Lords Sitting of 8 July 1953

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

UNITED KINGDOM TRADE WITH TURKEY
2.37 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Barnby, I beg to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, with regard to official expressions of desire to increase trade with Turkey, which however is currently becoming more difficult owing to exchange problems, together with the tendency for "compensation basis" trading by certain other countries, they are now, in view of the recent advances by the Russian Soviet Government towards a new trade agreement with Turkey, able to indicate any prospect of improvement in climate for trade between the United Kingdom and Turkey.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation is at present examining a recent decision by Turkey, taken in the light of her balance of payments difficulties, to reimpose restrictions on imports from the other member countries, including the United Kingdom. Considerable uncertainty exists as to the volume of imports from O.E.E.C. countries which Turkey's new import programme will permit, and as to the provisions for the transfer of exchange in payment for such imports. Until the O.E.E.C. receives the information necessary to formulate its recommendations, it is not possible to predict what the prospects may be for the improvement in conditions for trade with Turkey which naturally Her Majesty's Government earnestly desire. I have no official information about any
350
proposals made by the Soviet Government to Turkey affecting trade relations between the two countries.
LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the carefully-considered reply he has given, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Barnby also will be grateful. Listening to what the noble Lord said, it seems to me that one of the difficulties is the shortage of foreign currency that Turkey is experiencing. Can the noble Lord say whether there is any way in which Her Majesty's Government can assist in this matter, or has, perhaps, been assisting already, by helping people in this country to purchase more goods from Turkey—possibly, to be more specific, more tobacco?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, with the exception, I think, of sultanas, all the goods which Turkey is interested in exporting can be imported into this country on private account. Where import licences are necessary these are, generally speaking, readily available. When an unofficial Turkish trade mission visited this country last February, all possible help was given to them by the Government Departments concerned, by means of direct discussions and by putting them in touch with seemingly promising private trading interests. The Ministry of Food undertook to buy an additional 10,000 tons of sultanas from the Turkish 1952 crop, of which so far only 4,500 tons have been supplied. With regard to my noble friend's second supplementary question, I understand that tobacco manufacturers were willing to buy more of the particular types of Turkish tobacco they need than was available for them from the 1952 Turkish crop. Licences are granted freely to enable the trade to import as much Turkish tobacco as they wish, and there are no restrictions on its use. I think the answer to the Question in general is that we in this country have done everything in our power to assist.
EARL JOWETT: I saw in the newspapers this morning that there was a considerable possible export of wheat from Turkey. Would it not be possible for the Government to consider whether they could purchase some of that wheat to satisfy our requirements, and at the same time do a good turn to Turkey?
LORD MANCROFT: I, too, saw that statement in The Times. I think it gives, by and large, an accurate picture. I understand—and I should like to confirm this—that the difficulty about wheat is, first, that prices are really above the economic price, and, secondly, that the wheat crop is not graded, or at least does not maintain a sufficiently even grading to satisfy the English miller. That, I understand, is the chief difficulty at the moment.
LORD HAWKE: Will Her Majesty's Government give every encouragement to Turkey and other countries who are in a similar predicament to fix their exchanges on a realistic basis, as they have an opportunity of doing so through their mutual membership of the International Monetary Fund?
LORD MANCROFT: That, I think, is getting a little far away from the original Question, but I will certainly look into the point.

SIR WALFORD SELBY'S BOOK
2.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in regard to an official statement that the imputations made in a book called Diplomatic Twilight against the conduct of high officials at the Foreign Office during the inter-war period are not in accordance with the facts and are therefore unwarranted, they are aware that the Foreign Office informed the author, after considering his manuscript, that there was no objection on their part to the publication of the account of the diplomatic events of his Missions to Vienna and Lisbon; and, in view of the fact that more than one high official, directly or indirectly connected with the Foreign Office, is referred to in the book, whether they will state which criticisms are not in accordance with the facts, and what, in their opinion, the facts are.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, as regards the
352
first part of the Question, I would remind the noble Viscount of the Answer given to the Question in another place, upon which his own Question is based. The Foreign Office have no powers of censorship and can scrutinise works submitted to them only from the point of view of possible offences against the Official Secrets Acts or other matter directly injurious to the public interest. On that basis, as the answer to which I have referred indicated, the author of the book Diplomatic Twilight was informed, to quote the actual words used, that
"So far as your account of the diplomatic events of your missions in Vienna and Lisbon is concerned, no objection is taken to publication."
His attention was, however, drawn to the extreme undesirability of public attacks by one former civil servant on another, and subsequently he was furnished with a copy of a letter previously sent to him from the Foreign Office expressing disapproval of such attacks in the strongest possible terms.
As regards the second part of the Question, it would obviously be quite impossible for me, within the scope of this Answer, to enter into a detailed analysis of or commentary upon all the imputations made in the book. But I would make it clear that it does contain serious errors in fact.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for that reply, and should like to ask him one further question. Is he aware that there are a number of authoritative persons, including high officials of the Foreign Office in the 1920's and 1930's, who have publicly testified to the accuracy of the author's story; and is it not, in any event, important that future historians should have at their disposal free expressions of opinion from every quarter on these very important diplomatic items of history?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: As regards the first part of that question, I do not accept that expressions of opinion of other civil servants have corroborated many of the statements which are made in this book. As regards the contribution to history to which the noble Viscount refers, it is important that contributions to history should be based on accurate information.
LORD DERWENT: Can the noble Lord give examples of errors of fact to which reference has been made?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I obviously cannot traverse all the ground, but may I take two examples. One statement made is that the author's despatches were not properly considered inside the Foreign Office during the period of 1933 and the early part of 1934; but at the same lime, in March, 1934, he was writing to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, who was then Secretary of State, saying:
"It is indeed a satisfaction to me to know that you have found my despatches illuminating."
A further complaint was that his despatches were not circulated to the Cabinet. We have carefully consulted our records and we find that all the more important of his despatches were circulated to the Cabinet, and circulated on the instruction of the Secretary of State.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Marquess this question? Is he aware, in relation to the statement that he has just made, that that is only part of the story? Is it fair for a Minister in another place to impugn the veracity of the author without giving all the grounds on which he has made that statement?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: If, in answer to a Question, my right honourable friend in another place had given all the grounds, presumably he would have had to write a companion volume to Sir Walford Selby's book.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Arising out of this Question, may I be allowed to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether he will take it from me that the high officials of the Foreign Office, when I was Foreign Secretary, discharged their duty faithfully and in accordance with the best traditions of the Civil Service, and that any suggestions to the contrary are without any foundation and are the merest nonsense?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, there is no source from which that statement could more authoritatively come.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Arising out of the last answer of the noble
354
Marquess, may I ask him whether he is aware that, during the time that I was Secretary of State, Sir Warren Fisher, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, who is the official principally attacked in this book, never tried to interfere in the conduct of foreign affairs or in Foreign Office acid diplomatic appointments, but that, on the contrary, he was most helpful to me in insisting, for instance, in the Defence Requirements Committee that a strong foreign policy was impossible without adequate force to back it. Secondly, is he also aware that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, the other official principally criticised in this book, who was then Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, worked with me in the most complete harmony; that we concealed nothing from each other and thought alike upon all the urgent questions of the time; and that, therefore, it is an entire misrepresentation or misunderstanding of our relations to suggest, as seems to be suggested in this book, that the permanent head of the Office ignored the opinions or wishes of his Parliamentary chief, or disagreed with his policy. In point of fact, no two men worked together more unreservedly or in more friendly relations, and I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord for the help that he gave me at a very difficult time.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am obliged to the noble Viscount. I do not think that the author's critical references to Sir Warren Fisher are any freer from serious mis-statement than other passages in the book, but the imputations which directly concern the Foreign Office and the conduct of its own officials were primarily the matters with which I was dealing.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask one further question, in relation to what has just fallen from the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood? As he has mentioned names in this connection, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that such high officials in the Foreign Office as Sir Victor Wellesley and Mr. Ashton Gwatkin, and in this House the late Lord Perthand the late Lord Salisbury, all testified to the interference by Sir Warren Fisher in the affairs of the Foreign Office and stated that that interference was injurious?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I know that there have in the past been debates on this subject but, as I have said before, I do not accept the accuracy of the allegation that there was interference by Sir Warren Fisher in the affairs of the Foreign Office.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that, are not all these matters for which Ministers and not officials are responsible, and should not these criticisms be directed towards the Ministers of the Crown of the Government at that time, and not the civil servants?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I would accept and endorse that doctrine, as, indeed, I think it has been endorsed to some extent this afternoon by the questions put by two noble Lords who were Ministers at the material time dealt with in this book.

RATIONING OF PORK
2.51 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the reluctance of many people to accept pork as part of their meat ration, they will take pork off the ration and make it available, free of subsidy and free of price control, for the benefit of the many private consumers and caterers who would like to buy it.]
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carrington I should like to say that to de-ration and de-control pork, or to make any piecemeal approach to the problem of de-rationing and de-controlling of meat, might well delay the attainment of Her Majesty's Government's aim to hand the meat trade back to private hands as soon as possible. Some pork, in common with other types of meat, can now be obtained off the ration where butchers hold supplies surplus to their ration requirements, but this arrangement will apply only for a limited period whilst meat supplies are heavy.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
2.52 p.m.
Considered on Report (according to Order).

BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  LAND DRAINAGE (SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL (RIVE DITCH IMPROVEMENT)) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
    WALSALL CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
    House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bills: Bills reported without amendment.

AMERICAN SERVICEMEN IN BRITAIN
2.54 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to use the opportunity offered by the presence of units of the United States Air Force in this country to promote closer Anglo-American understanding; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure you will agree that enough has been said about the problem of Anglo-American relations by wiser and older people than I to fill perhaps Hansard and the Congressional Record from now until Doomsday. Therefore, I do not wish to waste your time this afternoon with vague expressions of good intent or well-meaning cliches about "marching shoulder to shoulder. "But it is well to remind ourselves that this problem of Anglo-American relations, which is in itself an inadequate and hackneyed phrase, is a question of vital importance to every single person in this country, and I am raising it this afternoon for a very special purpose. I have recently returned from an extensive tour of the United States, during which I became increasingly worried by, and aware of, the many times which I was asked, both officially and unofficially, whether or not it was true that there was real friction existing between the United States Service personnel in this country and the civilian

357
population. Therefore, when I got home I made it my special task to see and talk to as many people as I could find who were concerned with this problem, and I made it my job to find out the true situation.
Perhaps I should explain at once that one of the main reasons why so many Americans in the States feel that all is not right here is that such regrettable incidents as occurred in Manchester last autumn (when, as your Lordships probably remember, some American Servicemen were beaten up in the street) are headlined in every single paper on the front page throughout the United States. While this kind of story makes news, the story of the quiet and steady development of good relations does not make news. Bad news travels fast, and unfortunately, at the moment that is what Americans mostly read. Happily, however, I can report to your Lordships this afternoon, that it is true that, for the most part, relations between the American Air Force personnel and our local civilian populations can be described in no other way than as being excellent. This does not mean, however, that there is not still much that can be done to prevent friction and other troubles which may arise. I can think of no other fact that would better illustrate how well the average American Air Force men get on with the local people than to tell you this most interesting piece of information: that there are an average of 200 marriages a month between American Service personnel and British girls. When one realises that there are about 35,000 American Air Force personnel in this country, and also nearly 20,000dependants, it will be agreed that the chances of a G.I. returning home single from England are extremely small—indeed, they should be extremely pleased that, in spite of England having had a period of Socialist Government, some sections of the population are still fairly good at private enterprise.
It is indeed heartening to feel that the British stock in the United States being continually strengthened. It seems right that the descendants of those British who gave birth, through the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution, to a great country, should be coming back and then returning home again with a British wife to strengthen
358
further the British strain of which both the United States and Great Britain are justly proud. What I want to find out to-day is exactly what is being done to seize this great opportunity. What advantage is being taken of the presence of the Americans in this country on a long term of duty to bring about a greater understanding between the two nations? Here, indeed, is a wonderful chance of sending back each year many good will ambassadors on our behalf.
Recently, because of the rantings of many ill-informed and mischievous demagogues, Anglo-American relations have received, in the eyes of the outside world, a considerable setback. But those who really know and have had an opportunity of living in both great countries must surely know that nothing can ever break the strong bond of sympathy which exists between our two nations. Indeed, if one takes the issue out of clay-to-day politics and reduces it to Christian principles and the Western code of morals and ethics, I challenge anyone to find a single basic point on which our two nations disagree. We do know, however, that it is an avowed Communist aim, if it is possible, to split our countries. There is no doubt that many people in America have been misled into thinking that we do not welcome American forces into this country. This is because, in some ways, the propaganda efforts of the opposition forces have been clever. Secondly, I do not think people in America have been properly informed of what exactly is being done over here to make their sons and husbands feel at home: sons and husbands who are now here as allies, all ready to help defend our island against a common aggression, but who would, like all soldiers, at all times, in all places—let there be no bones about this—dearly like to be back home.
I have been pleasantly surprised in the last few weeks to find how many organisations are taking this problem seriously and are doing their best, under the guidance of the Air Ministry, to make sure that Americans returning from a three-year tour of duty in this country go home as good friends of this country. One of the organisations which has been most active and successful in my view has been the W.V.S. whose Anglo-American clubs in Norwich and Cambridge, in addition to their many information centres, are

359
doing a first-class job. They are run by voluntary helpers, with very little financial backing, but the success of these clubs, in particular, is most striking; and the great tact with which the W.V.S. handle the mixture of American troops, British troops and the British civilians is particularly praiseworthy.
I am sure we are all looking forward to hearing from the Air Minister about the great number of organisations which I hear have joined the committee set up to deal with this subject, so let me just say that I know what excellent work is being done by the English Speaking Union, the British Legion and the T.U.C. They have all done what they can to help with this problem. I have, in all humility, one or two suggestions to offer as to how this organisation might be improved. I feel very strongly at the moment that, excellent as it is, this committee is too unwieldy to produce any very definite action. It is impossible to get so many organisations as are represented on it together for a meeting more than two or three times a year. I feel, further, that the appointment of Air Marshal Sir George Pirie as the official liaison officer, excellent as his qualifications may be, is marred by the fact that he is a retired officer, who spends only two or three days a week dealing with this subject. I feel strongly that not to have some high-ranking officer still on the Active List in charge of this question tends in some way to belittle its importance. This is, of course, in no way, a criticism of Sir George Pirie, but I think it would be more practical, in terms of efficiency, to re-establish, under the chairmanship of this full-time officer, a committee on the same lines as that which functioned so successfully in the last war.
Let me remind your Lordships that the Minister of Information, General Eisenhower, the American Ambassador, and the British Service Chiefs all appointed deputies to represent them at regular meetings to co-ordinate and stimulate official and unofficial action to deal specifically with this problem. I would suggest that, if the Minister thought fit, this full-time officer should gather round him a small and compact sub-committee—perhaps one representative from the U.S. Air Force, someone like Mr. Herbert Agar, the historian living in this country, who would be an ideal person to visit
360
the many volunteer and other organisations to co-ordinate action. I do not mean to suggest for a moment that the Minister should give up the idea of his larger committee which he has formed, but I think that a sub-committee should be created to get to practical grips with this vital problem. This sub-committee could report from time to time to the larger group, and they would have the drive and the power to get decisions from the Ministers concerned.
I should like to make one or two other suggestions which I think would be welcomed by all those concerned. The first is the appointment at each American Air Force base of full-time British information and liaison officers, whose specific job would be to serve as a link between the American Air Force and the local groups who are so willing to help, but who often find it hard to make contact with the Americans on the bases. In addition, these men could act as local representatives on behalf of the committee sitting in London. The existing R.A.F. liaison officers now attached to each base obviously have too many Service matters to deal with each day to enable them, in addition, to carry out with full efficiency the day-to-day contact work between the local populations and the base. The American forces, I understand, have generously offered to provide the necessary office space, desks and administrative equipment for these information officers. It would not, therefore, seem money ill-spent if the Minister could persuade the Treasury to let him have a further £10,000 a year, say, to pay full-time officers at sixteen suggested positions in this country. Every minute and every farthing spent in this country on improving Anglo-American relations is worth a day and a dollar spent in the United States on public relations. I would therefore most strongly urge the Minister to reconsider the whole question of these information centres, particularly in view of the offer of the American authorities to take off his shoulders the whole weight of the capital expenditure on buildings and equipment.
One further point; I know that many organisations are devoting a part of their separate funds to the entertainment of American troops in this country. Would it not be a better idea to set up a modest fund on which local Anglo-American committees could draw, so that the

