Lords Sitting of 14 December 1954

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the Clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  VIET MINH AND GENEVA PACT
  2.36 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows.
  To ask Her Majesty's Government: (1) whether the Viet Minh have violated the Geneva pact, and if so in what respects; (2) whether they have increased their forces by three further divisions two of them armoured, and all equipped by the Chinese.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, as regards the first part of the Question, no violation of the three agreements on the cessation of hostilities in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam has been reported by the respective International Supervisory Commissions, though difficulties have arisen in the execution of these agreements, notably regarding the administration of the two northern provinces of Laos and the evacuation of refugees from northern Vietnam.
  As regards the second part of the Question, Her Majesty's Government are not aware of the existence of any Vietminh armoured divisions. The Vietminh will probably have twice as many regular field formations by the end of the year as they had at the time of the Geneva settlement, and these have most probably been largely equipped with material supplied at some stage by China. But Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to state whether this material was introduced before or after the coming into force of the prohibition imposed by the agreement on the cessation of hostilities.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his reply; I have no supplementary question to ask.

CHINESE TREATMENT OF MR. FORD
2.38 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Mr. Huan Hsiang has now been informed that the Government take an extremely grave view of the brutal injustice meted out to Mr. Ford.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, this matter continues to be actively pursued in Pekin. I see no advantage in attempting to handle it simultaneously in London.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, the noble Marquess is far too modest. How can he expect the representations of a junior in Pekin to have the same effect as representations by himself or by the Secretary of State at this end?

DUNOON BURGH (PAVILION EX PENDITURE) ORDER CONFIRMA TION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL, [H.L.]
2.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I am fairly confident that I shall have the support of the whole House. I believe, further, that the Bill may be received in some parts of the country with something approaching enthusiasm. The problem which we are here facing is one of the scourges which arise as a by-product of the mechanisation of life which we now find necessary. The pollution of our waters has increased in parallel with the increased use of oil as fuel in ships and the increased transport of crude oil by sea for refining in the British Isles and North-West Europe in recent years. The increased use of oil, both by sea and by land, causes pollution primarily in two ways. First, certain ships take on sea

331
water as ballast as a matter of routine. In due course, this ballast water has to be discharged somewhere, and, inevitably, it carries with it a good deal of oil mixed up with the water. Secondly, tankers, when they are carrying oil as cargo, have to clean their cargo tanks frequently, and in every case when they have discharged a cargo of crude oil they must clean them. These sludge and tank washings have to be disposed of somewhere, and for lack of better facilities they are sometimes—in fact, frequently—put into the sea. The results of this pollution are so serious that we cannot possibly regard them with indifference.
It has resulted in the spoiling of many of the amenities on parts of our coasts. I am given to understand that in some places it is often impossible to bathe, sunbathe, paddle, sit or even walk along the beaches without getting covered with a tarry substance. Nor does the nuisance end there, because this tarry substance is carried into houses and hotels, and causes great damage to carpets and furniture. But perhaps the most distressing result of oil pollution is the cruelty and suffering which it inflicts on sea birds, a very large number of which die in consequence of fouling by oil. There is also the fouling of boats, piers and quays; damage to fishing gear; contamination of shell fish beds and the possible effects on the plankton and other organisms on which fish feed.
What I feel may be inadequately appreciated is the astonishingly persistent quality of certain of these oils, particularly crude oil. Experiments have been carried out with oil discharged into the sea and with oil residues found on our beaches, and they have shown that these oils can last for a very long time and can be carried extremely long distances. If I may, I will give one example. Chemical examination of samples of tarry substances on our beaches indicates that they may well have lasted already upwards of two years. This clearly shows that the problem is rather a difficult one. The Faulkner Report, however, which your Lordships may have read, shows that this problem can be satisfactorily resolved. And the solution is a very practical one. Put in the simplest language, it means that no persistent oils should be discharged anywhere into the sea. To make that prohibition fully effec
332
tive would, of course, require the co-operation of virtually all the maritime countries of the world, all the oil companies and all the harbour authorities. This, I hope, will come to pass in the not too distant future. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, this Bill will enable all appropriate measures to be taken towards that end. In the meantime, we believe and hope that the lead which this country is giving may have far-reaching effects all over the world.
May I now shortly recapitulate the history of this matter. The problem emerged after the 1914–18 war, and we took action in 1922 when the Oil in Navigable Waters Act was passed; but we could not go very far. The Act prohibited the discharge of oil only within the territorial waters of this country. At that time no international action was taken. When, in 1926, an international conference was convened in Washington it was, unfortunately, impossible to reach any general agreement. However, I should say that from that year the shipowners of the United Kingdom and of a number of other leading maritime countries have voluntarily refrained from discharging oil within fifty miles of land. In 1934, as the result of representations of the United Kingdom Government, the problem was referred to a committee of experts under the League of Nations. But it did not prove possible to convene a conference to consider the draft convention prepared by that committee. As a result, with the exception of the voluntary agreement of 1926 which I have already mentioned, up to the post-war years no effective international action to mitigate the scourge had been taken.
With the considerable increase of pollution after the war, Her Majesty's Government decided upon three steps to deal with the problem. First, the Minister of Transport appointed a committee to review the known facts of the situation and to examine what practical steps could be taken to prevent pollution around the coasts of the United Kingdom. This committee consisted of representatives of shipowners, oil companies, dock and harbour authorities and the Government Departments concerned. I should like to express our gratitude to these gentlemen for the care and trouble with which they have prepared their interesting Report," "Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by

