that the noble Lord's Party would support the necessary Affirmative Resolution, both in this House and in another place? I hope that when the noble Lord comes to speak in a few moments he will be able to say, "Yes." But if, perchance, he feels that he cannot commit himself immediately, then I do at least hope he will be able to convey to meat an early date that something along these lines may go forward. I need not say what enormous help it would be if the noble Lord were to use his powers of persuasion on his own Party and its supporters, so that he can come back and assure me, and all on this side,

87
that their support would be available for this purpose, Then the affair would wear an entirely different complexion. If that were to happen, employers and employees would surely resume discussions with a new spirit.
We realise, of course, that there would be a number of practical points to be settled. We should therefore propose to make the regulation effective only as from a date some little way ahead. These old vehicles have to be catered for, and it will take a little time to have the right adjustments made. But even so, the industry would be working in a much more realistic atmosphere, and I feel sure that both sides of the industry would find that they could settle the industrial questions which have so far held up re-arrangement. In respect of so many of the present vehicles I think it would be a blessing for everyone once this thing could be settled on those lines. For the moment, the difficulty still remains that employees in the industry have not been able to agree, and we must be ready to bring agreement about by way of settlement before we can move at all.
6.0 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, and flattered that he himself should have come down to make it. I cannot claim to stand here to-day and put the official view of Her Majesty's Opposition. I based my Motion upon the fact that it had nothing to do with any outside matters. It is for the Government to govern; and if the Government increase the 20 m.p.h. limit to a 30 m.p.h. limit, whether or not the employers and employees reach agreement on the schedules has nothing to do with it. The noble Lord cannot place upon me the responsibility of government, any more than he can place upon me the responsibility for quite a number of things which happened when the Party to which I belong were in office.
The noble Lord suffers from one great political disadvantage: he came into politics on the high level. He should have started at the bottom: he should have been a Parliamentary Secretary. If the noble Lord had had that experience he would have come to the conclusion that it is a very sobering experience. One of
88
the difficulties in which the noble Lord finds himself is that you cannot negotiate in a vacuum. I agree with the noble, Lord on all the points he has raised. There are the factors of pre-war vehicles to take into consideration. My Motion was upon the narrow subject of lifting this regulation now, for the sake of removing a disincentive to our export trade—a disincentive which the noble Lord agrees is a real one. I am going to make the noble Lord an offer. Let us at least make some progress in this matter. Do not let us go on talking about it: let us do something. If the noble Lord, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, will call a conference with Her Majesty's official Opposition to discuss this matter, we shall be only too happy to take advantage of it and see whether we can arrive at some conclusions. The noble Lord could not have made my case better than he did. He is in agreement with everything I said. When this matter was debated on the last occasion in another place there was practical unanimity, and I feel certain that, if the noble Lord will call this conference, we shall be delighted to do what we can to remove deterrents to our future in the commercial vehicle export market. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GREAT OUSE RIVER BOARD (OLD WEST INTERNAL DRAINAGE DISTRICT) ORDER
6.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN rose to move, That the Great Ouse River Board (Old West Internal Drainage District) Order, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on the 4th December, 1952, be annulled. The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Milner, I beg to move the annulment of this Order. The subject matter of the Order is an alteration in the area of art internal drainage district. The Cambridgeshire County Council have taken objection to this by Petition. A brief glance at some of the documents in the case shows that it is a highly technical matter. It involves the evidence of experts and the examination of maps, and it is, consequently, a case unsuited for debate and discussion in this House. In my submission it is a matter which can more properly be considered by a Joint

89
Committee under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945. However, before this can be done, in a case of this kind where a Petition of general objection has been presented, it is necessary formally to move the annulment of the Order. YourLordships will have noticed that there is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, and the purpose of my Motion is to clear the way for this Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Great Ouse River Board (Old West Internal Drainage District) Order, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on the 4th December, 1952, be annulled.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD WOLVERTON LORD WOLVERTON moved, as an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out all words after "That" and to insert:
"the Petition of the Cambridgeshire County Council presented to this House against the Great Ouse River Board (Old West Internal Drainage District) Order. 1952, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Having studied the matter very closely I feel that it is one which cannot be argued very successfully across the Floor of this House. Moreover, as the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said, it is a highly technical matter. Therefore, I hope the House will agree with this proposal that the matter should be referred to a Joint Committee. I hope also that Her Majesty's Government will support the idea. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out from ("That") to the end and insert ("the Petition of the Cambridgeshire County Council presented to this House against the Great Ouse River Board (Old West Internal Drainage District) Order, 1952, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945.")—(Lord Wolverton.)
6.8 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment. It is largely a technical matter. I think the principle under the Land Drainage Act is that land which pays drainage rates is land which receives benefit, or at any rate land which avoids risk. The problem is that the Act contains no definition.
90
How does one know whether any particular land does receive benefit or does avoid risks? One would have thought that that ought to be considered on the merits of each particular case. The practice has grown up, apparently, since 1933, and it was approved by the Minister of that date, of having some kind of rule of thumb by which this is done in accordance with what is known as the Medway Letter. That is an old practice, but I do not think it is desirable that we should interpolate a Ministerial rule of that sort. At any rate, a rule which was apparently good in 1933 has been proved by experience to be unscientific and out of date, and that is a matter which ought to be considered by the House, in order that we can have an original Act of Parliament unembellished by any Ministerial excrescences. For this reason I beg to support the Amendment that this matter be referred to a Joint Committee, in order that the whole matter may be gone into and considered in the light of the evidence and the maps, and all the rest.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, as has been already stated by both the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, this is really a procedural matter, so that this subject can be dealt with by a Joint Committee of both Houses, rather than in the form in which it is being dealt with at the moment. Therefore, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carrington, I am quite prepared to accept Lord Wolverton's Amendment to the Motion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to: Ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.