361
resources of all these organisations could be concentrated on proper equipment for canteens that already exist? Many of the clubs and canteens are excellent, but many of them are not equipped with items like radiograms or ping pong tables, comfortable chairs, and so on, which are a great help in drawing people in and getting them together. These centres, which are so excellent a rendezvous, where American forces, British forces and civilians can meet and get to know each other, must at least be attractive enough to get the people in. This fund might also be used for helping to start new centres, when some initial finance is vital and no one organisation has enough resources to take on the whole burden of setting up such a centre.
From time to time, one has heard of incidents in public-houses, which are the very places where the average American can learn most about this country by meeting the average Britisher. May I suggest that the Minister should write to the Brewers' Society, under its far-sighted Chairman, and point out how much good could be done if the Society were, for instance, to send out a letter to all the tenants of "pubs." round American bases to suggest that, when Americans wander in, they might be introduced to the local people, instead of just being left by themselves in a corner. Indeed, might not printed material about the "pub." tradition be made available to all houses in areas where there is a concentration of American troops? And could iced beer be made available sometimes—the lack of it is always a sore point with Americans over here. Many more possibilities will occur to us all. Some of these may seem small things, but in the end, in the long run, they add up to something important, a real attempt to make Americans welcome at the right level, at the level of their everyday living. I am sure that the Chairman of the Brewers' Society, who is a very go-ahead person, would receive a suggestion like this with every sympathy.
No committee, wherever formed, can replace the personal relationships that spring from a casual and natural meeting. When we come down to it, we all know that it is the local volunteers and the local good will that counts, more than any directions from London. One particular aspect to exploit is that of encouraging meetings between those who have a
362
common interest. For instance, the T.U.C. have made arrangements in many places for Americans to go round factories and see men doing the same jobs in this country as they would be doing in civilian life in the States. In addition, one must take the case of the man who might have a rare hobby like book bindings or archery Somewhere in the neighbourhood, or anyway in England, there will always be someone who has this common interest, and nothing creates firm friendships more quickly than this. So obscure, however, are some of these hobbies that here is a real job for the proposed information centres to undertake. At the moment, the W.V.S. in London are doing the best they can. I even heard of a man the other day who wished to do some stalking. Knowing how many members of your Lordships' House have deer forests in Scotland, I do not know whether some of you might show your willingness to help by inviting one or two G.I.'s up to do some stalking. I advise anybody who does so, however, to ask them not to wear the gaudy red and yellow checked shirts they are wont to use in hunting the moose. I am sure that the junior Senator from Wisconsin will be delighted to know that they will be chasing red deer.
In the past, some local people have taken considerable trouble, and have often been extremely hurt, after arranging hospitality for American troops, to find very poor attendances at the functions organised. If, at Christmas, many offers of hospitality have been left unfilled, we must remember that everybody likes to spend Christmas with his family—and, if not at home, prefers to be with his old friends, rather than go into completely strange homes. Sympathy with this point of view by local people is most important if everything is to go smoothly. In return, the American forces can contribute much to the life of the local area. Last Christmas every American base in this country gave a wonderful party for the children, the like of which had never been seen before. In many cases, Americans have been down to the local villages to address the Women's Institutes and British Legion branches. Exchange of information about each other's countries at this level and in this way can do more than any speeches in this House, or any other House, to bring about understanding between the two nations.
Inevitably, for our own good, we shall have units of the United States forces in this country for many years to come. Let us do everything in our power to make sure that the Americans see our country and understand as much as they can about it. Let us never forget that we have a common history which can do much to weld our nations closer together. The very presence here of the United States Air Force shows our common purpose in defending the way of life in which we believe. No one who has been to America can fail to be impressed by the enormous hospitality shown to visitors from England. Never before had I experienced so much kindness and hospitality as was showered on me in America last winter. We must remember that many of the mothers and fathers there have their boys in England, and I feel that it is towards them that we are looking for sympathy with us. Therefore, let us show Americans stationed here all that we believe to be good in England, so that they may return to their shores firmly convinced of our greatness, our sincerity and the great part we can play, alongside America, in securing the future and prosperity of the English-speaking world. When all is said and done, it is as simple as this. Here are men away from home, serving our interests, as well as their own. Let us make them feel at home in our houses, let us make them feel at home in our "pubs," and in our shops, in our big towns and in our small villages; and, above all, let us welcome them in our hearts. I beg to move for Papers.
3.14 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we can all compliment the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, on the excellent appeal he has made to the House to give careful consideration to the contacts that are inevitable in this country between ourselves and our American guests. The more we can assist the Government in this matter, the more we assist ourselves and the more we assist ourselves, the more we assist the United Nations to bring about the time when the American airmen go back home to their normal avocations as our friends.
I would advise the noble Lord not to pay too much attention to the comments that he may hear in the United States about friction existing in this country between our airmen and theirs or between
364
our people and their airmen. We have to remember that wherever groups of men may find themselves, friction of one sort or another will undoubtedly arise. If there were no American airmen in Great Britain, there would be plenty of friction every week between groups of men who have met one another either for some purpose or without any purpose whatever. The Press of our country and the Press of the United States would pay no attention whatever to that friction. It is only when the friction embraces men from the United States or from another country that the newspapers give it the amount of attention the sensationalism involved in a particular case creates. We must remember that in a great country like the United States, where we have so many friends, there are some people who are anti-British, who do not like the British and who are ready to fan sensational news in doing harm to this country. If we have these facts well in mind, we can give all the assurances that our American friends require and, at the same time, we ourselves can take the necessary steps to help forward closer unity and friendliness in our own land.
I do not wish to be too long over this matter, but there are one or two points which I think will bear some reference, from this side of the House. The field to be covered at the instance of the noble Lord is not a big one. The number of men involved is not large, the amount of money to be spent will not ruin our country and the effort required is not beyond our capacity to provide. Yet, although the field numerically to be covered is a small one, we have to remember two things. The first is that the American airmen in Britain come from many parts of the United States. The American forces in Great Britain represent America as a whole. The airmen are recruited not only in New York and Washington and the East; we find men from the West here, too. The second thing to remember is that the Americans who are with us do not represent one trade or industry or one interest. Almost every trade and calling and almost every interest can find its representative among our American friends in this country. Remembering that and recalling that the ground to be covered is small, I think your Lordships will agree that this question is not unimportant and ought to receive attention.

365
Another point we have to remember is the location of the American airmen in Great Britain. They are not to be found all over the country—not, at any rate, in masses. Largely they are stationed in the Eastern Counties and, because of the necessities of their duties, have to live mainly in rural areas, sometimes far removed from large centres of population. Therefore, we cannot depend only upon that part of our population which is rural to carry out the necessary tasks involved. If all the men in those forces, representing all sections of the American people, are to be catered for, then the activities required will have to be carried through by some men and women from most parts of Great Britain. That is why I feel it is a good thing that the committee which is now established to give counsel to the Government in connection with this matter is a large committee, representative of a fairly substantial number of institutions and organisations. While I think that the committee must be large, because it has to be representative, I am with the noble Lord in this: that, if active work is to be done under some kind of guidance and supervision, then something of the nature of a subcommittee, or a small group of men associated with the organisers, would be an extremely good thing.
It is inevitable, in considering the requirements of the case, that we should think in terms of social gatherings, whether they are open to all sections of the population or whether they are dances merely for young people. Obviously, we must do something to provide social gatherings for these men who, as I have said, are far away from the main centres of population. But please do not let us overdo that side of the work. If we are to gain anything at all by the presence of these men with us, then they must be encouraged to seek their amusements and their entertainments where the people of our country themselves find them. If we do that, then it seems to me that the American forces will be able to do what they like best. Certainly there must be some kind of social gathering; certainly there must be some form of dance, or other amusement. But these should be used merely as a means of introduction, either to one another, or to the people of this country.
Then we must consider sport. I do not know whether it is proper for us to
366
endeavour to persuade the American airman to become a "fan" at our cricket or our football matches. I sometimes wonder whether we should not be more successful if we invited the Americans to teach us the sports they like best. I sometimes find that people who are being taught are by no means enthusiastic, but that an enormous amount of enthusiasm arises if the people you want to teach find themselves teaching you. Therefore, if we are going to provide sport and amusement of this kind, it seems to me that we should encourage them to teach us, and, in teaching us, they may find out what it is that we like and why. Another form of entertainment is that of the circulation of our best literature, and, indeed, the visit of drama organisations to the various areas where they can be accommodated. A substantial number of men must be interested in reading and a substantial number would be interested in the theatre. If, therefore, it is difficult for them to come to the towns to attend the theatres, is it not possible for us to take the theatre to the airfields, in order that the men, sitting in their normal attire for the aerodrome, can enjoy what this country has produced?
One final point on this general appeal is this. Do not let the American airmen look in vain in the newspapers of our country for news about America. I know it will be said that our papers are sometimes full of news from America but much of the news which we find in our newspapers about America is news for British people. What I am thinking of is the provision of news about America for Americans in our country. If we do that, we shall probably find that the American soldier, while resident in this country, will begin to read British newspapers, and in doing so will travel from the columns containing American news to those providing British news.
Among the men who will be on the airfields there will be a number—possibly a comparatively small number—ust as there are in this country, who are prepared to give serious attention either to politics or to other human activities in which the average person spends too little time. I wonder whether we could not use the universities largely in this matter by bringing their lecturers into touch with these groups of men. Sometimes the groups will be small, but they will grow.

367
They might be brought into touch with things relating to this country which, when contrasted with things in their own country, would be most valuable to them. Some of the points that we might consider are the social history of Great Britain and the United States—not so much in the form of lectures, but in the form of discussions, so that the Americans can tell us about their social structure as well as learning something about our own. Then there is the industrial history of Great Britain and, in particular, the Industrial Revolution that occurred in Great Britain and did not occur in America. The Americans learned industrial affairs from Great Britain after we had had our revolution. It might be an advantage to the younger Americans, who are going to be prominent citizens of to-morrow, if in these Islands they could get to know something of our political history.
Another proposal might have reference to Government matters and, in particular, local government methods, in this country, as compared with those in the United States. I believe the Americans would learn a lot from our methods of governing our cities and towns. They will understand something of the greatness of British government, which has been derived largely by experience gained by men in the localities. Another item might have relation to the Commonwealth and international affairs; to relationships between ourselves and America; and to our relations with the Continent. I do not suggest that any of these things should be discussed in an awkward, formal manner, but that they should be the subject of discussion for the purpose of eliciting and providing information.
Finally, I come back to a point made by the noble Lord, that we ought to arrange with some of the travel agencies to take groups of men in their coaches to visit certain institutions or places in this country that must be of great interest. We must make it easy and comfortable for them to travel; and we must get them to travel in groups, if we can. They might, for instance, be taken on visits to the historic houses of Britain; and, while on those visits they might be told something of the families who used to live in them, of their accomplishments, and of the days in which those families were famous. They can, as the noble Lord
368
suggested, be taken to our factories, workshops and mines. They might be able to tell us many things; but also (which is necessary in these days) they might get the idea that the Englishman, or the Britisher, who seldom advertises himself, has, after all, got some good points. It would be a good thing if we could persuade the people in America that we are not quite dead; that we are able to live in fairly comfortable circumstances; and that, although there are troubles between ourselves and other countries in the world arising out of our economic difficulties, yet we are going to come back and be a nation that counts. Let them visit the London and other markets of our country; and let them see other forms of human activity. If we do that, we shall be helping forward the cause, not merely of peace in the world, but, what is of greater importance, friendly relations between ourselves and the people of the United States.
3.30 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord who has moved this Motion for the way in which he expressed his views. It gives the Secretary of State for Air a chance of saying, what Her Majesty's Government are doing in this field of rich opportunity, and also it gives me a chance of doing something which the Minister himself cannot do, which is to pay a tribute to Air Chief Marshal Pirie who has been detailed to this particular liaison task. The Air Chief Marshal was a most distinguished air attaché in Washington during the war—only one appointment in a long and successful career—and when we heard that he had been appointed to this task we all knew that it would be undertaken with the same success with which the Air Chief Marshal had discharged his other duties in the past.
Closer understanding means taking part in our family life and our national life in several directions. The reason why I am so bold as to speak for a few minutes to your Lordships this afternoon is that during the war I was the Minister responsible for the Commonwealth Air Training Plan and saw much of this particular problem, as it were, the other way round. I saw much of our young men in the United States and Canada, and saw the hospitality which was extended to them. I watched the methods

369
of the Americans, both private citizens and national organisations, and the way in which they approached the task of looking after our boys. This is certainly a chance—and I am sure that we are taking it—of repaying to some small extent the tremendous debt that we owe as a nation, and individually as parents and relations, for all that was done for those tens of thousands of young men of ours who were trained in Canada and the United States.
The experience which I had showed me that there are two directions in which this problem should be tackled, and tackled in both directions at the same time. One I would term the geographical and the other the functional direction. By the geographical direction, I mean what can be done in the locality by local authorities and by generous individuals, and by the functional I mean the approach through central organisations to give these men an opportunity of seeing a particular aspect of national life in which they are interested, or, alternatively, taking part in some particular sport or amusement which they particularly like. For instance, during the war Mr. Beddington, known to some of your Lordships, did great work in organising fishing for young men in the forces who were visiting this country.
Various other central organisations functioned then, and I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said is very sound: that there should be a greater use of them than we have seen hitherto. They may be functioning now—I do not know—but it seems to me that there is opportunity for the greater use of central organisations which would take these men through Britain's countryside in coaches. I wonder whether the authorities who look after our Royal Academy have thought of giving several hundred tickets to each of these stations to let the men come and see the Royal Academy Exhibition? I wonder whether the theatre and concert promoters have themselves thought of offering a certain allocation of accommodation to these men? We cannot rely entirely upon private hospitality and what I call local geographical effort. There mast be a contribution from the national organisations at the centre such as I have mentioned—transport organisations, theatre organisations, and others.
370
I hope we are going to hear from the Minister that much is being done, not only locally, but also by the central authorities and central organisations in this country. It is a vastly important subject which the noble Lord has raised. The promotion of closer understanding is probably the basis upon which the foundation of the free world depends. I am sure that the noble Lord has rendered a service to your Lordships' House in raising the matter to-day.
3.36 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend's Motion. Like him, I had the privilege earlier this year of spending some weeks in the United States and. visiting many cities there, both in the Middle West and in the East. As I expected, the hospitality that I received was something one does not easily forget. Such hospitality at once inspires one to see what one can do to repay it in this country to American visitors when they come over here. Important as that is—and it is vastly important—I believe that it is not the most important motive which underlies my noble friend's Motion. As my noble friend Lord Balfour said in his closing remarks, it seems to me axiomatic that on the future of Anglo-American collaboration and contact depends the safety of the whole of the West in the future.
One of the things which struck me so forcibly when I was out there was the obvious lack of knowledge by the ordinary men and women in both our countries of what goes on among the ordinary families in the other. There is an immense lack of knowledge as to our way of life and our points of view, and I would merely say in passing that in America, at any rate, that lack of knowledge is coupled with an amazing thirst for information. I should like to think that that thirst for information was as pronounced in this country about America as I found it on the other side. Our diplomats, our consuls and their staffs can do a great deal to put that matter right, but what they can do is not nearly so much, as other speakers have said this afternoon, as can be gained by citizens of one country visiting the ordinary families in another. We all know that it is not easy for Britishers to