333
Oil," commonly called the Faulkner Report, which was published in July, 1953, and which your Lordships will see on the Table. The committee concluded that the only complete and lasting solution to the problem was to avoid the discharge of persistent types of oil anywhere in the sea. Accordingly, the Government then took the second step, which was to convene a conference in London last April. It was attended by representatives of 42 countries, which together accounted for about 97 per cent. of the world's merchant shipping. This conference drew up a valuable convention, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil (Cmd. 9197), which your Lordships will also see on the Table. The conference also adopted a number of important resolutions, including one which recognised that the only entirely effective method known of preventing oil pollution is the complete avoidance of the discharge of persistent oils into the sea. They recommended that a further conference to review the matter should be convened within three years.
To-day we are taking the third step, the introduction of this Bill. The Bill does two things: first it deals with our domestic problem of protecting the coasts of the United Kingdom and, secondly, it will enable us to play our part in conforming to the requirements of the convention, or of any future convention. The 1954 Convention will come into operation when it has been accepted and ratified by ten countries, of which five must each have at least half a million gross tons of tanker tonnage. It has been signed, subject to acceptance (which I believe means much the same as ratification), by representatives of twenty countries, but we are the first to introduce legislation to give effect to it.
If we may leave aside for a moment the wider purposes of the convention, which will cover the world, may I explain the purpose of this Bill so far as the United Kingdom is concerned? As I have said, pollution arises from two sources: first, from the discharge from tankers, whether the water has been taken on as ballast or for cleaning out crude oil tanks; secondly, from the discharge of ballast water from fuel tanks, which is the normal practice in certain types of dry cargo ships. The immediate purpose of the Bill is to provide that oily water from these and other sources should not
334
be discharged within the areas defined in the Schedule, which correspond to those laid down by the convention. Different areas are defined for tankers and dry cargo ships, and charts have been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House to enable your Lordships to see these areas more clearly. The secondary, and more important, purpose of the Bill is to encourage the provision of reception facilities in ports for oil residues and the provision of oily water separators in ships which use bunker fuel tanks for ballasting.
I now turn to the Bill itself. Clauses 1 and 2 should be read with the Schedule. They relate only to United Kingdom ships and areas outside United Kingdom territorial waters. They make it an offence to discharge oil of a persistent character—that is crude oil, fuel oil, lubricating oil and heavy diesel oil—inside areas set out in the Schedule. If I may refer for a moment to these maps, one deals with tankers and the other with non-tankers. In both cases this Bill deals with the shaded areas which your Lordships will see on the map. The Bill makes it an offence for any ship to discharge oil within 100 miles of the United Kingdom (or of what is its geographical expression, the British Isles), and, so far as tankers are concerned, within a further area which extends 1,000 miles into the Atlantic Ocean in the direction where the Gulf Stream sets towards the British Isles.
Provision is made in Clause 2 for the extension of the areas by orders made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation so far as may be necessary for the protection of United Kingdom coasts or to confirm with the provisions of a future convention. Your Lordships will observe that on both these maps there is in the middle of the North Sea what I may describe as a "hole." This is in accordance with the convention, but it does leave a considerable risk of pollution of United Kingdom coasts. I should therefore say that it is the intention to prohibit the discharge of oil from United Kingdom ships within this remaining area in the North Sea, subject, however, to some necessary exceptions to be defined in regulations, such as when a ship is proceeding to a port in the area where there are no adequate facilities for the reception of waste oil. It will also probably be desirable to extend the zone in the North Atlantic, for both tankers and

335
dry cargo ships, to 40°W., which would increase the distance by some 300 or so miles, as recommended by the British Committee.
While Clauses 1 and 2 deal only with ships registered in the United Kingdom. Clause 3, which applies to the territorial waters of the United Kingdom, deals with all ships, whatever their size and whatever their nationality, and makes it an offence to discharge oil of any description into our territorial waters. It also applies to discharges from land. This clause is largely a re-enactment of the prohibitions in the 1922 Act, but it will apply to all ships, instead of excluding certain of the smaller types of ships, as does the Act of 1922. It may, however, be necessary to make certain exceptions—for example, in relation to small craft operating in harbours and estuaries which do not, as a rule, go outside territorial waters and may not be able to avoid pumping out small quantities of oil with their bilge water. These will be dealt with under the powers of Clause 15.
Clause 4 deals with certain cases in which the discharge of oil may be unavoidable and should not constitute an offence—for example, if oil is discharged for life-saving purposes. Under Clause 5 the Minister proposes to take power by regulation to require United Kingdom registered ships to be fitted with equipment or arrangements for avoiding oil pollution. It is the Minister's intention to make regulations requiring ships which use their bunker fuel tanks for ballasting to be fitted with oily water separators within a period of three years from the date on which the Bill becomes law.
Clause 6 deals with penalties. Under the 1922 Act there is a maximum fine of £100, and this is wholly inadequate. Under Clause 6 the fine for offences in relation to the discharge of oil into prohibited sea areas or United Kingdom territorial waters, or for failure to comply with requirements for fitting equipment in ships, may on summary conviction go up to £1,000. On conviction on indictment the fine will be at the discretion of the court. I think it is right that the courts should be able in a serious case to impose a heavy penalty. The seriousness of the offence may vary greatly, and one case by itself may cause widespread pollution. Moreover, there is a
336
considerable temptation for a ship to avoid the expense of complying with the restrictions, and offences are difficult to detect. Clause 7 deals with the keeping of records on board ship, and is based on the convention and the Act of 1922.
Clause 8 deals with the provision of facilities in ports for the reception of oil residues from ships. It is largely an enabling clause conferring the necessary powers on dock and harbour authorities, but the Minister takes powers, by Clause 8 (5), to issue a direction to secure the provision by a harbour authority of any facilities necessary for dry cargo ships. In the case of tankers, the requirement to observe the prohibited areas will in practice make it necessary for reception facilities to be provided by the oil companies and ship repairers. These, in so far as they do not already exist, our own oil companies and ship repairing concerns have agreed to provide. Indeed, our oil companies have gone further. They have agreed to provide these facilities at oil-loading terminals abroad which are under their control, and to use their best endeavours with the companies with which they are associated to have them provided at terminals which are not under their direct control.
Clauses 9 to 13 are largely procedural. Clauses 9 and 10 deal with the reporting of certain information; Clause 11 with powers of inspection; Clauses 12 and 13 with prosecutions and enforcement of court proceedings. Clause 14 makes it possible to extend by Order in Council the requirements under the Bill to all ships besides United Kingdom ships voyaging to United Kingdom ports. In this way they can be required to fit the necessary equipment and to keep records laid down in the Bill while within United Kingdom territorial waters.
Clause 15 gives the Minister power to make exemptions. The necessity for this is that we have covered in this Bill all ships from the "Queen Mary" to a rowing boat, and there are bound to be cases in which particular requirements cannot be applied in particular classes of ships, as, for example, in relation to the small craft which I have already mentioned in connection with Clause 3. What we have done is to set the standard as high as possible, but to make it workable there will be cases where it will be proper to make

337
certain exceptions. Under Clause 16 naval ships are excluded from the Bill, but my right honourable friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has undertaken to secure that, so far as practicable and subject to overriding operational needs, the requirements will be applied to naval ships by Admiralty instructions. I do not think I need specially refer to any of the remaining clauses. The 1922 Act is completely repealed, but it is re-enacted so far as is considered desirable in the Bill.
In conclusion, I should like, on behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, to refer on this occasion to the willing co-operation which has been given by the United Kingdom shipping industry, the oil companies, dock and harbour authorities and others concerned in working out the solution of this problem and taking steps to remedy it. Shortly after the publication of the Faulkner Report, the shipowners' representative organisations recommended that all owners of United Kingdom registered ships, without waiting for legislation, should immediately give effect to those of the committee's recommendations which dealt with the prohibition and restriction of oily discharges. These voluntary measures remain in operation. Representatives of shipowners, oil companies, dock and harbour authorities and ship repairers were also represented in the United Kingdom delegation at the international conference last April and played a leading part. In this connection I might mention the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, who I regret cannot be here today. It is only just that full tribute should be paid to the lead which has been given by our shipping and oil companies, and our dock and harbour authorities and ship repairers, to those of other countries.
I would only repeat that we very much hope that this Bill will constitute an important stepping-stone in ridding the whole world of this scourge of a mechanical age, and that the lead which we are taking in this matter will rapidly be followed by all the maritime countries of the world, and, in particular., that the 1954 Convention may be brought into force at a very early date. Our civilisation gains many benefits by the use of special qualities of oil and its products, and by proceeding on the basis of this
338
Bill it should prove possible to retain these benefits without suffering at the same time the disadvantage of indiscriminate pollution of the waters around our coasts. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
3.0 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Earl who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill with his usual clarity and charm of manner may rest assured that, so far as noble Lords on this side of the House are concerned, it will receive a warm and ready welcome. The noble Earl commenced his remarks by emphasising the amentity aspects. As he said, oil pollution is one of the curses of our modern civilisation—one of many, I might say, where mechanical contrivances are concerned. So many of our amenities are being taken away or are slipping away that it is encouraging to know that Her Majesty's Government are at least going to try to preserve the joy of our coasts and of the navigable waters around our islands from pollution by oil.
As the noble Earl has said, this pollution has become very serious. The growth of oil-fired shipping since the war has been prodigious, and in no area more than in that part of the country where I spent many happy years of my life, Southampton Water. When one considers that the shipping using Southampton Water now is of about 18 million registered tons a year, and the amount of petroleum which is shipped into Southampton Water to-day is 11 million tons a year, one can see the necessity for a Bill such as this. One has to look only at the huge development, not only at Fawley in Southampton Water but at Thames Haven and all over the county, to appreciate the urgency of that need. I suppose it would be right to say that in twenty years' time the Fawley side of Southampton Water, with its gigantic power station and with the other refineries, will be a second Birkenhead. The noble Earl knows that in the past oil pollution has been troublesome right along that coast.
But, unfortunately, oil travels, aid travels very widely, and I think it is commendable that the Government have been able to go as far as they have. Many of us would halve liked them to go

339
still further but, as the noble Earl has said, efforts to overcome this problem can be effective only with close international co-operation. I must confess that I was slightly disappointed to hear him say that out of forty-seven countries present at the drawing-up of the convention, only twenty have signed it up to date. I hope the noble Earl and those who have influence in these directions will try to persuade all countries to follow the very fine lead which British shipowners and harbour authorities have shown the world.
Before I go any further, may I echo the noble Earl's thanks to the Faulkner Committee, and pay tribute to the skill and efficiency which was displayed by its chairman. I feel sure that the noble Earl will agree with me that equal praise is due to Sir Gilmour Jenkins who so ably presided over the conference. It really does not fall within the scope of the Bill, but perhaps the noble Earl would not mind if I asked him one or two questions on points arising from the resolutions passed at the conference and which I do not think are covered in the Bill. I quite agree that the only real solution to this problem is the complete avoidance of oil discharge into the sea, and, of course, that is possible if we can get co-operation. That is earnestly stressed in the first resolution passed. It says:
"The only entirely effective method known of preventing oil pollution is the complete avoidance of the discharge of persistent oils into the sea. …"
I can only hope that the Government will go as far as they possibly can in pursuing this objective, because once we can achieve it, we shall have done a great service, not only for this country but for the world in general.
The second point I wish to raise is contained in Resolution 5, which says:
"That Governments should arrange for the preparation, publication and distribution of an explanatory manual. …"
I should like to ask the noble Earl whether Her Majesty's Government have that matter in hand. Resolution 7 says:
"That Governments should create national committees to keep the problem of oil pollution under review and recommend practical measures for its prevention, including the carrying out of any necessary research."
Are those committees set up yet? If not, when do Her Majesty's Government
340
anticipate that they will be? Also, will they come within the terms of Clause 11 of the Bill, which covers the question of reporting upon the progress made in the implementation of the Bill?
Now may I turn to the Bill itself? The crux of the Bill, I think, is in Clauses 5 and 8. Clause 5 empowers the Minister to make regulations requiring British ships registered in the United Kingdom to be fitted with equipment that will separate the oil and water either in their ballast tanks or in their bilges. Clause 8 covers the installation of this equipment in harbours. I would echo what the noble Earl has said. The oil companies, who have brought so much prosperity to various sides of our economic life, both at Fawley and at Thames Haven, are to be congratulated upon the spirit of co-operation that they have shown in building these gigantic oil installations in Southampton Water. I was told the other day that the Southampton Harbour Board had found it necessary to issue only four prosecutions in the last twelve months. When one considers the size of the discharge of crude oil into Fawley and of the bunkering of the 18 million tons of shipping, I think that speaks very well for the co-operation shown.
Subsection (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill gives the Minister power to make regulations providing for exceptions from the operation of subsection (1). I hope it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make exceptions in addition to those that have been made in the convention. In other words, having taken the lead in this matter, I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government are not going to—if I may use the expression—wilt. I will not go into these questions in detail, because they are rather more Committee points than points to be raised on Second Reading, and I would here give the noble Earl notice that there will be Amendments upon the Committee stage. I think Clause 4 requires tightening up.
One of the weaknesses of this Bill and of so much of the legislation that comes to your Lordships' House now is that it is polluted—if I may use that word—by government by the Negative Resolution principle. I know that in some cases it is essential. Every power which the Minister seeks in this Bill, except one, to which I will come in a minute, is of that kind.