371
go over to the United States in any number. There must be some special reason which takes them across, because we are short of dollars. But in this country we have American Air Force men, and we have an opportunity to do something on this side to counter the shortcomings of our being unable to go to the United States.
When I was in America it was at the time of the great floods which took place in the Eastern Counties of this country. Whilst I was there, I heard of a number of letters which American Servicemen had written to their families. Those letters were inspired by what those men had thought at the time they had been thrown together with ordinary civilians in common rescue work. Anyone who reads those letters would realise how important they were, and what an immense amount of good they were doing. They are letters that I shall not easily forget. It should not merely be great disasters which bring forth that sort of expression; rather should it be the natural hospitality that folk in this country can offer to our American guests in ordinary homes, the sort of hospitality which we hope will help them to while away their free time, when otherwise they might be bored.
As other noble Lords have said, a great deal is being done in this country, both by individuals and by organisations, and I join with Lord Balfour of Inchrye in congratulating those who have done so much from the Service angle. But there is much more that needs to be done. I am not going to follow my noble friend in making any specific recommendations. I shall listen with interest to see what the Minister has to say on his recommendations, but certainly much more has to be done. Whether it is the sort of work that can best be done by Her Majesty's Government as such, I am not sure; it may well be better that it should be done by private organisations and individuals. I do not want to close without expressing as strongly as I can my gratitude for the hospitality which I myself have received on the other side.
3.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, may I add a word or two to this debate on the basis of a limited but up-to-date acquaintance with some of the American
372
forces in this country? The first characteristic of the American Air Force here, I think, is that they are a very self-sufficient set of communities. They come with their own schools; they largely bring their own food, and they bring their own entertainment. That, of course, militates to some extent against their free mixing with individuals in this country. Moreover, their stations are mostly in very remote parts of East Anglia, so that it is more difficult for the inhabitants of East Anglia to entertain them in large numbers. I am convinced, however, that the will to mix with the people of this country is there, and the will to learn about us is there. The Americans are extremely open-handed and generous in their hospitality. I was at an entertainment given at one air base where thousands of people came by coach from all over East Anglia. They were shown round the place, shown baseball games and given entertainment, and the whole thing was extremely well done. We have to thank these officers and enlisted men for their hospitality. I am convinced that they are very ready to make the acquaintance of their English neighbours.
How can this better acquaintance best be fostered? I cast my mind back to occasions when I have been stationed in peace time in a foreign country, and the first thing I remember is that one had very little opportunity of mixing with the inhabitants of those countries. One would have been glad of more opportunities, but I think that anything like official organisation of the scheme would have been resented. So Her Majesty's Government should beware of over-organising anything of that sort. Facilities and information offices should be there for those who like to use them. There is one thing that must be said. The great majority of people in this country, I am sure, are ready to meet the Americans halfway, to give them a good time and entertain them, and to treat them as welcome guests. There have been cases in which the Americans have been exploited by people in this country. The Americans come as strangers to this country, knowing nothing about current prices, and they are easy victims to anybody who is "on the make." I feel that that warning should be given, and that those who are attached to the American forces should be on the look-out for overcharging. I think we all welcome the Motion moved by the

373
noble Lord, Lord Montagu, and we hope that Her Majesty's Government will tell us their plans for improving the situation.
3.45 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY): My Lords, during the past two days we have been debating in this House a Bill for the creation of a Central African Federation as a new political entity of the British Commonwealth. To-day we are debating one aspect of our relations with another community which was once joined to ours, and which was separated in what we may consider somewhat unhappy circumstances. But out of the rebellion of those thirteen colonies has come this great nation. It would have been a very far-seeing prophet 180 years ago who could have foretold that we should have been welcoming as Allies in our midst the military forces of the descendants of those thirteen colonies.
Although we may deplore the causes which brought these United States airmen to our shores, let us not fail to take encouragement from the results. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, in, if I may say so, an eloquent and well-balanced speech, drew attention to some of the happy aspects of the sojourn in our midst of these American air forces. I agree with him. It is easy to make resounding phrases and utter diplomatic courtesies, but I can speak from some experience—an experience born of twenty months of the office which I now hold. Let me say at once that I claim no credit for the fact that relations between the United States Air Forces and the Royal Air Force are so good; I found these relations excellent, and I am doing my best to maintain that standard. I must add that this has been made very easy for me by the co-operative attitude of the United States authorities. There is, in fact, close, continual and cordial contact and co-operation. That requires, and has received and elicited, patience and understanding on both sides.
We are not dealing with a problem here. I have talked this matter over very often with the Commander of the Third Air Force, General Griswold, and he always tells me, "This is not a problem; do not let us turn it into a problem." There are many people who create problems where they do not exist. Rather
374
are we dealing with an opportunity. There are somewhat more members of the United States Air Force in this country than Lord Montagu indicated: the number is nearer 50,000 than 40,000. And when one adds to that the families, the total is, of course, even greater. And if one remembers the annual turnover which always takes place in the case of troops overseas, it will be clear that these numbers are even greater than has been suggested. We are, therefore, dealing with quite considerable numbers of American citizens who have come here and have an opportunity of judging English customs, institutions, manners, and climate. I lock round hastily, but not guiltily, for having used the word "English"; but I used the word literally, because of the facts of geography.
As the noble Earl, Lord Lucan said, a military community in an overseas station can often be very isolated. The noble Lord spoke of "occupation forces"—a phrase which perhaps could be misinterpreted, but I know that he did not mean what some might think he means. They can become physically, mentally and socially isolated, and indeed the danger in this case arises, perhaps, from the very virtues of the American organisation. The entertainment and leisure organisation at their bases is excellent, and the men, therefore, are not forced to seek these things elsewhere, because the authorities know very well that boredom and unfilled leisure lead to crime and to the sullied conduct sheet. Therefore, I entirely agree with the noble Lords who have spoken from both sides of the House that we, the British—the English—must create these opportunities.
I should like to emphasise the point—it has been made but I reiterate it—that it is not a question of large-scale entertainment. I have discussed this matter with care and in detail with those concerned, and all confirm that it is not a question of large-scale entertainment. The United States authorities look after that side extremely well, and no Serviceman, as the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has said, wants his leisure organised. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, so rightly said, our object is to give the Americans in this country a chance to meet the British in their homes and make the basis of that meeting their common interests and common hobbies.

375
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, referred, quite rightly, in eulogistic terms to the work done by Air Chief Marshal Sir George Pirie. He has given a great deal of his time and attention to this matter in the last twelve months. As the noble Lord said, he is well-qualified. He was our Air Attaché in Washington at the beginning of the war. He was in Air Command South-East Asia at the end of the war, with American officers serving under him, and he was the R.A.F. representative on the British Joint Services Mission in Washington from 1950 to 1951, so he is extremely well-informed and equipped for this task. He has been round the principal American bases, talked to their commanders and to the R.A.F. liaison officers, and sounded out local opinion in the vicinity of these bases. They all expressed the same view: "We must create opportunities for the American airmen to meet the British, but do not let us over-organise their leisure. "It would, however, I entirely agree, show a deplorable lack of imagination, and of political understanding, if we left the problem just there and said, "Let these things work themselves out for the best."
Just because there is no easy ready-made large-scale solution, we must not hesitate to take the initiative. But I do believe that we must rely principally on personal, local leadership, and on local knowledge and initiative. There is plenty of good will and a large desire to help. What we want to do is to give it sufficient impetus to get it going. I think there may be some misapprehension about a central organisation. Nearly a year ago, I was privileged to preside over a meeting of nation-wide organisations—a very large and representative meeting. I will not weary the House by listing the organisations represented: they are all extremely well known. We discussed the problem of this matter, and we all agreed that local committees and local personalities were the solution. The representatives of all those organisations expressed their willingness, which they made good later by action, to invite local representatives of their organisation to help to serve on committees and to give advice and assistance.
In the meanwhile, as I have said, Air Chief Marshal Pirie has been going round,
376
and he has enlisted the support of a number of public-spirited ladies and gentlemen to serve quite voluntarily as officers on those committees with a provision from public funds only for the out-of-pocket expenses of their organisation. I am happy to say that we have now got something like a dozen committees functioning up and down the country, with active chairmen and secretaries; and, what is more, we have full United States Air Force support. Only a fortnight ago, I had the pleasure of flying up to Burtonwood, in Lancashire, which is a very large American base, and attending a meeting attended by representatives of a large number of local authorities and organisations. We had tea round little tables, and everybody had the opportunity of discussing the subject and talking about it, and I was much encouraged to see there the first citizens of so many local authorities who had troubled to turn up and who showed such obvious interest in helping to get this idea going.
Deliberately, we have offered no central direction; we have offered only guidance and the opportunity for the exchange of views, not only because the Service men do not want to be organised, but because I am sure that the local leaders and personalities do not want to be organised either. They know their own localities, their personalities and their opportunities. All they want to know from us is that they are moving in the same common direction. We shall do far better by relying upon local opinions than by offering them advice from here. The situation now is different from what it was ten years ago. Now, happily, at any rate in Europe, we have peace, and the problems of peace are very different from the problems of war. Only two days ago, I had the opportunity of discussing in London, with the chairmen of these committees and with many American base commanders, what has so far been achieved and of exchanging ideas with them. As a result, I have not in the least changed the view, which I formed some time ago, that we are working on the right lines. I found that discussion most encouraging. I found that contacts were being made, mutual interests and mutual hobbies being discovered; that there was precious little misunderstanding, and no evidence of any bickering or friction. It is, of course, perfectly true

377
that a rough-and-tumble is news, while a happy evening by the television is not. There is a tremendous amount of that going on. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, told us, we have an airman, armed only with a bow and arrow who is a strong ally in this matter—I refer to the matter of 200 marriages and the work of Cupid in that direction.
Apart from that, I can offer no statistical evidence in support of what I say, but I can assure the House that my opinion is based on a very close personal attention to this matter, and on direct contact with those who are taking an active part. I welcome this opportunity of publicly declaring my thanks to those individuals and organisations who have made such a prompt and notable response, and once again I should like to thank Air Chief Marshal Pirie who has been so active and so forward in this work. I welcome this chance of replying to the noble Lord's Motion. I trust that I have done so to his general satisfaction. I am certainly very grateful to him for the interest that he and other speakers are taking in this matter. I. am particularly happy to dwell for some minutes on the consideration of the remarkably harmonious relations which exist between the United States Air Force in Britain and their British hosts, and which are such a fine example of the Anglo-American alliance in operation. I believe that we are working in a field of great significance and one which, if we cultivate it aright, will be fruitful indeed.
4.1 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I am sure the whole House would like me to thank the Minister for his excellent statement as to what exactly is being done in regard to this very important matter. I can only hope that he will bring his influence to bear on the British Information Services in America and all the other departments of information overseas, to see that his statement is well publicised in America—to use the words of a well known tune
"From Memphis to Mobile, Natchey to St. Joe,
And to wherever the four winds blow."
I should also like to thank other noble Lords who have taken an interest in this subject. I hope everybody realises that it is in the local areas that this matter
378
really arises, and if anybody can help in his local committee I am sure he will be very welcome. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ROAD ACCIDENTS
4.2 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to eliminate the conditions and reduce the factors which are the cause of road accidents, the number of which is rising and which in the national interest demand immediate attention; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I was at the Ministry of Transport as Parliamentary Secretary and Chairman of the National Safety First Committee, which is the responsibility of every Parliamentary Secretary, I remember once saying at a Press Conference that I was at my wits' end to know what to do with the road accident problem of this country. I will not tell your Lordships some of the nasty things that were said about that remark, but I can almost repeat it this afternoon, and tell your Lordships that I am nearly at my wits' end to find something fresh to say upon this particular problem. But I feel that the time has arrived when we have once again, if only on the principle that a constant drip of water eventually wears away the stone, to ask Her Majesty's Government what they are going to do about it. That, in very simple language, is the tone and tenor of the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
I hope that this afternoon we can at least deal with this Motion in a non-Party manner, because it is a non-Party subject. If any noble Lord is prompted to say to me, "Yah-boo! what did you do about it?, "I might be tempted to say that the arch-culprit, the man most responsible for the road accident problem of this country in 1953, was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1926, who was going to have no nonsense about the Road Fund, who appropriated all the money, robbed the hen roost, and for ever afterwards deprived the Ministry of Transport of its principal means of doing its job. But I am not going to venture on that line, because, as I say, I want this to be a non-Party debate.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: The noble Lord got it in all right.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No political Party comes out of this matter with clean hands. Indeed, the British nation does not come out of it with clean hands. The British public have never faced up to the problem as they should have done. One of our greatest troubles to-day is that casualties on the roads are regarded by the public as one of the penalties they have to pay for our so-called advance in civilisation. If there is one thing to-day for which I pay the Ministry of Transport and other bodies a tribute it is that we cannot say that we do not know almost everything about the problem. There is only one thing we do not know, and that is the solution to it. I do not think the Minister of Transport, or the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power, can be told very much about the causes of road accidents. The Secretary of State has my sympathy—
"A fellow-feeling makes one wondrous kind."
I have had to stand in his place and defend myself, and he is in that position now. I am sure the Secretary of State is a humane man. He must be shocked at the trend of things to-day, because if we utilise the information at our disposal with intelligence and not to find loopholes for excuses, we must be profoundly shocked.
The last published figures of the Ministry of Transport to the end of March, 1953, show an increase in road accidents of 13·3 per cent. over those of the corresponding month of the previous year. I do not know, but I believe I am right in saying that there was a slight diminution in the next month, April; but up it went again in May, up it will go in June—and we have not yet reached the period of road accident peak of June, July and August, the holiday season. My Lords, what are the facts? If the increase in the road accident rate continues as exemplified by the last published figures, we in this country will soon reach a total road casualty rate of 250,000 a year, of which 5,500 will be fatal accidents—5,500 men, women and children killed on the roads of this country every year. And what is to stop the increase, except a pious hope? What are the
380
other figures forming a counterpart for any sensible appraisal of this problem? On the roads of this country to-day there are approximately five million motor vehicles of all kinds, over 50 per cent. more than were on the roads in 1938, and this after a period of home market starvation of motor vehicles. What is going to be the growth in the numbers of motor vehicles on the roads of this country in the next ten years, when the production plans of the British manufacturers reach a peak? I am not making a Party point, but when Her Majesty's Government introduced the Transport Bill they said quite definitely that they were planning to increase road transport. To-day we have double the number of commercial vehicles that were on the roads before the war, and the number will increase.
What are the other figures? Whilst we have increased the number of vehicles using our roads by over 50 per cent., from three million odd to approximately five million odd, the mileage of our roads of all classes in this country, all told has increased by approximately 2 per cent.; and on our trunk Class 1 and Class 2 roads, which carry the bulk of our traffic, the increase has been under 1 per cent. and is now, I think I am right in saying—though I speak from memory—about 184,000 miles, or something like that. If we look at the matter of expenditure upon improvements, such as widening and realignment, in terms of real money value we find that it has gone down—I am now talking about new construction, apart from maintenance. It has averaged under £1 million a year since the war at post-war values, as compared with £1,500,000 a year before the war at pre-war values. So the plain English of our road problem is this: that our road system to-day cannot carry the traffic that is put upon it. And while we may wish—I was almost going to say, "for political reasons," but I will not say that—to talk that problem away, it just cannot be done.
It is estimated that before the war we had in this country about fifteen vehicles per mile of road. To-day, it is estimated, we have tweny-six vehicles per mile of road. And the numbers of vehicles are increasing every year at a sizeable rate, whilst the miles of road to carry them are now practically stationary. One's own observation, as well as what one reads in

381
the newspapers of the country about the counting of motor-cars, bears this out. We read of motor-cars leaving the Metropolis for the coast at the week-end at the rate of 10,000 to 15,000 an hour. I read that at one level crossing on a main road, when there was a hold-up to let a train go through, it immediately created a queue of cars three miles long. It does not require many statistics produced by a statistical department to enable one to arrive at the conclusion that the kernel of our problem is that our road system cannot carry the traffic which exists today, and that congestion and all the things that go with congestion, such as frustration and impatience and things like that, constitute one of the prime causes of road accidents at the present time.
It has been estimated by no less important a body than the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents that the economic cost to the country to-day of road accidents is over £146 million a year—or somewhere in the region of between £225 and £250 per accident. That is the cost economically every time an accident takes place on the road. But the cost in human suffering cannot be measured. Is there any noble Lord here who would like to assess the cost to the country of this alarming growth in accidents to young children? The Ministry's Bulletin sets out the facts stark and clear. It says that the increase in road accident casualties is particularly noticeable in the case of child pedestrians, which rose in the month of March from 1,917 to 2,273—or 18·6 per cent. Similarly, casualties to child pedal cyclists rose from 580 to 753—an increase of 30 per cent.
The Bulletin adds:
"A distressing feature of the casualties to child pedestrians is that the total of killed and seriously injured rose by nearly 25 per cent."
This must shock our very souls, especially when we bear in mind that the official designation of a child is a person up to the age of fifteen years. I shall return to this particular point later on.
There is another factor which, in my view, leads us—at least it leads me—to the conclusion that congestion and over-trafficked roads are our main problem. I suppose that I am right—the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I shall be approximately right—when I say that between 70 and 80 per
382
cent. of the road accidents to-day take place in built-up areas. I think the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, will bear me out when I say that the tendency now is for the rate to rise in other than built-up areas. An interesting factor that has come to light as a result of researches made by people I will mention in a minute is that practically half the road accidents in this country occur at, or within fifty yards of, a road junction, and that there is approximately one road junction to each mile of road in this country. That, again, brings me back to my main point: that congestion and over-trafficked roads are the chief cause of accidents.
I am not concerned 30 much this afternoon with the effect of this toll of the roads upon the country's industrial efficiency. There was on the Order Paper a Motion by the noble Earl, Lord Elgin. I am grateful to him for removing his Motion to some other date later on. He consented to do this, not only to suit my convenience but also to suit the convenience of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, who thought it rather hard that he should have to reply to two Motions, which are fundamentally the same, within a week. That is why I am moving this Motion this afternoon. But although I myself am not concerned primarily to-day with the effect of road accidents on industrial efficiency, other noble Lords may be. I am concerned—and I have striven to make the point—with the loss to the national economy by reason of road accidents. As I say, that has been assessed at an annual figure of about £146 million. It is also estimated that it will take £150 million to put right the black spots that are causing such a large proportion of the accidents on the roads. But black spots do not cause them all. So your Lordships can see the size of the problem which the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, is facing.
Now I want to make this point without detracting in any way from the argument, which I think is bound to be raised by noble Lords in all parts of the House, about the inadequacy of the money allocated to new road construction, and also to maintenance. My view is that, even if the Secretary of State had all the money he wanted, it would make only a long-term impression on this great problem, because one cannot spend £150 million in five minutes. Even if we were to hear from the noble Lord this after-

383
noon that the Government were going to increase the amount of money available for roads there would remain the question: What are we going to do in the meantime? And that is the question to which I wish to address myself. First of all, I want to deal with the great problem of the killing of small children, the future citizens of this country. This problem has recently been shown up in its stark reality by the Report, The Child on the Road. This country owes, and has owed for a long time, a debt of gratitude to Professor Jones, of Leeds University, who in 1946 produced a valuable factual survey for the Minister of Transport. He headed a study group of the Economic Research Council which studied the problem of child accidents. This Report is presented to the National Federation of Women's Institutes, and I would commend it to your Lordships' especial study. It is one of the most constructive analyses I have ever seen, and deserves to rank alongside this other factual survey of road accidents, Road Accidents in 1950, by the Ministry of Transport.
These two Reports leave us in no doubt about where our first imprint has to be made. An 18·6 per cent. increase in child pedestrian accidents—the greatest number to the little toddler of four years of age essaying his first journey to school! Thirty per cent. of the accidents are to children on bicycles—to the "little wobbler," launched on the roads after father has laboriously run a few miles hanging on to the back to see whether the child can stay on in the saddle. In the majority of cases the bicycles are too big for the children, because father has had to buy with an eye to the future, in case "little Willie" gets too big for the machine in twelve months. No tuition, no education, no road sense—nothing! That is problem No. 1.
This Report suggests that no child of fifteen years of age or under should be allowed to ride a bicycle on the road unless he has passed a test as to his own fitness and the fitness of his machine. It is a sad commentary that there is no law in this country to-day to compel a bicycle to have brakes, whether ridden by a juvenile or an adult—a sad commentary, indeed. The stock excuse advanced ever since the First World War has been that
384
we could not produce enough sets of brakes for all the machines that had none. What are we going to do? Where is the responsibility of the parents? It has been suggested that the Highway Code should be studied by parents before they allow children to go on the road on bicycles. I wonder what chance there is of getting the Highway Code studied in the average working-class family? Very little, I think. Would the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, undertake to look at this recommendation that children under fifteen should be subjected to a test before being allowed out on the road? I know the difficulties, but a 30 per cent. increase in the already high rate of killed and seriously injured should be a serious urge to overcome them. We do not want to stop children from riding bicycles: the "little wobbler" of to-day may be the "big wobbler "in a motor-car in twenty years' time. But I think the noble Lord has seized the point.
In the case of the little toddler, the accidents do not happen while he is crossing the road. I think we have eliminated that by a sensible extension of school crossing patrols. The accidents are caused by the little chap or girl stepping off the kerb to run along the gutter. I am going to suggest, as I have suggested before, not only in the case of children but also in the case of adults—who sometimes are more ignorant, or behave in a more ignorant manner, than the children—that the use of guard rails must be extended. I know that this Report is receiving the careful attention of the Ministry. Perhaps the influence of the Women's Institutes will have more effect upon the Government than the male population have had in recent years.
The speed of traffic in towns is going down, and that is conducive to accidents. I should like the noble Lord to look again at this question of congestion in towns. The Road Research Laboratory have stated that the speed of traffic in London has gone down to eleven miles an hour, and in Glasgow to eight miles an hour. I should like the noble Lord to consider seriously whether by-passes are being used. Some two or three years ago I said in this House that they were not being used sufficiently, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, challenged me. But when going through such cities as Oxford and Winchester one cannot help seeing

385
the dreadful congestion of traffic in the middle of these towns, and the relatively small number of vehicles on the by-passes which were specially built to relieve that congestion. This congestion is particularly bad in villages on the main roads to holiday resorts, especially those villages that spread along the main roads. I have had a letter from a clergyman, who tells me that one Sunday he had to hold up his service for a quarter of an hour as the people could not cross the road to get to church because of the queue of cars. There was a solid queue of motor cars, and that was on the way from London to an East Coast holiday resort. I suggest to the noble Lord that the way to cure that is by traffic lights that will stop traffic for certain periods so that people can cross the road.
My Lords, may I now say again what I have said so many times? We have to recognise one thing; that is, that exhortation has failed. Education of the young and impressionable mind may be of use, but I really think that the British public is punch-drunk with propaganda and that exhortation on the adult mind has no effect at all. So we have to think of something else. I can talk a little more freely now that I stand on this side of the House. I am convinced that one of the contributory causes of the growth of accidents in this country is the fact that the law dealing with traffic is absolutely in disrepute. I am not advocating that there should be any increase in penalties for road users who break the law. The penalties in the Statutes are high enough now. The real crux of the matter is that the Judiciary in this country, especially the lay magistrates, hold an entirely different view of the seriousness of the road accident problem from that taken by Parliament.
If we in this country believe that punishment for wrongdoing is meant to be a deterrent to wrongdoing, the penalties imposed on conviction are so absurd that they are no deterrent at all. I think I am right in saying that the maximum penalty on conviction for careless driving or driving to the danger of the public is a line of £50, and the licence can be suspended for three months. One has only to do a simple arithmetical calculation on the figures in the Home Office Report to find that the average penalty imposed on conviction by magistrates in this country works out at £2; and it is
386
quite a novelty to have a licence suspended. I know that it is a canon of British justice that the Executive does not dictate to the Judiciary, and I know that even the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Home Secretary is very loath even to send out a circular on this matter. But if Parliament, in its wisdom, thinks that a sufficient deterrent is imposed by a maximum fine of £50 and suspension of licence—which is the greatest deterrent of all—it ill becomes lay magistrates to take a directly opposite view and rate it sometimes at twenty-five times lower.
I am speaking, of course, only about the wrongdoer who happens to be driving a motor vehicle. I do not know whether I am anticipating anything the noble Lord has to say, but I have heard that the Ministry of Transport have in preparation a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act, 1930. Certainly that Act sadly needs amending, because it is one of the most antiquated Acts we have on the Statute Book to-day. I hope it is true that at last someone is going to do something to regulate the behaviour of the pedestrian. Freedom is a priceless thing—in the words used by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, in regard to sponsored television, it is above price. But I suggest that 250,000 casualties a year on the roads of this country is too high a price to pay for giving people freedom to wander across the roads at will. I make that suggestion to the noble Lord as to what has to be done.
I have almost come to the end of what I have to say; in saying it, I have said nothing new at all, except perhaps, to underline that the Government really must take this matter seriously. The time has arrived when they must wake up to the fact that neither socially nor economically can we afford this dreadful toll. I think they must wake up to the fact that it will increase; that there is no chance on this earth of its decreasing. You cannot stop the growth of traffic. To stop the growth of traffic in this country would be to commit industrial suicide as an industrial nation. You have to make your roads fit your traffic; you cannot make your traffic fit your roads.
I ask the noble Lord to consider this matter seriously. I once asked a Cabinet Minister, who had been a member of Cabinets for a very long time, when, in his recollection, the Cabinet had ever had

387
the question of road accidents upon their agenda. He replied that it was not within his recollection. I wonder whether the noble Lord will undertake to see that that situation is put right. I wonder whether the noble Lord will undertake to see that this problem in all its aspects will be considered at the highest level. I know that I am pushing at an open door so far as he is concerned, but it must be realised that, unless something is done upon the lines I have indicated, in 1954 and1955 the number of road accidents will be prodigious. We are to authorise the expenditure of £17 million to make safe just over 5,000 miles of the main railway lines of this country. We have been shocked into that by the dreadful catastrophe at Harrow, when so many people tragically lost their lives. My Lords, the same number of people lose their lives every ten days on the roads of this country—not once in a lifetime, but every ten days, year in, year out, with monotonous regularity. Does not that shock us into some sense of responsibility? I believe that the country must be shocked into doing something about this problem. That is why I have made a point of bringing this matter up on the child issue. If that does not shock the mothers of this country, then nothing will. Perhaps we may have some real pressure to back up the efforts of the noble Lord, that we may see some sensible and sane approach to the problem. With these words, my Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.40 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, as chairman of perhaps the largest motoring oranisation in the world, I have listened with great interest to what has been said by the noble Lord who has just sat down. When he himself was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, he made great efforts to improve the conditions on the roads, and he did all that could be done in that direction, but he was, no doubt, as all Ministers have been, hampered by lack of money. I certainly agree with the greater part of the arguments and the proposals he has put forward to-day, and especially his proposal for the extension of guard rails, which I am sure do a great deal towards preventing accidents. I also agree that we must seriously consider the control of pedestrians at crossings. I think it is true
388
to say that informed opinion is in no doubt whatever that the road accident figures could be reduced if more money was made available for the long overdue highway improvements. I do not suggest for one moment that in many cases the human element is not largely to blame, but, on the other hand, bad roads are, and must be, a great contributory factor.
As many of your Lordships are aware, a special conference was recently convened by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, as Chairman of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and an important resolution was agreed to at that conference by representatives of no fewer than eighty national institutions and organisations. I believe that resolution to be so important that I propose to read the full text of it to the House. The resolution was as follows:
"That this road safety conference, comprising some eighty national institutions and organisations, brought together for the purpose of encouraging a greater measure of co-operation amongst those actively concerned with road safety, declares its strong conviction that more expenditure on road construction, maintenance and improvement is vital to the interests of road safety, and calls upon the Government to take more effective action to deal with this urgent problem."
It is quite plain from that resolution that if more money could be spent on the roads we should be able to reduce accidents. I think your Lordships will agree that this resolution is not one that can be lightly brushed aside.
We all know the difficulty of meeting our commitments from the national income and spending as much money on the roads as I am sure Her Majesty's Government would like to do. But, surely, there is another way out which has not yet been tried. Last year Her Majesty's Government sponsored an issue of £120 million of British Transport 4 per cent. guaranteed stock, which, incidentally, was heavily oversubscribed. Why cannot we have a Roads Loan along somewhat similar lines? I think it should be a long-term loan, as posterity will benefit from new and improved roads, and I see no reason why the present generation should be saddled with all of it. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has pointed out that it is a long-term problem, and, of course, it is. I maintain that a situation has now been reached when we can no longer provide out of