341
There is only one case in this Bill where either House is asked positively to affirm its agreement with what the Minister wants to do. In many instances—and in some very important ones, as I shall point out in a minute or two—the Prayer routine has to be adopted. I know it is not always desirable to have Affirmative Resolutions, but perhaps the noble Earl will look at some of these matters to see whether the Affirmative Resolution procedure would not be more in keeping with the thoughts that have been expressed in your Lordships' House upon many occasions during these last two or three months.
Clause 6, which sets out penalties for offences under Clauses 1, 3 and 5, has as a proviso:
"Provided that an offence shall not by virtue of this section be punishable on summary conviction by a fine exceeding one thousand pounds."
If the noble Earl will now look at Clause 7, subsection (5), he will see that for failing to keep a proper record, the penalty may be a fine of £200 "or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months …" A suggestion which the noble Earl might consider is that for a breach of any of the provisions of Clause 1, which are the prohibitive provisions for discharging oil, the fine might be supplemented by a term of imprisonment. We have to look at it in this way: that £1,000 may be a very heavy fire for a small boat-owner, but is not a very heavy fine for a shipping company of considerable size; and we might be dealing with shipping companies other than those that fly the British flag.
The next point of substance that I come to concerns prosecutions, which are dealt with by Clause 12. The noble Earl has said that he is covering ships ranging from the "Queen Mary" to a rowing boat, and "navigable waters" include rivers and small waterways. I think I am right in saying that, under the 1922 Act, a river board could take proceedings, with or without (if my memory does not fail me) the permission of either the Ministry of Agriculture or the Board of Trade. Is such power expressly excluded by Clause 12, or does it mean that in future a river board, before it can take any action, will have to obtain permission of the Attorney-General, even in some of these small cases? Then, under Clause 14, as the noble Earl has said, by an Order in
342
Council Her Majesty may extend the provisions of this Bill very widely. I want to ask the noble Earl whether the Affirmative Resolution procedure set out in Clause 19 covers the power of Her Majesty to widen the scope of this Bill to include ships which fly a foreign flag? That is the only time, so far as I can trace, where the Affirmative Resolution procedure is followed.
I should like also to ask the noble Earl a few questions upon Clause 16, "Application of Act to Crown." I do this with some hesitation because there are so many noble Lords in your Lordships' House who are learned in law, and I am not. Both the Faulkner Committee and the Convention, said that warships and ships controlled by the Admiralty should be included within the provisions of this Act in precisely the same way as merchant ships. The Faulkner Committee went so far as to say that they thought these ships could be covered under Admiralty regulations. The noble Earl has confirmed that, but that is not altogether in keeping with the resolution proposed by the conference, resolution No. 2. Is the noble Earl quite satisfied that people in this country are completely covered by his assurance, or the assurance given him by his right honourable friend the First Lord of the Admiralty?
I merely ask for information on this matter because one of the worst affected areas around our coasts is the eastern coast of the Isle of Wight. That may be because the big liners, and most of the shipping that come up Southampton Water, anchor in cowes Roads, or it may be because of the close proximity of Portsmouth Dockyard—I do not know. But I take it that, under the provisions of this Bill, as it applies to the ships of the Merchant Navy or to any ships other than those owned by the Admiralty or under charter by the Admiralty, proceedings can be taken to establish guilt; and that once some person—it may be a shipowner, a master or some such individual as that—has been found guilty, the ordinary citizen who has suffered loss or damage to property or anything like that will have a method of redress. Round the coasts of this country a considerable number of people have suffered grievous damage to their personal property, and also to their persons, from

343
oil pollution. Does it mean that, because ships of the Crown, as expressed by the Admiralty, are not included in this Bill and, when the Bill becomes an Act, will not be subject to the same law as merchant ships, the Crown has complete immunity from giving the private individual redress?
Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will consider that point, because I think many of your Lordships may feel that the situation is not as it should be. That is the weakness of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Earl will be good enough to consider that point between now and the next stage. Alternatively, perhaps we could have consultations between this afternoon and the Committee stage, because there are one or two other Amendments that I wish to put down. I can tell the noble Earl at once that the Amendments are not at all of substance, but they might make the Bill a little less loose and a little more tidy. But this is a point of substance. There may be an easy answer to the question I have posed. I have heard of the very sad losses that people have sustained by reason of oil pollution on the beaches. As I say, there has been damage to their persons and to their clothing. I do not think the Government want to evade responsibility if it is a Crown ship that has caused the damage.
I think that is all I want to say on this Bill. I am not an ornithologist, so I shall not say anything about birds. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, is present; doubtless he will have something to say on that particular aspect, he being one of the great authorities upon this subject. May I end by welcoming the Bill, and expressing the thanks of noble Lords, I think I can say on all sides of the House, for the full and frank manner in which the noble Earl has presented it, and to wish it a speedy passage through your Lordships' House and on to the Statute Book.
3.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has presented this Bill to the House with his accustomed lucidity and comprehensiveness, and I feel sure that it will receive unanimous support. He has made plain the dual purpose of the Bill—to protect the amenities of our coasts and to stop the
344
atrocious cruelty that is inflicted, year after year, upon tens of thousands of birds who hover over the sea in search of food, dive through these great lakes of oil and have their feathers covered with it so that they cannot fly, and die a certain but lingering death from starvation. It has been clear for quite thirty years that a measure of this kind was needed. I have been one of those who, on one or two occasions, have joined in pressing this matter upon the attention of the Government. Action has been hindered by the fact that international consent was necessary; also by the fact that various private interests were concerned, and unanimity was difficult to obtain. The history of this measure has been a history of abortive conferences and abortive committees, and we may rejoice that now, at long last, a practical measure is presented with the unanimous support of the countries and the interests concerned.
Our civilisation, with its large urban communities, always has to contend against dangers from pollution. The very presence of these millions of people is liable to pollute the water that we drink and the air that we breathe, and now this world traffic over the sea also pollutes great areas of the surface of the oceans. But we find also that, when necessity requires, our civilisation is able to act as a whole. This conference has taken place with the co-operation of the United Nations, and in certain particulars it involves continued action by the United Nations. But such unity needs leadership, and this leadership has been forthcoming from the British Government. The conference was summoned in London, and the plans were laid before it by our own Government. I think that we may feel proud of this fact.
I do not propose to discuss any of the details of the Bill. The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will no doubt receive the careful attention that it deserves. I trust that the clauses of the Bill will prove to be what I may call "oil-tight," and that none of this oil will be able to seep through them. That will, perhaps, be discovered only by the working of the Bill in practice. For our own part, we in your Lordships' House may feel proud that we have been privileged to be the first Chamber to consider this international Statute—for such it will be—and we congratulate the Government on having introduced it. I

345
am sure that your Lordships will give to the passage of the Bill cordial and unanimous support.
3.27 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I rise to accord this Bill the enthusiastic support which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, expected, and is justly entitled to expect. I should like, on behalf of many bodies with which I am connected, both in this country and abroad, to express the appreciation which is felt at the action of Her Majesty's Government in bringing forward this Bill at the earliest possible moment and, indeed, for introducing it in your Lordships' House, where its progress is unlikely to be impeded by other business. The evils at which the Bill is aimed are admitted, even officially, to be intolerable; and the remedies are shown to be clear and not difficult to apply, once the will, to apply is there. As the noble Earl has said, there is no need to discharge persistent oil into the sea at all, and the Bill, and the convention which it will enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify, are important steps towards the complete and only remedy, which is to keep the oil out of the sea altogether. It would be of no use to search about for some remote areas of ocean into which oil can be poured, because investigations have shown that it is bound to fetch up on someone's shore, wherever it may be discharged.
I shall not take up your Lordships' time in describing either the evils or the remedies. As regards birds, to which reference has been made, the destruction on the coasts of Cumberland and of Wales this autumn has been worse than ever before; and many hundreds of birds have been picked up which (to use the words of one reporter) were the worst oiled birds he had ever seen. Many of them were simply balls of oil and distinguishable only by examination of their beaks. As one who is not yet too old to bathe, or even to paddle, in the sea around our shores, I can only suggest that some of your Lordships should try it and then sit down to rest, as one does afterwards, and discover the result for yourselves. I am surprised that our watering places have been so acquiescent in this state of affairs for so long. As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel has said, we should be proud to think that this country has led in this matter.
346
There is a co-ordinating Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution, formed in March, 1952, of which the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, was a member and of which the chairman is a Member of the other House. That committee made representations which led to the appointment of the Faulkner Committee which produced so practicable, admirable and detailed a Report. When I was in Copenhagen two months ago a leading Danish naturalist presented me with a copy of the Report translated into Danish, and if the noble Earl is a master of that language and would like the book for reference, I should be glad to give it to him.
I will not go into any details of the procedure which has led up to the present position, but all the interests concerned owe a great debt of gratitude to Her Majesty's Government and to the late Minister of Transport who presided over the meeting held in London about a year ago, organised by the committee, and who showed a most sympathetic attitude. A debt is also owed to him for having convened in the spring of this year the international meeting which led to the convention. As the noble Earl has said, about twenty countries have already signed the convention subject to acceptance by their Governments, among them all the countries bordering on the North Sea and most, if not all, of those bordering on the Baltic. West Germany, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Canada have signed, but there are some important countries which have not yet done so, among them the United States. Various countries no doubt felt they needed rather more time to consider all the implications of the convention before their Governments were formally committed; but if this country takes the lead and is the first to ratify, then ratification by many other countries will swiftly follow.
During my long connection with shipping I have always felt that in maritime matters this country should never hesitate to give a bold lead when principles and practices to which we attach importance are at stake. Undoubtedly many countries who are our neighbours are looking eagerly for action an our part so that their own Governments will then be all the more ready to take similar steps. It is true that the convention does not itself go as far as some of us would have

347
wished, nor indeed as far as the British delegation would themselves have gone. I should like to join in the tribute which has been paid to-day to our own shipping and oil companies for their enlightened approach to this problem, which has surprised some of our friends from abroad. I regret that the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, is not here, but I am free to say that open admiration was expressed for the wise, strong and helpful lead he gave to the discussions on many occasions when foreign shipowners thought that their interests were being sacrificed. His interventions then were most timely and helpful, creating an impression among our foreign friends which it was gratifying to notice.
The main flaw from this country's viewpoint is that to which the noble Earl drew attention. It is one which is obvious to any of your Lordships who will look at the map in the library. It is this curiously-shaped area in the North Sea resulting from the restriction to a limit of fifty miles from the Norwegian coast, which still leaves a kind of sink in the North Sea into which oil may be poured. I cannot but think that on the next occasion when this matter is considered that flaw will disappear. Meanwhile, if I understood the noble Earl aright, I gather that British ships will not be allowed to use that sink or sump. That, in itself, is a most welcome additional move by Her Majesty's Government. From my own recent observations in the North Sea and discussions with some of our neighbours, it appears that they are already beginning to regret that they too readily acquiesced in that very limited provision of the convention itself.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, there will doubtless be points to raise on the Committee stage and there may be clarifications to be sought and assurances to be requested. I have one point which I feel it is right to mention at this stage. Nothing is said in Clause 8 about the installations of the oil companies. Harbour authorities in the United Kingdom are not required to provide facilities for tankers to discharge their residues, nor is the Minister empowered to require harbour authorities to do so. That, presumably, is because the Minister is satisfied that the equipment at oil installations in this country is already
348
satisfactory. I would say nothing to suggest the contrary.
But what has been done at oil installations abroad and especially by companies other than our own? I believe it has been stated that tankers discharge into the sea about a quarter of a million tons of oil in a year, and one large tanker, washing out its tanks, may put overboard as much as eighty tons of oil on one occasion. Those figures show the magnitude of the mischief so long as the tanker position is not adequately controlled. If my information is correct, very little has yet been done towards the provision of reception facilities at loading terminals abroad, and unfortunately there are not very many of those terminals in which British companies have a controlling interest. Until those facilities have been provided the main source of pollution will continue. It will be generally agreed that the oil companies of the world are not impoverished and there ought to be no reluctance on their part to install whatever facilities are needed. Their leaders are, in general, men willing to take an enlightened view of large questions, and I hope vital progress may be made in this direction before long. Perhaps on the Committee stage the noble Earl will be able to give us some information on that position.
One would like to know that, even in our own harbours, facilities for the reception of separated oil residues are being provided. It would be a very great pity to reach a position where shipowners said it was unreasonable to require them to install separating apparatus because they could not discharge the separated residues when they had done so. I hope that on our own shores, where the Minister has power to take action in the event of reluctance or slowness to move, something has already been done and is being done, and that your Lordships' House will not be told that plans are still being considered. I should like again to thank Her Majesty's Government, on behalf of all the interests with which I am connected, for the thorough-going action which they have taken and the rapidity with which they have proceeded. I should like also to thank the noble Earl and the present Minister of Transport for having so generously fulfilled the hopes which were created by the latter's predecessor a few months ago.
3.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I thank your Lordships for the warm welcome which you have given to this Bill this afternoon? I would mention that there are, besides the small maps, four large Admiralty charts in the Royal Gallery by means of which the specific areas can be examined more carefully. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, for all he has said, speaking as he does with great authority on the subject from two extremely different angles. I am grateful to him for his remarks. I can say to him that the oil companies have already indicated their willingness to make the necessary provision of reception facilities in this country so fair as oil loading terminals are concerned. With regard to dry cargo ships, in which separators will in fact he installed, reception facilities will be provided by the harbour authorities. As regards the "hole" in the North Sea, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said, and it is the intention of the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to deal with that matter in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised a number of substantial points, and if I deal rather briefly with some of them I hope he will not think me guilty of any discourtesy. I shall do so because they will be discussed at greater length in due course. He mentioned the Royal Navy. I think I can assure him that the Royal Navy has no intention of evading its responsibilities. I would remind him that the ships that are excluded here are of a very limited category, which does not, include chartered ships. They have to be both under the orders of, and in the service of, the Royal Navy. That is to say, if a Navy ship is loaned to someone else it is not excluded I have every reason to believe that the Royal Navy intends fully to observe both in spirit and in detail what the Bill lays down.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, will the noble Earl forgive my interrupting? Perhaps it is unfair for me to put this question to him now, and it may be that he would rather postpone his answer, but I should like to ask him whether the Navy are suable for damage done by oil pollution when the pollution is traced to one of the ships which the noble Earl has mentioned. As I have
350
said, perhaps the noble Earl would prefer to answer at a later stage.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think I would rather answer later. I should not like to risk giving an answer which might be wrong in law, and this is a point upon which I have not been advised. The noble Lord spoke about penalties. I do not know why he referred specifically to the summary penalty, which is £1,000. The penalty on indictment is unlimited. It is at the discretion of the court. Another one to which the noble Lord referred was that mentioned in Clause 7. The penalty there is limited to £200 or imprisonment, That, of course, is a specific penalty dealing with the falsification of records.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yet a person can be imprisoned for it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes, and that is for this reason; it is a personal case, a personal offence. Pollution we do not regard as a personal offence; it is apt to arise because of temptations concerned with cost. There may be a temptation for a company to evade the requirements and prohibitions of the Bill because they think they involve too much expense. You cannot, of course, send a company to prison, and in this sort of case I think the best way of dealing with the offenders is to have provision for a very large fine. Those are the general lines on which we have proceeded, and I think they are fairly sound. River boards can, of course, he authorised to prosecute under this Bill, as under the 1922 Act. The noble Lord mentioned a number of resolutions which were passed at the International Conference last April. Those resolutions are not part of the convention; they are strictly separate. The convention specifically dealt with later on, in Cmd. 9197. None the less, I can say that the explanatory memorandum is in draft and will be issued as soon as possible. A national committee has been set up, and I gather that it has already started work. I think those were the major points that the noble Lord mentioned. I can assure him that in this Bill we are carrying out fully our obligations under the convention.
Finally, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, for his contribution to our discussion. His interventions are always welcome in these debates,