389
income for the necessary improvements and new road construction to carry the increased traffic.
It is extraordinary how easy it is to become complacent about road accidents. Yet with other forms of transport great strides are being made which, with the capital involved, will accomplish far less. For instance, the British Transport Commission are shortly to embark on a £17 million programme to install automatic train control systems to minimise rail accidents, which is no doubt a very right anti proper policy. This automatic train signalling will help to reduce accidents which have amounted to 399 lives in 41 years or something under 10 lives a year. Yet on the roads 5,000 lives are lost annually, largely owing to lack of sufficient capital expenditure on the roads. Our roads are the most densely populated in the world, and it is interesting to note that the average expenditure on them, per head of the population, is £1 9s. per year, compared with £10 12s. per head in the United States, and £4 8s. per head in a small country like Portugal.
There is no doubt that improved road design and layout can reduce accidents by a large percentage. Investigations were carried out in Oxfordshire over a three-year period, and it was shown that 58 per cent. of all road accidents could be prevented by removing ordinary road defects, and 78 per cent. by the realisation of an ideal scheme of modern layout. Again, recent improvements at six places in Lancashire at a cost of £53,000, which is a small sum, have reduced accidents at those places from 58 to 22 per annum. It all goes to show that if money is spent in the right direction and in the right way accidents can be reduced. At Liverpool the new East Lancaster trunk road has reduced personal injury, per million vehicle miles, to 1·81, as. compared with 4·67 on the old road. I suggest that these are startling figures.
There is no doubt that major improvements to the highways would not only result in large savings in terms of human life, but also result in a considerable economic gain to the country. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that accidents cost the country £146 million a year, and I believe that to be a fact. I do not think it is generally realised that the road transport industry employs more people than industries such as mining, textiles, or even agriculture. Yet though
390
this enormous industry is completely dependent on the roads, only £33 million was invested in the roads in 1952, compared with £50 million invested by the area gas boards and £150 million by the electricity authority. I mention those figures merely to give a comparison as to how the money is being spent. It is true that Her Majesty's Government contemplate an additional expenditure on the roads of £1,500,000 over the next two years, to wipe out the bad black spots on the roads, but I believe this sum is quite inadequate to cover major reconstruction.
It has been said in some quarters that there should be a Royal Commission to investigate the cause of road accidents. I suggest that this is quite unnecessary and would only delay action. We have the extensive Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords of 1939, followed by the Interim and Final Reports of the Committee on Road Safety in 1944 and 1947, and finally the report of Lord Llewellin's Conference; and, in addition, there is the Minister of Transport's permanent committee. The facts are there for all to see. But some co-ordinating authority is perhaps necessary. Why cannot we have a Working Party? Working Parties have had considerable success in other industries; for instance, there was the Working Party which investigated the turn-round of shipping. I suggest that a Working Party should prepare a five-year or, better still, a ten-year plan based on a Road Loan, and submit it to the ministry of Transport for action. The terms of the Road Loan would also be a subject matter for the Working Party. Unless something of this nature is done, I feel sure that nothing substantial will be accomplished, and the accident figures will increase day by day. I beg the Government to give my suggestions serious consideration.
4.49 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I wish to intervene in this debate for only a short time. It is rather a strange coincidence that it will be exactly a year ago tomorrow that your Lordships' House was discussing a similar Motion brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We listened to exactly the same arguments, and exactly the same speeches have been made, but nothing has been done. When I say "exactly the same

391
speeches," I am wrong, because the debate a year ago was remarkable for a wonderful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I have here a copy of Hansard which contains the report. This is what the noble Lord said, speaking, presumably, with full responsibility as the President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 177, Col. 944):
"In regard to the main question before us to-day, I am one of those who think that the roads of this country are pretty well maintained at this time."
The noble Lord went on to say further (Col. 947):
"I do not believe that this is the moment at which any Government should deflect a large amount of manpower and national effort to a vast scheme of improving the roads of this country."
In spite of that speech, the noble Lord convened a conference, which has been referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Teynham and Lord Lucas, representing over eighty of the bodies in this country who take an interest in the roads and road development. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham has already reminded your Lordships of a resolution passed by that conference—that
"…more expenditure on road construction, maintenance and improvement is vital to the interests of road safety, and calls upon the Government to take more effective action to deal with this most urgent problem."
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, agreed with that resolution, in view of the speech that he made to your Lordships in this House. I only wish that the noble Lord had been in his place to tell us, because I cannot understand how anybody could carry on as President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents having delivered such an astonishing dictum.
One can quote statistics by the yard, but one gets completely lost in statistics. The essential question that I wish to ask the noble Lord who is to answer for the Government is this: What is the road policy of Her Majesty's Government? Have they got any policy? It is not evident that there is any road policy whatever. Secondly, how long do Her Majesty's Government propose to mulct the motor world of some £300 million to £350 million a year in taxation and do nothing to improve the roads of the country? There is not a single trunk road
392
in the country which is adequate for the traffic which is using it. I have put a series of Questions during the past year to Her Majesty's Government, asking what sort of census has been carried out. I am appalled to find that, so far as I can make out, there is no twenty-four hour census at any point on our roads. The best we can do is a sixteen-hour census, I think, at Markyate; and there was a sixteen-hour census at Staines. The traffic which goes through Markyate, on A.5, the direct road from the Midlands to the docks, is terrific. If any of your Lordships would like to see what it consists of, may I suggest that you go there at between three and four in the morning, as I have. You will meet a continual stream of lorries coming from the Midlands to the docks, cars for export and that sort of thing. The conditions are quite indescribable. There is a little street—I doubt whether it is twenty feetwide—with a special limit of, I think, eighteen or ten miles per hour for traffic going through Markyate; and the congestion in that place is simply incredible. At Staines, on the road to Southampton and the West Country, there are traffic blocks miles long. It can take any of your Lordships on occasions from half to three-quarters of an hour to get through Staines, and even longer.
How long do the Government propose to take all this money from the motor world in taxation and give them nothing back? The motor world has the remedy in its own hands. If the motor world were to say, "We are not going to pay our taxes next year," that might be a good way of making the Government realise what is involved. Of course, you will never get a position like that. The motor world is a public-spirited world, the same as any other section of the community. But if nothing else will bring the Government to a sense of realisation of what is going on, some remedy of that sort might have to be tried. There is not a single trunk road adequate to the traffic now trying to use it. Take, for example, the Southampton road. It is a complete nightmare. From Camberley to Basingstoke it is a twin-track road—one track in each direction. On occasions, it is used by an enormous number of army vehicles, huge convoys of motor lorries and others, in addition to the ordinary normal traffic; and conditions are getting steadily worse.

393
Even worse than that, at the present time new motor vehicles are coming on to the roads at the rate of 300,000 a year. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, told us that there were 5 million vehicles on the roads, and that number is increasing by a steady 300,000 a year. The answer is inevitable—unless something is done, there will be complete stagnation. I want to know what the Government are going to do if, by chance, the export market dries up on us. We all know that the motor industry is one of the most important industries in the country. Up to now, it has been possible to sell large quantities of British cars overseas. But those conditions are passing, and we are now meeting severe competition from Germany, and from other countries. That competition will grow, and it may conceivably become much more difficult to sell our vehicles overseas. What is the British motor industry going to do if it cannot export and sell its vehicles? It is bound to try to sell them at home. If it does, what will conditions be like on our roads? I believe that the Government should pay serious thought to the fact that the welfare of one of our greatest industries is at stake.
With regard to road conditions generally, I want to know how long the Government are going to maintain the pleasant fiction that road conditions are not responsible for accidents. Road conditions as they are to-day are responsible for scores of thousands of accidents. Every day that any member of the Government sits on the Front Bench in this House and does nothing about the problem, it means that more people are being killed or injured up and down the country. If they really cared, would they sit there and do nothing? I beg the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government to tell us what is the policy of the Government with regard to this question. It is no use their going on doing nothing. It is no use their going on telling us that nothing can be done. Something must be done, and appeal to Her Majesty's Government to take action of some sort. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has brought forward a suggestion which I was going to submit to your Lordships, and that is the idea of a Road Loan. None of us wants to see money wasted in these difficult times. We all know how difficult things are, but are the Government not getting enough
394
money to provide for the repayment of principal and interest out of motor taxation? H it will give us an improved road system, why cannot we have a road loan? Take any of the trunk roads of this country, A.1, A.5, A.30 or any you like to mention. Conditions on those roads to-day are appalling, and they will get worse unless something is done about the problem. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has thrown out a very valuable suggestion, and I believe that it is something which might be done.
I have another suggestion to make. One of the most remarkable things that has happened in the United States is the provision of turnpikes. Now why cannot we have a limited system or experiment, if you like, of turnpikes? The experiment in America has been quite remarkable. They provide for the repayment of the principal and interest on the undertakings in a limited period of years—I think five years; but as a matter of fact, the whole thing, has been paid off in about two and a half years. There are many people in this country who will say, "Why should we pay for the use of the roads when we are paying heavy enough taxation already?" The answer is, of course, that if you do not want to use the toll roads you do not pay anything towards them. On the other hand, a system of toll roads in this country, not an overgrown system, but a system laid out on carefully selected roads so as to enable traffic to get tong better than it can along the ordinary trunk road, might well be the best way, and at the same time it would free the existing roads from a great deal of the congestion to which they are now subjected.
I earnestly hope that if anything can be done on these lines, the Minister will see to it that the most modern methods of design and construction are used. It has been alleged—it was alleged, I think, in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, which I have quoted—that it is an extravagance to have a better road system and wrong even to ask for it. I submit, however, that if the most modern methods of machinery and design are used, road making is not such an expensive business, nor need it take the enormous amount of time that it would have taken in former days. It is possible now to make a road very much more

395
rapidly than it ever was in the old days. The Germans were able to make their autobahnen at the rate of 1,000 yards a day, and in some cases even more than that. I suggest that by the use of modern methods of construction and design it can be done very economically and, on the whole, very quickly.
But let us get back to the point with which I began. Unless something is done, I am perfectly certain that we shall reach complete stagnation point on the roads of this country. We all read recently of the many complaints of congestion in London. We all know how, when there is a hold up in traffic, the congestion spreads and travels around, so that one finds miles of vehicles held up at points well away from the scene of the actual hold-up. This is what we shall get on the roads; and I submit that the Government must be prepared to do something to improve our road system. To do so will pay a handsome dividend in the reduction of accidents and also in reducing delays to traffic.
5.4 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for raising this very important point of road safety to-day. I rise for only a few moments to support the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, in endeavouring to put before your Lordships a few details concerning finances of road development. I have been going into the question whether we could possibly finance some new roads which, in my opinion, are absolutely necessary within ten years, on a loan basis. I hope that the Secretary of State will give this matter his serious consideration. I have been a member of the Road Group of your Lordships' House for many years. Your Lordships will be aware that this is a non-Party organisation, and that it did some useful work between the two wars. Under the chairmanship of the late Lord Eltisley, it met regularly to examine this question of trying to make the roads safer. We have, however, always been up against this trouble of finance. How were these things to be financed? Between the wars finance was much easier, and many new roads were opened up, to the greater safety of the motoring public. Then, during the war, maintenance became more difficult, and after the war
396
we had a tremendous amount of maintenance to catch up. We had also to try to cut out the worst black spots.
In examining this problem closely, it does not seem possible, at any rate for a number of years, that the money which another place allocates out of the Consolidated Fund—that is to say, £33 million a year, plus what is put up by local authorities, totalling something like £80 million a year—will be enough to start the new roads which are so badly needed. There is another point too, which must be carefully considered. There are a large number of uncompleted schemes. I think there are still uncompleted schemes which were started before the war, in connection with certain by-passes and the improvement of bridges, totalling about £3½ million. It is vitally important that the public should get the full advantage of these schemes at the earliest possible date. At present costs, it would probably cost another £7 million to complete these schemes. If I may, without boring your Lordships, put forward one or two figures—although I know it has always been said that one kills a speech by putting forward too many figures—I should like to submit one or two figures concerning what is in my mind and in the minds of my friends—the right line, as we understand it, on which to work.
There are, roughly, 1,000 miles of roads projected under the Trunk Roads Act of 1946. I think it was estimated at that time that this 1,000 miles of new roads might require an expenditure of about £150 million. Well, my Lords, we think that that might be financed over a ten-year period, spending something in the neighbourhood of £15 million a year. It would not be possible to find labour and Material for more than approximately that amount of work. If that were done over a ten-year period, you might issue, say, five loans each of £30 million at 4 per cent. You would arrive at the ninth year, with a total interest payment at 4 per cent., at a sum of £6,000,000 of interest. A sinking fund would cost from £5,000,000 to £5,037,500 at the ninth year, making £11,037,500,altogether. We feel, in view of the immense importance of making these new roads, that that is not an enormous sum of money, and that it should be made a first charge on whatever money Parliament votes. If that were possible, it would mean that the loans would run for

397
about twenty-eight years, on the twenty-year loans, at something, I suggest, in the neighbourhood of 4 per cent. interest. But I do not see how, unless the Secretary of State thinks it possible to obtain bigger allocations than £ 33 million, it will be possible to start any of these new road works.
I think many of us will agree that the ever-increasing congestion of the roads makes it necessary to tackle this problem now, and that the building of some of these roads should start at once, as should the doubling up of some of these by-pass roads. There are many such schemes Which were started after the war but which remain uncompleted and derelict We still have to keep up the maintenance. I hope that the Secretary of State will give serious consideration to our suggestions. Lord Lucas really was at his wit's end to know what further to suggest to try to improve the very serious problem of these ever-growing accidents on the roads of our country to-day. With those few words. I should like to support the motion of the noble Lord.
5 10 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I. thought, and I still think, that almost everything it is possible to say about road safety had been said again and again in this House in the last few years. I was even a little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, producing this year something that, frankly, I produced as a plagiarism twenty-one years ago, when I said that the roads must be made to fit the traffic and not the traffic to fit the roads. It is going back rather a long time, but it is a frightful indictment that that should still be true. There is no doubt that, until the roads are made to fit the traffic, our casualty list will go on increasing year by year. The Ministry have said
"There is no doubt, and the Ministry have never disputed, that road accidents could be substantially reduced if the highway system could be improved."
What has been done as a result of that knowledge and admission? A sum of £2¼ million has been allotted for the two years ending March, 1954, for the removal of black spots, but this year there that is the suggestion of the noble Lord, has been a compensating cut, on an average, of over 4 per cent. on the allowance for maintenance throughout the whole country. In other words, what we
398
give with one hand we take back with the other, which strikes me as being almost the worst form of "double crossing" that could take place, because one figure is highly advertised and the other one is completely suppressed.
We have to remember, when we think of that figure of 4 per cent. reduction in maintenance, that only a year ago to-morrow, as has already been pointed out, the noble Lord the Secretary of State, Lord Leathers, said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 17, Col. 959):
"…in the matter of road maintenance we are just about at rock bottom, and that any economy below the present level is a delusion."
I wonder how this afternoon the noble Lord is going to work on his 4 per cent. delusion. The answer, surely, is this. We spend money on removing black spots in others. Our roads are to-day getting in a bad state of repair. There is a heavy fall of rain at night; there are cyclists riding down that road; and suddenly, in front of them, they see something almost in the nature of a lake. They swing out to avoid it, quite regardless of the car which is coming along a hundred yards behind them; and before they know what has happened, and before the car driver knows what has happened, there is a fatal accident. That fatal accident is the result of bad road maintenance and nothing else. In our part of the country we have had three of them within the last three weeks.
We get back, and we are bound to get back, to the question of finance which has been admirably dealt with by the noble Lords, Lord Teynham and Lord Wolverton We have to realise that our road system depends on the force of character of the Minister of State and what he can squeeze out of the Treasury—and that, I am afraid, is obvious. The Treasury will not realise that the blood of the inhabitants of this county is flowing because they will not allow the blood to be themselves—and that too, is obvious. One new proposal has emerged from this debate to-day, and Lord Teynham, the most constructive suggestion I have heard in this House for many years, that a Road Loan should be floated to meet the immediate problem.