351
speaking as he does with such full authority. I cordially agree with him that if we can, by progress in technology or through unity of leadership, meet and overcome these pollution problems at an urban level to begin with, we can probably solve them all in time. I welcome the reception which your Lordships have given to this Bill, and I hope that the lead which this country has given will be recognised throughout the maritime countries of the world. In that way I trust it will be found possible to achieve a complete and world-wide solution of the problem.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ABNORMAL LOADS AND ROAD CONGESTION
3.46 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to relieve the congestion upon the roads caused by vehicles carrying abnormal loads; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now ask you to turn from one modern scourge to another. I am asking Her Majesty's Government what they are going to do to relieve the congestion on the roads caused by these growing numbers of abnormal loads. I suppose that the existence of this problem could be said to be the greatest possible tribute to the road transport industry, because in spite of the terrific cost it is still cheaper to trundle one of these abnormal loads "all round the mulberry bush"—as the pamphlet issued by the British Road Federation, of which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is president, so picturesquely puts it—than to use other means of transport. Be that as it may, I suggest that here there is a finger that is writing on the wall for this and future Governments. And what an indictment there is against past Governments for the neglect which they have collectively and individually shown with regard to this great problem! That is why we should all look upon this as a strictly non-Party debate.
We are all sinners; and I am not prepared this afternoon to apportion percentages of blame to either Party. I think, to use an expression which I used
352
the other day, we can see Nemesis tapping the Ministry of Transport upon the shoulder. Now Nemesis is a most awkward female: she is one of the women you cannot get rid of; and she is going to follow this and successive Governments more and more down the tortuous roads of this country. I know very well that the long-term answer to this problem is more and better roads. Some of us have been saying that for about thirty years. But however much money this Government are prepared to allocate to better roads—I have heard various sums mentioned: £50 million per annum, £70 million per annum—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will tell us, if he can make up his mind, which part he is going to play: that of Dr. Jekyll, of the Ministry of Transport, or that of Mr. Hyde, of the Home Office. I suppose that to-day he will be answering for both.
But whatever sum of money is available, the proposals can only be long-term, because only a certain amount of work can be done every year. With the best will in the world, we cannot expect to see a complete solution of this problem by the provision of better and wider roads, and by the elimination of the difficulties which I am going to point out, for twenty years. What are we going to do in the meantime? We see a slowing up of traffic all over the country, mile after mile, hour after hour. In my view, it is imperative that something should be done to relieve congestion. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will forgive me for saying this—I say it with complete good will, because I know that the Minister of Transport is as anxious to find a way out of this difficulty as anyone else. It is no good the noble Lord coming to your Lordships' House and giving the type of Answer he has given on two previous occasions to Questions I have asked. I expect the Answers emanated from the Home Office—I do not know—but what the Government have to do, and I would beg the noble Lord to take it to heart, is to find some way of doing something, and not merely to find excuses for doing nothing.
The situation is desperate. The local authorities and the police are almost at their wits' end to know what to do. There are regulations covering the transport of abnormal loads throughout the country. The Minister of Transport was