399
I hope that most serious and sympathetic consideration will be given to that suggestion. I can see no other way in which we shall get the roads built and used that have to be built and used, if our transport is to be properly employed and if the lives of our people are to be saved.
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the subject of toll roads. We are not dealing with the same problem as that which faces America. We are dealing with tens of miles where they are dealing with hundreds, and in the long run the number of toll roads that can be built and worked economically in this country would not be worth the candle. I believe most sincerely that the taxation we are paying at the present moment is more than enough to meet the interest and sinking fund on a Road Loan that could provide the roads we need. If we rely on our present roads and have none of these new roads, it means that every year we are trying to put more into a pint pot than it will hold, and spilling more over the top, in the form of casualties.
5.20 p.m.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on once more bringing this problem to this House. It will relieve your Lordships' minds and particularly the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, who is going to reply, if I say at once that I am not going to mention roads. I have just three points which I should like to touch on, the first of which concerns children. Of course, that is more a point to be dealt with by the Ministry of Education than by the noble Lord but I did give him advance notice of it, and perhaps he will be able to help me in regard to what I want to know.
I have read the excellent Report that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned, in regard to children on the road, and I should like to add my suggestion to his that it should be read by all your Lordships. It is most illuminating and extremely well explained and set out. The Report stresses that the education in road sense of the children in our schools is fairly general. That is encouraging, but I should like to know whether the noble Lord can inform us what "fairly general"
400
means, because to my mind it is vital that the children in our schools—and by "our schools" I mean in all schools in the country, not only council schools—should have some instruction in road sense, so that they may go out into the world prepared, at least to some extent, for what they have to face on our roads. It is true, of course, that such instruction should in the first place be given in the home; but very few working-class homes or, indeed, other homes have copies of the Highway Code, and they certainly do not know it.
I should here like to put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Leathers—namely, whether it might not be a good thing to get some clever designer to design a pleasant little card or text, or whatever you like to call it: I am thinking rather of those nice little posters about security that we saw in railway carriages during the war. I should like to see in every nursery, or in every house in the land where there are children, something nicely illustrated which would show them in a simple way how to behave on the roads, for their own safety and for the safety of others. I throw out that suggestion. It may not be practical. But there is no doubt to my mind, that it is extremely important that we should have this education in all schools throughout the country. When I first saw the light of day—indeed, for long before that unimportant occasion—the basis of our education was said to be founded on the three R's. I am not certain that the time has not come when we ought to extend that famous trio into a quartet, and in future to talk about "Reading, 'Riting, 'Rithmetic and Road sense" as the basis of our education.
I hope that your Lordships will not think I am making too much of this particular point, but I am afraid we have to look forward to the time, say ten years hence, when there will be ten million instead of five million motor vehicles on the roads. There is no reason why there should not be. As one noble Lord said, since the end of the War we in this country have been going through a period when the acquiring of a car has been difficult. As yet, what we may call the "people's car," the little, cheap, low-consumption car, though we see a few of them about on the roads, has not really come into full circulation. We hope they will in the

401
course of time. Therefore in ten years' time we may see the present mad congestion doubled. That is why I think it is more than important that young people, especially young cyclists—I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised the issue of young cyclists wobbling in front of one's car—should go out into the world with real instruction in how to behave and how to look after themselves.
My second point is concerned with quite another subject. We never have a debate on this subject in your Lordships' House, without some noble Lord telling us about, and interesting us in, his experiences overseas and what he has seen of the way in which other people manage their motoring difficulties. For instance, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, told us in the last debate a few days ago about school road patrols in Copenhagen. I believe they have them operating very successfully in Washington, too. I remember that in the debate which I had the privilege of initiating in October last one noble Lord told us how entranced he was on a visit to Stockholm at seeing every cyclist with a little twinkling "cat's eye" on the back of his pedals. He said one could not mistake a cyclist even if one wanted to. We collect all these ideas here but they never go any further.
I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, whether it has ever occurred to the Government to set up what might be called a fact-finding mission of experts in street lighting, parking, car lighting and every sort of thing in connection with the roads and the safety of pedestrians, to tour a selected number of countries, to watch the experiments that are going on and, on their return, to make a report. Some of these experiments might be adaptable to this country. After all, this country has sent many brilliant ideas out into the world; we are not the sole repository for them. One has only to travel a short way overseas to see many excellent experiments working which might be adopted over here.
I have only one further point, and that I have stressed before in your Lordships'House—it is the question of crash helmets for motor cyclists. I dare say many of your Lordships have noticed with pleasure, as I have, the gradual increase in the wearing of these helmets by motor cyclists. I hope that that has been due
402
partly to the debates we have had on the subject in this House and in another place. Crash helmets are gradually coming in. As a matter of fact, a motor cyclist leaned his motor cycle against the kerb outside my house only last week, and I noticed he had on a crash helmet. He was doing something to the back tyre, and I said: "I am glad to see you are wearing one of these crash helmets." He said: "Well, I had an almighty bump on the head two years ago and I have taken to one ever since. "That is the sensible way to look at it.
But why should these helmets be subject to purchase tax? I am told that such things as lifebelts, "Mae West's" and miners' safety lamps are free from purchase tax because they are designed to save life and serious accident. By no stretch of the imagination can one think of a crash helmet on a motor cyclist as an article of adornment, or merely as a good means of keeping the cold from the back of his neck. Surely, it is something which may save a motor cyclist's life or save him from serious injury. I ask the noble Lord to make an effort with the Exchequer to see that this purchase tax is taken oft. We want to encourage these young fellows to wear helmets. I am told by two or three firms which have written to me since I last spoke on the subject that they can supply all the crash helmets that are wanted. There is no question of shortage. We need to encourage the use of these well-proved life saving helmets, and I think that one of the best ways in which we can do it at present is to take off the purchase tax. After all, it will not cost the Exchequer very much. All we can do at the moment is to beg of these young fellows to buy helmets and say: "Just think, you will be adding to the general wealth of the country by so doing, as well as perhaps saving your life." It does not seem to me to be very logical somehow.
On the general issue, I cannot help feeling that, after all the debates we have had in this House and, no doubt, in another place, and the conferences that have been held on this vital subject, we are still rather living up to our reputation of trying to muddle through to some solution. Nothing seems to be well planned. We have no real road plan in front of us. There does not seem to be

403
anything definite that one can get hold of which is going to bring about any improvement. Meanwhile, valuable lives are being lost, endless misery is being caused, and enormous expenditure is being entailed. We should like to see some of that expenditure go to the promotion of better road conditions in this country.
5.30 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the greater part of what I had intended to put before your Lordships this afternoon, has already been said, and it has been said with an ability and an eloquence which I am afraid that I shall probably never command. Also, to my way of thinking, it has been said with a sincerity which is admirable and which must be impressive to any hearer. I shall not, therefore, keep your Lordships any longer than I have to. I want to go on from a point of extreme agreement which I have with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He said forcefully that exhortation has failed. How very right he is! Going on from that point, I think that, most regrettably, we are forced to something which will be most unwelcome to noble Lords on all sides of the House, as it is to me. That is the question of the creation of more offences, more rules, more regulations and more bother for the general public to get into. We do not want that, but we have come, I believe and fear, to the stage when we must have it.
The problem as a whole, as expressed by all noble Lords who have spoken today, is a very large one. We have, as one might say, only a moderate-sized axe with which to fell a big tree. In no case can such a tree be felled by one great stroke with such an axe. None the less, if only we could have some of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for dealing with some of the evils which have been mentioned, to make a start, then—and I feel that your Lordships will agree with me—a number of small chops might be made as a beginning. Even if they succeeded in reducing only by a comparatively small amount the annual casualty figures, that would be all to the good. I hope that, at any rate in due course, we may have that.
Meanwhile, while I am no expert—I am a very ordinary motorist—I have some points to which I propose briefly to
404
call the attention of Her Majesty's Government, in the hope that it may be possible to find some way of enforcing them. It will naturally be by law that they will have to be enforced, and this will mean the creation of a set of unpleasant extra offences. But I think that if they can be tackled and if, as the result, casualties are reduced by even as much as fifty deaths a year, the effort will be well worth while. As I have said, I will be as brief as I can.
My first point has already been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth—it relates to the question of jay-walking pedestrians. Guard rails certainly are essential, but I would go further and say that pedestrians must somehow be kept where they are supposed to be when such safeguards exist. Why should they leave the pavement and run all over the road? Cars, when there is no room for them upon their appointed road, are not allowed to go upon the pavement. I see no justification for pedestrians doing this sort of thing, nor for pedestrians streaming indiscriminately across roads at all sorts of places when pedestrian crossings are provided at appointed spots. The same thing applies, to a certain extent, to cyclists. It hurts me, when driving along our inadequate trunk roads, to note the expensive cycle tracks which have been provided and which cyclists for some reason fail to use. Cyclists will ride on the main road, thus adding to the difficult problem already created by the weight of the traffic. And the way far too many people ride makes one bicycle as great an obstacle on the road as a lorry—which is ridiculous. I should like to see that particular point dealt with, and some action taken to impress upon the cyclists that they must realise that traffic laws apply to them, as well as to other road users.
The next matter I should like to touch upon concerns "Halt" signs, pedestrian crossings and traffic lights. There seems to be some sort of a feeling among cyclists that even if traffic lights are against them they can push their cycle across on the road. I have never been quite so stupid as to try to push my car across with a dead engine—I can imagine what view the local police would take if I did. In my view, it is just as dangerous to push a bicycle in front of an oncoming bus as to ride it. Dealing with this, of course, means only a tightening up of

405
existing laws or an enforcement of them. Turning for a moment to the heavy commercial vehicle, the public service vehicle, I have not a great deal of criticism to make. I think that the drivers of these vehicles are predominantly among the gentlemen of the road. I receive the greatest of courtesy from heavy lorry drivers. I should, however, be glad if they would not sometimes drive their vehicles so close together. Whether anything can be done about that, I do not know. In conditions such as those which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has described. it is perhaps inevitable that this should occur. But some way of splitting up heavy traffic and preventing large vehicles from proceeding nose to tail is essential.
That applies particularly to motor-coaches proceeding to the seaside at weekends. Speeding by motor-coaches, too, has got to be stopped. They are very large and powerful vehicles. Should the lives of, perhaps, forty-six passengers be risked at a speed of say fifty to fifty-five miles an hour, with possibly as many as twelve coaches trundling down the road, one after another, like a herd of elephants? I have never seen a herd of elephants, but I imagine that they must look something like that. These coaches, at times, go far too fast, and the risk involved is far too great. And there is a point at which action can be taken, because it is only a question of getting the police—the poor, harassed, overworked police, as usual—to enforce the existing law. But that must somehow be done.
I have a final point or two to put with regard to ordinary traffic, private cars. Something has got to be done about what I call "birdy watchers." Your Lordships will have seen those little birds made of rubber which wobble to and fro, and bob up arid down. Some motorists hang them in the rear windows of their cars, and they are a menace. I do not wish to stop anyone decorating his car in arty manner he may wish to, but I do require him to fit a traffic mirror and ask him to use it. He should not be allowed to block up the view with little rubber birds which bob about. It is quite ridiculous; and, more than that, it is extremely dangerous. It has now become axiomatic, I think, to give a wide berth to anyone with two or three of these on the back window, because one knows that such a motorist does not look into his
406
mirror. If he did, it would soon drive him crazy and he would take them down. If he must have such things, let him put them en the side windows, on the roof—anywhere he likes, but not in view of the mirror. Nor do I wish to see any more flags, however patriotic, fluttering largely from the radiator straight in the driver's line of vision. I think we must ask for some kind of ruling; to prevent obstructions from being placed wilfully, almost certainly ignorantly, in the line of sight of drivers.
I should like to see indicators used only to indicate that a motorist is going to turn to the left or to the right. At the present time, the use, of traffic indicators may mean anything. It may mean, "I am going to turn to the right," or," I am going to pull out to pass the car in front, but I may change my mind"; or it may mean, "I am going to pass the car in front and then turn to the right"; or, again, it may mean simply, "I have raised the indicator and forgotten about it until I turn to the left." I feel most strongly about this matter. Many times have I been confused by this improper use of these traffic indicators. Their use should be restricted to right and left turns only, and all other signals should be given by hand as recommended by the Highway Code.
My final point is one that I do not remember having heard mentioned before, but no doubt it has been mentioned—that is, overloading. If a commercial vehicle is overloaded, the driver, and possibly his employer, is prosecuted. The police have power to check overloading, but that is not so in the case of motor-cars. Again, I do not wish to interfere with anybody's right to enjoy himself by using transport, but a small car with four or five people in it, plus several trunks, a pram and the kitchen stove strap bed all over it, so that the front wheels are practically off the ground and the car is swaying about, is not safe. And this hind of thing is on the increase. If one goes down any of the coast roads, particularly at the week-end, one finds streams of cars that are overloaded. I am convinced that is the reason why so many people drive very slowly in the middle of the road. I think that the overloading of motor-cars will require careful attention in the near future. Her Majesty's Government showed themselves

407
capable of splendid effective, prompt and generous action in the case of the flood disaster. I do not minimise that disaster in the least, yet it represented about two weeks of road casualties, and I believe that the loss of production and the misery caused to people could not have been any greater than that caused by road accidents. I can only hope that we may expect, and confidently expect, the same type of prompt and effective action in this matter.
5.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I am in some difficulty in rising to say a few words on this subject this afternoon, because, as your Lordships know, Her Majesty's Government are pledged to reduce capital expenditure, so far as they are able, in every possible way. I do not doubt that this is necessary; nevertheless, like many other noble Lords, I am convinced that there will be and can be no great reduction in the number of road accidents until large sums of money are spent to make the roads safe for the volume, speed and weight of modern traffic. Having said that, I would emphasise that it is the individual responsibility of everybody, be he pedestrian, cyclist or driver, to take every possible care not to be involved in a road accident.
Education has done, and is doing, a great deal to reduce accidents, but human beings are fallible creatures, and education alone is not enough. May I give an example of what I mean? We see notices saying, "Keep off the grass," "Do not litter the ground," "Drive carefully," "Look before you cross the road"—but, human nature being what it is, these exhortations are not always complied with. It is sometimes suggested that the laws should be tightened up and heavy penalties should be imposed for infringements of the traffic regulations. That is a purely negative solution and in any event the police are already short of men to carry out their normal duties. Again, it is sometimes said that if everyone showed good manners and courtesy, there would be no accident problem. That is very nice in theory, but in practice it does not work; and it does not work because the speed of modern life does not allow it to work. If I may draw a parallel, which I am afraid is not a good one, I would liken the traffic on the roads to
408
the corridors in the London tube stations at the rush hour—a great press of people travelling in different directions in a confined space at different speeds. Who in such circumstances has not collided with another person, unintentionally and unavoidably?
I would ask the Government to grant local authorities money to remove some of the hazards on our roads which allow mistakes to be made. I refer to such things as hump-back bridges, bottlencks on main roads, slippery road surfaces, and the like: I will not weary your Lordships with the list of dangerous features. In conclusion, I should like to describe to your Lordships an accident which I happened to witness not so long ago. I think it bears out what I have been saying. This accident occurred on the A 6 road from London to Carlisle, on a stretch of road near Beetham, Milnthorpe, in Westmorland. A motorcyclist drove up at a moderate speed behind a car, which was already in motion and travelling in the same direction. The motor-cyclist applied his brakes, wobbled, skidded, fell off and was taken to hospital. Now that particular two-mile stretch of road has been very much worn and has become shiny and extremely slippery through constant heavy traffic. Much rubber and oil has been left on the road by passing vehicles; and that combined with the state of wear of the road, makes the road in wet weather extremely greasy and treacherous. What I think is so disturbing about that accident is not the fact that the motorcyclist fell off or went to hospital, regrettable though that is, but the fact that the road has been in that condition, to my certain knowledge, for at least a whole year.
I do not single out Westmorland for special criticism in this direction, because the roads of Westmorland are quite as well maintained as those anywhere else; but I understand that the reason that road is so slippery is that funds are not available for all-important maintenance. On the same stretch of road I saw the result of another accident. A motor coach skidded and the windows were smashed. There may well have been other accidents there—I do not know. I also do not know whether the injured motor cyclist has any right of action in law against the