353
good enough to have them ail typed out and sent to me—I have them here. They are just about as congested as the roads, but, boiled down to simple language, anybody can transport a load of up to 150 tons in weight and 20 ft. in width, and of undefined length, just by saying that he is going to do it. The only regulation he has to observe is to give the county authorities and police authorities through whose areas he proposes to pass notice of what he is going to do. I can find nothing in any of the regulations which enables any authority to say to him, "No, you cannot do this." Any load over 150 tons, or over 20 ft. wide, may be carried if special permission of the Ministry of Transport is given. That is really bordering upon insanity.
When we consider that load in relation to our roads, there are many stretches of bottleneck which are only 14 ft. wide, and miles of road only 18 ft. wide. We have 3,000 bridges on our Trunk, Class I and Class II roads, the majority of which are not high enough to take the highest, and not wide enough to take the widest, loads; and 80 per cent. of our bridges will not carry more than 40 tons. That is chaotic. When we come to consider some of the roads, we see the chaos that is ruling and the ridiculousness of the present position. I will take three roads as examples. The first runs right through the centre of this country—indeed, we have only one trunk road, A.34, running down the centre of England. That road funnels the traffic from the Mersey to the Tyne, and right up as far as the Clyde; and it funnels the traffic from the East, West and South Midlands and the industrial North, through the City of Oxford, right down to the ports of Portsmouth and Southampton and the watering places from Weymouth to Southsea, on the South Coast. I have told your Lordships previously that approximately 150 times in the last twelve months the one-way traffic in the City of Oxford has been completely stopped so that abnormal loads could go through the wrong way; I now have the exact figure, which is 191 times.
Let me take A.38, which runs from Birmingham through Worcestershire. Over 1,000 abnormal loads went along that road from Worcestershire to Gloucestershire last year. Some of these loads scraped the houses on one side of the road or the other, and there were
354
queues of traffic miles long. Let me take a road which I am sure the noble Lord knows—A.6, one of the two main roads in Cumberland and Westmorland, which takes practically all the traffic from Liverpool and Manchester north to Scotland. Then there is A.595, the only road serving West Cumberland, along which, last year, 102 abnormal loads of one kind were transported, guns for the testing range of the Ministry of Supply at Eskmeals. When this road is blocked (and it has been on many occasions) not one fire-fighting vehicle or ambulance can get down; it has to make a detour of 100 miles.
This situation is serious. When the noble Lord says to me, in reply to one of my Questions, that we have to consider the cost of taking these loads by ship, and that we have to consider our export market, I would reply that it costs industry and the community millions of pounds a year in congestion and frustration; and the accident rate goes up correspondingly. Let me take the position of one of our counties. The Chief Constable of Cumberland tells me that at times he has six requests a day to convoy abnormal loads. He makes a rule of convoying every load he possibly can over 14 ft., but when he cannot convoy, through lack of police power, he has to let these loads go on their own; and that means that the congestion is worse than ever. One of the greatest necessities in these remoter counties, such as Cumberland, Westmorland and Northumberland, and in some of the Southern Counties, is an increased number of police patrols. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will give me his attention, because I am now on a subject very pertinent for him.
We must increase motor patrols, because in the conduct of these abnormal loads to relieve congestion as much as possible it is imperative that the police, who do this job most efficiently, should be in wireless communication with the police in the next town to warn them of their coming. Good as motor-cycles are—and they serve a useful purpose in police patrol work—they are not much good in the bitter winters in Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmorland. I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to ride a motor-cycle up Shap when there are 15 degrees of frost and it is snowing hard, but I should not. I

355
would beg him to try and persuade the Home Office to sanction the purchase of more motor cars. The cost comes out of the police fund, and the Ministry of Transport have to provide for the maintenance. In passing, I may say that it is not very encouraging for constabularies to increase their mobile forces when they are tied down to a 1938 and 1939 schedule of maintenance.
Let me now turn to the sizes of some of the loads. It is not the weight that causes so much trouble—although that causes damage to the roads—as the width. I have picked out two cases from hundreds that have been sent to me—and could make the noble Lord a present of some good Christmas reading on the sizes of some of these loads. This is the size of some of them. I have here details of one that was 10 ft. 3 in. in width, with a length of 110 ft. and a weight of 135 tons. Then there is another 18 ft. 7 in. in width. 44 ft. in length, weighing only 25 tons. Those are some of the loads. What about their destinations?—and I should like the noble Lord to pay particular attention to this aspect. A 75-ton excavator was transported by road from the Isle of Grain to Port Talbot—.both places by the sea; a 135 ft. transporter went from Walthamstow to Carmarthen, one by the sea and one not far from the Thames. In another case, a 44-ft. long, 18 ft. 7 in. wide, 25-ton boat went from Hebburn-on-Tyne to the Admiralty gunnery establishment in Portsmouth. I am surprised that the Navy now have to transport their boats by road. Surely a boat of that size could go by sea.
There is another peculiar case of a barge. The barge was cut in two, and the two halves were carried by road, instead of the whole barge being sent by sea. The two halves had a width of 18 ft. 4 in., a length of 75 ft. and weighed 35 tons; and they went from a port on the east coast to a port on the west coast. Railway engines are assembled at one port and sent by road to another port for shipment: ships' lifeboats are sent from the Tyne to Southampton; ships' propellers from the Clyde to Southampton. Surely, some of these things could go by another form of transport.
There is the question of damage to roads. One county surveyor states that
356
he had to spend £30,000 on a short length of road in his county, and this was directly attributable to these abnormal loads. Verges are cut about because of other lorries trying to pass the unwieldy loads. I have told your Lordships before of detours made necessary because of weak bridges, whether railway bridges or road bridges. There is a bridge at Beattock, just north of Carlisle, the avoidance of which involves a detour of 100 miles to get to Glasgow. Even on the A.1, the Great North Road, no load over 40 tons can go through Doncaster because of a weak bridge outside. When they are forced off these main roads they have to go through the little villages and towns, causing obstruction that is absolutely indescribable. There was the classic example in 1953, when a 90-ton load going over Ardrossan bridge went through it, on to the railway line underneath, with the result that the railway line in that part of Scotland was blocked for thirty-seven hours. The inspector who conducted the ensuing inquiry made some sharp remarks, to the effect that rail and sea transport had not been properly explored.
These abnormal loads are growing because there is no restriction on them, and they will continue to grow. I have made some research and I find that the heaviest load recorded as being carried on the roads of this country was one last year of 185 tons—at least that is all I can find; there may be others. The noble Lord who is President of the British Road Federation may be able to beat that, as may other noble Lords, and perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, himself. Then there are trailers and the machines that draw them. It is nothing now to have a trailer with thirty-two wheels and sixty-four tyres which cost £30,000 to build. Then tractors. A great many of these huge loads require one tractor pushing and another pulling. On the A.34, at Beacon Hill, just outside Newbury, the whole lot stopped on the hill and put all the bus services in that part of Berkshire out of commission from eight o'clock one night until about eleven o'clock the next morning.
When I put this Motion down originally, knowing that there was to be a new Road Traffic Act, I was hoping to see some solution to this problem. I have read from cover to cover the Bill that will come before your Lordships' House