409
local authority. If he has, my sympathies would certainly be with him. Her Majesty's Government have a great opportuity of saving lives and of preventing much suffering. I ask them to seize that opportunity and to spend money on the roads, and make them safe for all who use them.
5.52 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, my only regret on this Motion this afternoon is that it was not more widely framed, so as to cover the general question of the efficiency of the roads and the effect upon our national economy and industry. I do not believe we can discuss accidents without discussing the general, efficiency of the roads, because the question of paying for improvements comes in, and also the return that is going to be obtained by the country and by industry. There is no question but that increasing accidents are a distinct mark of the decreasing efficiency of the roads. Expenditure will prevent accidents, and it will also help the production drive and enable us to produce more cheaply goods which we all so badly need to-day. By improving the roads I believe you more than just stop accidents. You kill two birds with one stone. Quite definitely, you directly help industry. For years every Government has fought shy of spending money on the roads, I suppose because they thought it was money spent which they would never see again—"gone down the drain," so to speak. But I am convinced that money spent on the roads pays big dividends to the country.
In 1950 10 per cent. of the national income was spent on road transport. The figure was something like £1,200 million and it was three times what was spent on any other form of internal transport. If one were able, through improving efficiency, to reduce that expenditure by as little as 5 per cent., there would be a gain to the country of £60 million, and if by 10 per cent. the gain would be £120 million a year, and that is not to be "sneezed at." As has already been pointed out by noble Lords, accidents on the roads each year cost the country something like £146 million. I believe the 1950 cost was only just over £100 million, but even at that figure if these accidents could be reduced by 30 per cent. the total saving to the country from that and from the total expenditure on
410
road transport would be very nearly £100 million.
It is very interesting to find that these figures have been corroborated by an estimate that has been worked out, based on the 1949 volume of traffic. If there were a plan to improve the roads, costing £550 million, the saving to the country would be £95 million a year. In other words, the plan would pay for itself in six years and, put in stockbrokers' language, it would mean that the country would get a yield approaching 20 per cent., a yield which it is very Lard to get nowadays. About a year ago I read in one of the newspapers that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would not permit what he called "milk bar development." I think it is a great mistake to regard expenditure on the roads as "milk bar development." It is not pouring money into a bottomless sink or throwing it down the drain. You will see it again, and it will help production, which is just what is wanted to-day. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the statement he made at that time, was authorising only capital expenditure which would help production. My Lords, I submit that expenditure on the roads does just that.
Now the main defects—two of them have already been mentioned this afternoon—are, first, traffic congestion, and, second, the failure of the roads to take care of modern traffic conditions. I believe there is an additional major defect; that is, mixing different kinds of traffic—heavy lorries, private motor cars, fast and slow, and so on. It is the clash of different kinds of traffic on one road that I believe is one of the biggest accident producers. It gives rise to dangerous overtaking. How many times does one drive along the roads and find people jockeying for position to overtake each other, and overtaking on both sides of the road? It is something that is particularly bad in this country, as we do not keep to any regular traffic lanes. One does not see it in the United States of America. People there keep to their traffic lanes on their part of the road. They stick in their position and they do not go zig-zagging across the road. I have spoken to Americans who have come here and they all say they are absolutely put out and alarmed by this zig-zagging and by the conditions of the roads with which they have to contend.

411
If money is one day to be spent on the roads, as I most sincerely hope it will be, I believe we should build motorways which segregate the different kinds of traffic, keeping heavy, slow moving traffic on different roads from lighter and faster traffic. That will stimulate faster commercial transport—that is, if the law relating to the speed limit is amended—and it will reduce costs by enabling goods to be moved more quickly. It will prevent accidents arising from the intermingling of different traffic, and, most important, it will relieve congestion on other roads, the minor roads which take all kinds of traffic. I have heard it estimated that a proper system of segregation of motor roads throughout the country would effect a saving in industry of something like 40 per cent. on fuel; 30 per cent. on tyres; 50 per cent. on running time, if the speed limit is altered; and 30 per cent. on operating costs. It is reckoned that the system could save four out of five accidents, and this is the consideration which should be most important of all. I believe that some of the congestion, hold-ups, and so on, on the roads may very well get worse; but would ask Her Majesty's Government to remember that it is never too late to act.
6.0 p.m.
LORD SELSDON: My Lords, I propose to detain your Lordships for only a few minutes. While we have this totally inadequate system of roads in this country we shall always have accidents. I believe that if we were to extend a scheme operated before the war with a great deal of success in Lancashire, that of the "courtesy cop" on his motorcycle, we might get somewhere. A police car is of the same width as any other motor car, and if the police see anybody driving dangerously in a narrow road, it may well be that the police car itself has to be driven dangerously to contact the offender. If, however, there were more motor-cycle police, they could get through a much smaller area and advise the motor-car driver that he had been holding too much to the middle of the road, or driving in a manner which was liable to cause an accident. I feel that an increase in the number of motor-cycle police on the road, not necessarily to catch motorists, but to advise them of
412
their errors, and act as "courtesy cops," is a matter deserving of serious consideration.
I was interested in what was said earlier about crash hats, or, as I believe they are called, "skid lids." Apparently there has been some discussion in another place about purchase tax on a corkscrew, and it makes a difference as to where you have the operative part. If it is in the tail, I believe there is no purchase tax; but if it is in the middle, then there is purchase tax. There is only one possible place for a crash hat—on the head: it cannot be worn on the tail. I put it to Her Majesty's Government that, if they are serious about reducing road accidents, they should make this small gesture of removing purchase tax from crash hats. As the noble Lord said, it would not cost much. I have a friend who, in the recent twenty-four hours' race at Le Mans, owed his life to his crash helmet. The cockpit of his car, travelling at well over eighty miles an hour, suddenly became a blaze of flame, and he had to bale out. If he had not been wearing a crash helmet he would have been killed. As it was, he survived with a few burns and a dislocated shoulder. Surely it is not too much to ask that these motor-cyclists should be given the chance to remain alive if they do have a crash.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the main Southampton Road. On the morning of the Fleet Review I was going down to watch it, together with some Americans. We got to the other side of Winchester, and there was a queue, I should think, about eight miles long. I asked one of the policemen in a police car the cause of this, and he said, "There is a 'Queen Mary' lorry carrying a propeller which must belong to the 'Queen Mary' "That lorry was taking up two-thirds of the road, and nothing could get past it in either direction. The Americans just laughed, and said, "This is your main road to one of your main ports." It was farcical. I do not think the Government can allow something like that to continue without doing anything about it.
I have one final point, on the question of children. I believe that the noble Lord opposite is absolutely right. I could cite many instances of children in

413
America—I have said this before in your Lordships'House—who value the sashes they are given for escorting other children across the road equally with their baseball or football colours. I want to see that sort of thing happen in this country. In conclusion, I sincerely hope that it may be possible, in the years to come, to refer to this Government as the Government which did something for road safety.
6.6 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 thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for having moved the Motion. It is one of those hardy annuals that returns each year, always with a great crop of new ideas; bat still some say that it never really begins to grow. I do not agree. We learn a lot each time we have these discussions. I think it may be said that we have had more ideas put forward to-day even than have been put forward on previous occasions. Some of them are not worth a great deal, but others are worthy of quite a lot of consideration; and some are in a yet higher category. If I do not touch upon all of them in my speech, because there are so many, I assure your Lordships that not one will be lost sight of. Those that are really worth pursuing and having consultations about will be dealt with on those lines.
I would say, too, that it is in sad circumstances that we have this debate to-day, because although we seemed to be getting some improvement, we have now had this unfortunate setback; and the tendency still, I am afraid, is for accidents to increase. However, I hope that this is only temporary, for we did achieve some improvement, by a great deal of effort. I do not desire to be too forlorn about the setback of the moment, as there may be reasons for it: we have been through difficult times in various ways, although I do not propose to describe them. We must fight all we know so that we can get on the downward trend again at the first opportunity.
When I spoke in your Lordships' House last October, in reply to a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, I was able to say that the number of deaths and
414
of those injured was significantly down, compared with that in the previous year, and that the trend of accidents, which had been steadily rising since the end of the war, had actually been reversed. In saying that, I was careful to avoid any note of complacency. But at last there seemed to be signs that the terrible toll of road accidents was being tackled with some success. To-day, I regret to say that the signs look blacker again. Altogether, road accidents are about 9 per cent. up on the same period of last year, but it is perhaps some consolation that these figures are not as bad as those just before the war—and this in spite of the marked increase in the number of vehicles on the road. That is, perhaps, taking consolation by going a little far back, but we did have a larger number of accidents before the war, when there was so much less traffic on the roads. We must now aim at getting still further with the success that we were achieving.
With these sad reminders, I cannot complain that to-day's debate is in any way premature, and I share to the full the views of all of your Lordships who have urged that this must be regarded as one of the gravest social problems of our time. I think that the steps which can be taken to
"eliminate the conditions and reduce the factors which are the cause of road accidents"
to use the wording of the noble Lord's Motion—can most conveniently be divided into two distinct groups. On the one hand, there is the engineering side of the problem—the country's physical equipment, of roads, pavements, bridges and the like, on which virtually everyone in the country at different times walks, rides; or drives. On the other hand, there are all those other steps, which are not concerned with the roads themselves but with our behaviour as we use them. And this group embraces the whole question of education and propaganda, enforcement of the highway law and so on.
Looking first at the roads themselves, I should like to take this opportunity to correct, in so far as it has not already been corrected, an impression which, it seemed to me, had got abroad in some quarters outside this House, the impression that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, or his Ministry, are indifferent to road improvements as a means of reducing road accidents. This

415
certainly does not represent the position of the present Government, or of the Ministry of Transport. Our position on this matter is illustrated by the fact that, at a time of great financial difficulty and of general restriction of road works, an expenditure of £3 million for the sole purpose of dealing with accident black spots has been approved. This covers a period of two financial years, of which we are now in the second. Your Lordships may say that this is a trivial sum in relation to the need, and I agree that we could usefully spend a much larger amount. But it is at least a sensible concentrated effort, for the most part deliberately confined to small and inexpensive, but none the less valuable, schemes. Indeed, well over 1,000 schemes have been approved in this special £3 million effort. Some 40 per cent. of them are now complete, another 40 per cent. are proceeding, and work on the remainder will be put in hand shortly What I will say, however, is that road improvements, however extensive they may be, will never by themselves eliminate accidents. With occasional exceptions, an accident is caused by human beings, and not by things. However good they become, roads are never foolproof. Accidents can happen on the great highways constructed in the United States, for example, or in Germany, just as they happen here, through fatigue, inattention, bad judgment, lack of consideration or any of many other human failings.
By the very nature of the subject, debates in your Lordships' House about the roads tend to follow a rather stereotyped pattern. Your Lordships rise and ask, with the utmost clarity and vigour, why more is not being done, either to improve the roads or to maintain them in better condition. And the Government spokesman—whether he be myself or the noble Lord opposite or anyone else—explains in lengthy detail how the Government, of course, recognise the importance of improving the roads, both from an economic and from a social point of view; and how they would like to spend very much more on the roads, were it not that the economic resources of the country were limited and imposed a strict check on the level of expenditure on the highways. My Lords, all of this is absolutely true, and I would willingly recite it at length if there were any general
416
desire that I should. But your Lordships have heard it all so often before that I thought perhaps I might take it as a generally accepted but regrettable fact that, in the circumstances of our economy to-day, our balance of payments difficulties, the heavy demands of our defence programme, and the competing claims of many other forms of civil expenditure, we must hold the level both of investment in the roads and of Exchequer expenditure on the roads, down to a level much lower than we should like to see.
EARL HOWE: No matter how many people are killed or injured?
LORD LEATHERS: I am mindful of all that, but still it adds up to the position as we must apply it to-day.
So far as maintenance of the highways is concerned, although I said on the last occasion when we debated the subject in this House that I thought we were almost down to the safety limit, I am by no means prepared to share in the most extreme cries of alarm which one sometimes hears. I see that I am supported in this view to a great extent by the Select Committee on Estimates which recently considered this subject in another place.
LORD SANDHURST: Their evidence was very faulty.
LORD LEATHERS: I had a more personal confirmation of this quite recently when, during the Coronation period, a very eminent Minister from another country was with me for two week-ends. We went over a great many of our roads, and I asked him to tell me, quite frankly, what he thought of the condition of our roads. I asked him generally about them. His immediate reply was, "They are absolutely wonderful. They are in a much better condition than the roads at home." I have also put this question to other eminent people from abroad who have been over here, and it is surprising to me, after all that one hears, to find that they regard the conditions of our roads as really excellent.
EARL HOWE: May I ask the noble Lord a question? He has explained how the people he was with thought our roads were in excellent condition. What did they think about the traffic conditions on them?
LORD LEATHERS: As a matter of fact, I think I told your Lordships it was a week-end, and the traffic conditions were not at their worst. Probably the visitors were not able to see the roads in those conditions. Notwithstanding that, the roads themselves—and many American friends have been over here, and have said this time and time again—were in a better condition, as roads, than those in their own country. That is largely explained, I think, by the fact that their winter is rather more severe than ours, and the roads undergo a fairly severe strain during those very cold months, In the process of the debate, noble Lords who have spoken have all ventured to give their views. I hope that I may be forgiven for quoting these instances, which may not quite tally with what has been said by others. At the same time, it is a useful expression of opinion from people who are experienced in the very matters about which we are talking.
While I am on the subject of maintenance, I think it only right that I should pay tribute to the way in which our road engineers and surveyors throughout the country, who for so many years have had less to spend on the roads than they would regard as desirable, have nevertheless contrived to make the restricted provision such as they have been given go such a long way and have preserved our roads in such good state. They have contributed to find the cheapest, but by no means always the least satisfactory, ways of maintaining our roads. And they have been assisted in this by the constant progress of research, not only by the Road Research Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, but also by the highway authorities themselves, and by bodies such as the associations of manufacturers of road materials. This technical and scientific progress, and this ingenuity for making money spin out as far as possible, will always be needed—even in days to come—when the highways engineers may not be squeezed quite as hard as they are to-day.
Turning from maintenance to new road works, I am afraid that there is not as much to mention as I should like. I have already referred to the programme for dealing with the black spots, and this is perhaps the most important part of the road improvement programme to-day. But
418
for the rest, the score, sheet is not completely blank. I mentioned in the debate last year our difficulty in authorising the building of a new bridge to replace the transporter bridge between Runcorn and Widnes. As some of your Lordships may know, it has now been possible to overcome these difficulties, and I very much hope that work on the new bridge will begin this year.
One matter of interest to all parts of the country I am glad to be able to announce to your Lordships this afternoon. After earnest consultation which my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and I have had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor has quite recently agreed that payments from the Road Fund may be allowed to increase during this financial year above the level provided for in the Estimates. This increase is agreed at £1 million. This £1 million will be divided between maintenance and minor improvements, on the one hand, and major improvements, on the other. It will go some way to restoring the cut on maintenance and minor improvements funds which had to be made in the Estimates for the current financial year, and will enable some much-needed road and bridge improvements to be put in hand at once. In distributing this money we shall have due regard to both economies and road safety, and to those of your Lordships who are specially concerned I can say at once that neither Scotland nor Wales will be forgotten. Your Lordships will not expect anything very spectacular, but I am sure you will agree that an extra £1 million is not to be "sneezed at."
LORD SANDHURST: Is not that just a return of the cut of £1 million that took place on last year's Estimates?
LORD LEATHERS: It is possible to make all kinds of calculations of that sort. It is an extra amount over and above that which was authorised for this year, and we ought to take it in that sense. Moreover, it must be remembered that this £1 million means additional money actually to be paid out this year, partly on schemes on which further expenditure will be incurred net year and thereafter.
I am also glad to be able to tell your Lordships that some slight easement is now permissible in the very restrictive policy in the field of capital investment in

419
roads, which is controlled by the Minister of Transport under Defence Regulation 56A, although no Exchequer expenditure is involved. This applies to work on unclassified roads, and to some works on classified roads in county boroughs, which highway authorities are paying for out of their own money. This means that, among other schemes, we have been able to authorise the scheme presented by the Westminster City Council and the Corporation of London for relaying Victoria Embankment, consequent upon the removal of the tram tracks.
I think I had better turn now to the other side, that is to say, from the engineering side to the education and enforcement side. I have made a note of the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, in the matter of the posterity scheme, of spending money now and and getting it on loan, letting the capital be paid off at some distant date. This, of course, is something that will have to be considered. At first, I was not greatly attracted to the idea, because I felt that in thinking about putting this business to posterity rather than financing it ourselves, we were doing so at a time when our roads had been deprived of road expenditure assigned them for some years. I think, nevertheless, that all this will have to be looked into with great care, and I am obliged to Lord Teynham for making the suggestion. Full consideration will be given to it. Another suggestion was that a Working Party should be set up. I am a little unwilling to subscribe at the moment to more Working Parties. The Minister has his responsibility. He has all the expert advice available to him as to how and in what order the money should be spent; and while I say again that I shall be happy to consider this with the Minister, I feel that it is just adding something which is perhaps a little superfluous, since the Minister has available to him to-day all that the Working Party could provide for him. We do not want to add to the machinery; we want rather to make the machinery we have go, if it is the right kind of machinery.
With regard to this education and enforcement side, an important part of our equipment for road education is the Highway Code. The Minister is bound by Statute to publish this after approval
420
by Parliament. Motorists are enjoined to study it, and drivers undergoing tests may be questioned on it. But let me emphasise that it is not to motorists only that the Code is addressed. It closely concerns all road users, including pedestrians. In last year's debate I admitted that the present document is a bit out of date, and not, perhaps quite as happily drawn and arranged as it might be. Therefore, it is being re-written and reissued. The Committee on Road Safety, under the Chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary, has been working hard on this, and I hope that before long it will be out. Meantime the old Code holds the field, and it is the duty of all who use the roads to be familiar with it. After all, the new Code will be changed more in layout than in substance.
EARL HOWE: Will the Code be brought before Parliament at all?
LORD LEATHERS: It must be.
On Road Safety propaganda generally the Government are spending about £200,000 this year, and we regard it as money well spent. Little is spent directly by the Government. Most of the money goes to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, so ably presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and to more than 1,000 local authorities all over the country who have set up road safety committees. To the work of the Society and to the committees I should like to take this opportunity of paying a well-deserved tribute. I am sorry that this year they have not had the satisfaction of seeing a continued fall in the number of accidents. But without their efforts who knows how much higher accidents might have risen? We are now concentrating on selective rather than on general propaganda. This means that we have turned away from general exhortations, and are basing road safety education on practical hints directed to particular aspects of the road accident problem. We vary this from time to time in style and position, in order that it will catch on.
There is one point calling for particular attention, and that is the terrible vulnerability of cyclists in their teens. There has recently been published by the Economic Research Council a noteworthy Report called The Child On The Road. This gives some striking figures

421
about the frightful rate of accidents to teen-age cyclists, particularly boys, during the summer week-ends. May I suggest that everyone interested in road safety, particularly the parents—and may I say even the indulgent grandparents?—of teen-age cyclists should read this Report? Moreover, it is absolutely essential that child cyclists, before they take to the road, should have a thorough knowledge of the Highway Code and should realise the importance of observing it without fail. For safety's sake, if not for any other reason, they should also keep their cycles in first-class condition. An important responsibility rests on parents here. I hope, too, that increasing use will be made of the cycling proficiency scheme organized by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. So far, only 40,000 children have obtained the badge under this scheme. I should like to see that number multiplied by at least ten.
At this point, in dealing with cyclists, I should like to refer to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, raised. He mentioned child cyclists, arid was kind enough to give me notice of the points he intended to raise. He asked about the teaching of road safety in the schools. Your Lordships will know that the curriculum in State-aided schools is largely a matter within the discretion of the school authorities, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Education has from time to time urged education authorities and schools to see that adequate and suitable instruction in the principles of road safety is given regularly in every type of school. And, in fact, I understand that this teaching is to all intents and purposes universal. I think that everyone concerned with road safety acknowledges the tremendous job which the teachers have done, and are doing, and which is reinforced in many areas by frequent visits to schools by selected police officers who give their own talks on road safety to the children. Moreover, it is the fact that accidents to children between the ages of six and fifteen are remarkably low by comparison with those in other age groups. This in itself reflects, I think, on the effectiveness of the school teaching.
The noble Lord also asked whether Her Majesty's Government had ever contemplated the setting up of a fact-finding
422
commission to tour a selected number of countries to observe and report on any measure to reduce accidents which might be incorporated into our own system. I must say, in answer to this, that I do not think we need a body of persons to go around formally in this manner. As things are, by the interchange of information between countries and by occasional visits of officials and highway engineers between countries, we do in fact know the techniques practised elsewhere. Moreover the special Working Party on Road Traffic Accidents which meets from time to time at Geneva under the auspices of the Economic Commission for Europe is a means whereby a great deal of international information is spread about. The difficulties arise when you think of putting into practice here some of the ways of other countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, urged that crash helmets should be freed from purchase tax. The difficulties here have been set out in your Lordships' House before. The fact is that crash helmets could hardly be exempt without freeing a large number of other articles of protective clothing. I have an imposing list of such items here arid the noble Lord might be interested to look at it and see what repercussions would inevitably follow if we freed crash helmets. I regret, therefore, that I cannot hold out any hope of exemption at the moment. At the same time I might just remind the noble Lord that the sale of these articles has already gone up by leaps and bounds. There are many articles of this kind which have to bear purchase tax, such as lifebuoys and that kind of thing. If once the purchase tax on one of these articles is reduced or removed, I am afraid we shall have an extensive situation to meet.
LORD HAMPTON: May I ask one question? Is it not a fact that the purchase tax is not levied on miners' protective helmets? I cannot see the difference between the two. They are both protective articles.
LORD LEATHERS: The miner's helmet has always been free. I must confess it is the only instance of that sort I have been able to find, and the noble Lord has hit on that very one. But, there are many other articles involved. I have seen a huge list. After all, the miners are provided with these helmets by the country; it is the Notional Coal Board's

423
job to supply them. No doubt many other articles to which purchase tax applies are supplied to the men by their various industries. A crash helmet, however, is something that a man wants for going round the country on his motorcycle, which is not quite the same thing. If we remove the purchase tax in this instance, we shall meet much trouble. We can always keep this question under review, in the hope that something can be done; but it is definitely felt now that this tax must remain on these helmets.
I should now like to mention a measure to which I referred last October and which stands mid-way between education and enforcement—police motor-cycle patrols. There have been some difficulties in developing this measure but my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has been in close touch throughout with the Home Secretary and we hope that local authorities and local police forces, with whose representatives we are also in touch, will realise the importance of co-operating as fully as possible on this front. These "courtesy cops" did most useful work just before the war, particularly in Lancashire, and I have no doubt that, if the police could put more of these patrols on the road, it would produce a great improvement in road behaviour. I am told there is a difficulty in getting policemen who will do that particular duty. It is not easy to get sufficient men. But all those matters are being examined, because these "courtesy cops" are really one of the best helps we can hope for on the road.
The National Road Safety Week will take place this year from October 17 to October 26, and the theme will be "Better Roadmanship" We are sparing no effort to enlist the services of the various media of propaganda and education, and have not overlooked the cinema, the wireless or television. "Roadmanship" is, I think, a good catch word for this purpose. By "Roadmanship" we mean an amalgam of three elements—a knowledge of good road conduct as set out in the Highway Code, intelligent anticipation and good road manners. I want to stress these three elements. Courtesy by itself, though it goes a long way, is not enough. It must be accompanied by trained intelligence and acquired knowledge.
424
Drivers of motor cars and motor-cycles absolutely must acquire a really comprehensive technique before they drive on the roads. There is nothing clever in driving fast, especially when one's technique is inadequate. As for learner drivers, the Ministry leaflet D.L.68, which can be obtained from any local taxation office, sets out clearly and concisely what our driving examiners want at the test. Motor-cyclists have in the past presented particular difficulties because of the dangers which arise from lack of supervision in training. I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the recent extension of the training scheme which the Royal Automobile Club and the Auto Cycle Union are running jointly. I wish that every intending motor-cyclist were aware of the inexpensive facilities offered by this scheme. It is already, I think, bearing fruit. Although the number of personal injury accidents has gone up, casualties to motor-cyclists have not gone up in such a high proportion. This may be due partly to the improved training and partly to the more widespread use of crash helmets to which your Lordships in a recent debate gave valuable publicity.
The need for roadmanship as a science in our modern world is most pressing. I think that if we were to regard it seriously as a science we should get results. People do not seem to object to Civil Defence instruction or to instruction in the Territorial Army or in the Fire Service. These are special techniques, regarded as such and studied dispassionately. But training for the roads, which claim more victims than the battlefield, is, for some perverse reason, regarded differently. Very few accept roadmanship as a technique to be learned coolly and applied smoothly and sensibly. The moral is plain. Each one of us should examine his own road conduct and see how far he falls from the highest principles of roadmanship. Let us take immediate steps to improve our own road behaviour as individuals. By this means, the Government and people together can reduce the fearful scourge of accidents which leaves so much tragedy and disfigurement in its wake.
6.39 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, when I opened this debate I likened it to a drop of water wearing away the stone. I can only hope that that, in the event, is what it will be;

425
because while I do not think I have heard in this House, for many a long day, such a constructive and well-informed debate on road accidents, I cannot remember a reply out of which we derived such little satisfaction. However, I think the cumulative effect of a debate like this is felt afterwards. I must confess, also, that the opening of the noble Lord's brief had, to me, a familiar ring. I could almost see it being brought out of the pigeon-holes at the Ministry of Transport, the thumb marks being rubbed off and the cobwebs being removed. I have seen it so many times myself.
I should be despondent about this if I did not know the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, because I believe—in fact I know—that he feels as intensively as any noble Lord in this House the problem of the roads, not only from the human point of view but from the point of view of economy. He would not have risen to his height in the industry in this country if he did not. That is my consolation and, I hope he will not mind my saying, the only one I have. It is said that a country's civilisation is measured by the speed and the safety at which it can transport goods and people. If that be true, our civilisation is declining, because it is no longer safe and the speed is lessening. I am sorry the noble Lord had to bring to his aid the American who said that he thought our roads were as good as any in his country. Of course he was looking at the surface. As I have said before, the surface of our roads is like the surface of many a pretty female face—it hides a lot of cracks and the ravages of age. That is what is wrong with our roads.
I am sorry that the noble Lord did not say anything about enforcement. I know that it is not the province of the Ministry of Transport. There is one thing about which I can agree with him wholeheartedly. About six or seven months ago., perhaps nearly twelve months ago, we were all congratulating ourselves on the fact that he had found, as we thought, at least one solution. Road accidents in congested areas were falling, due to the advent of the zebra pedestrian crossing. Quite frankly, I believe that, unless something is done to enforce the regulations in regard to these zebra crossings, they will fall into the same disrepute as the pedestrian crossings of old. I am going to ask the noble
426
Lord to go outside your Lordships' House, on any morning he likes, before your Lordships' House is sitting, and see the wild game that goes on with pedestrians trying to cross on the pedestrian crossing arid the motorists and vehicle drivers trying to beat them to it. When your Lordships' House is sitting, the crossings are controlled by police. The other day I stood there and watched for a quarter of an hour, and opposite the pedestrian crossing outside St. Margaret's Church were two police officers talking to each other. Neither one of them moved a little finger to prevent the pedestrians from being marooned in the middle of the crossing while the traffic was chasing up and down St. Margaret Street.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, if he will allow me to say so with respect, made an admirable speech. Unless somebody can exercise some influence in regard to the enforcement of the existing law, we shall find that pedestrian crossings will fall into disrepute and be dishonoured, That, I believe, is one of the main contributory factors in the increase of road accidents. The law governing the behaviour of everybody who uses the roads is absolutely in disrepute. The noble Lord mentioned motor coaches. You have to do seventy miles an hour in a car to pass a long-distance coach. I wonder how many people in this country know that the speed limit of every coach in this country is thirty miles an hour. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has down for answer next week a Question which I shall not anticipate. But if every traffic law in this country were rigidly enforced, and no vehicle except a motor-car travelled at over thirty miles an hour, I think the economy of this country would come to a standstill. That is the measure of the antiquity of the law of this country governing conduct on the roads. I hope fiat at some time or another that matter will be given serious attention.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for the interest they have taken in this debate. I am also grateful to the noble Lord the Secretary of State, because I believe that when he comes seriously to consider the views expressed in this debate, and the tenor of the whole feeling of the House, it will perhaps spur him

427
on to make his weight felt in this direction in the secret recesses of the highest authority. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCEL LANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
6.46 p.m.
Read 3ª(according to Order), and passed.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (PIGS) BILL
Read 3ª(according to Order), and passed.