357
next Tuesday, and it includes no mention of this problem, or of a lot of other problems. As I have said, I know that the long-term solution is bigger, wider and better roads. But it is costing the country too much to-day not to do anything. It is costing the police a great deal of money and it is costing industry a great deal of money, although it may save the individual. I am told by some of the people who transport these loads that the cost to the haulier is hundreds of pounds per mile, and yet that is cheaper than sending the load by rail or sea.
What are the railways doing? Surely they can do something to alleviate this problem? Those from whom we should get an example, Government Departments, are the worst offenders. We have the Admiralty moving ships by road, and the Ministry of Supply moving by road huge guns which, years ago, went by rail. The Royal Air Force do not even trouble now to dismantle their aircraft completely; and one sees aircraft that could be broken down still further being towed along roads in this country. I know that 75-ton tanks cannot go by rail because we have no bridges high enough, but the colossal confusion and chaos that some of these heavy loads cause by going through cities and towns is really beyond belief.
Now what is the answer? I wish to press the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on this matter. I do not see why the taxpayer and the ratepayer should have to pay the police to safeguard the giving to some of these loads of a monopoly of the roads. It takes hundreds of police to do this, because some of the loads have to go through thirty or forty police districts. I am told by the chief constables of this country that it is perfectly easy to make a charge. It appears that the standard rate for the loan of a police officer is 7s. 6d. per hour, plus, if he has a vehicle, so much per mile for the car. These charges are made.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): That is for private use.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This is for private use. It is no good the noble Lord trying to ride off and say: "What we are doing is safeguarding the rest of the people." Here is some
358
body who is given a monopoly of a stretch of the road for a certain length of time. Everybody else is pushed off. The police are protecting that monopoly for him and he is not charged a penny. I do not say that by charging these people a few hundred pounds the difficulty would be completely solved, but it would at least relieve the taxpayer and ratepayer, and surely that is worth consideration.
I think the next action one could take would be this. As I have said, the limit of a load which anybody can transport is 150 tons in weight and 20 ft. in width. He need not get the permission of anybody; he simply says that he is going to do it. I am not so worried about the weight, but I suggest that the width should be brought down to 12 ft. or 14 ft. After that, the special permission of the Ministry of Transport should have to be obtained. When I say "the Ministry" I mean the local office of the Ministry of Transport. Obviously, the manufacturers would have to give notice of their needs to the transporter. Some of them would have to give six months' notice to find out whether he could convey the thing; others would give over a year's notice. When they have built whatever it is, the question is: will the transporter transport it? There is nobody now who says to them: "No, you must break it down. It may cost you a bit more, but the country as a whole is going to save a lot of money." I would say that the maximum width should be 14 ft. and a stipulated height. Some of these things are so high that, in a certain town not far from where I live, one load took down the whale of the overhead lighting. Nobody thought of measuring the height of the street lamps that were strung across the road. If the permission of the Ministry of Transport were required for loads over 14 ft. wide, that would do something to persuade these people to find other forms of transport.
We do not want any more regulations. The Road Traffic Acts are stuffed full of useless regulations, and we have a Bill coming before your Lordships next Tuesday that will stuff them with a few more. I am trying to be persuasive and not to regulate. The regulations which cover this problem to-day are simply nonsensical, because anybody can de anything.

359
There are many other factors that come into this matter which I will not mention to-day. I want to impress upon the noble Lord that we must do something about this problem; and we must do it very quickly. If we do not, the cost to the country will be great, and there will be, inevitably, frustration of the ordinary traffic. Next summer, cars will be coming on the roads at the rate of half a million a year, and very likely that will be stepped up, to 750,000. Look at the traffic last year on the main arteries of this island—the A.34, A.38 and the A.1. Nineteen county councils had 27,000 abnormal loads through their areas last year, and the number is growing apace. Something must be done. I beg the noble Lord, if he has not a sympathetic answer for me now, at least to prevail upon his two right honourable friends—two of them, because, while the Ministry of Transport have the responsibility and make regulations, they have no power to enforce them at all; that must rest with the Home Office—to do something to solve a very urgent problem. I beg to move for Papers.
4.7 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for declaring my interest for me. It is, indeed, the first time that I have spoken in this House since becoming Chairman of the British Road Federation. Of course, I agree with much of what he has said, but I am rather horrified at what I believe underlies his speech, and I am somewhat surprised at his special pleading. It seems to me that he is saying: "The roads of his country are not suitable for such and such a type of traffic; therefore ban the traffic." To carry it to its logical conclusion, I would say that thousands of roads in this country are not suitable for any mechanically propelled vehicle. Is the noble Lord going to say: "Do not allow cars to go down those bad roads"?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Lord is going to challenge me on this—I am sorry he has started off on that note—may I say that I never said anything about banning the traffic? I said we must use influence to put it on another form of transport while we have such narrow roads.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry the noble Lord misunderstood me. I was not saying that he said that. I said that underlying his statement seemed to be that idea. I also rather disapprove of his special pleading, because when he gives examples of loads of various kinds, though he is right about some of them, the majority of loads are not going from port to port. They are going from an inland factory to a port for export, or they are going from an inland factory to somewhere else inland to be set up and to help in production. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, went on to say that this traffic is costing the country too much. He is quite right that it is nearly always—but not always—cheaper to move these abnormal loads by road than by any other method. At the moment, we are competing in the export market, which is getting more and more difficult, and we are trying to set up new plant here at the lowest cost of production. I do not think that a sweeping statement to the effect that these loads moving down the roads are costing the country thousands of pounds is necessarily true on balance.
I should like to mention a few of the many loads, not specifically chosen one by one, but the types of loads that have in fact to move by road. I will explain presently why they have to move by road. This list, I think covers the larger part of the abnormal loads that one meets on the road. First of all, the noble Lord himself mentioned rolling stock. Of course, one meets both locomotives and other rolling stock on the roads. They are, I think one may say, invariably locomotives and rolling stock which have been made inland and are being sent to the port for export, and, being out of gauge, British Railways cannot carry them. Then there are giant tankers for carrying liquids, such as milk, beer, oil and so on. In some ways they are less difficult loads than others, but some of them are abnormally large. Here again it is a question of cost. One can, of course, split these tankers or their capacities into two or three smaller tankers, but the cost of doing that is high. One saves much money by having these giant tankers. Then there are casting ladles. Some casting ladles, which cannot be taken to pieces, have capacities of up to 200 tons. They are rather awkward loads. They are nearly always made some way from the coast and they are

361
nearly always, or in the majority of cases, sent to plants and factories inland. They are not things which are exported very much, except for a contractor who is doing some contracting work overseas.
Then we come to a very important export—the oil refinery distillation columns and other oil refinery products. It is perfectly true that some of these columns are 130 ft. in length. Incidentally, as I shall explain to your Lordships, that is one of the reasons why they have to go by road. Then steam accumulators, which cannot be broken up, are another type of load. They cannot be carried in sections; they have to be carried complete. Armoured fighting vehicles every year get bigger and heavier. Then there are castings. I think the noble Lord was referring to a casting when he mentioned a recent load of 185 tons, the biggest casting carried. Transformers and other heavy electrical equipment, which, for reasons of efficiency and use, are getting larger and larger and cannot be broken into sections, are also frequently met on the roads. They are made, usually, at inland factories and usually—and when I say "usually" I mean "very often"—are taken to factory areas inland. I am not going to deal with the instance of ships' propellers, because I think the noble Lard may have made a case for that particular load. There are net a great number of ships' propeller loads, though doubtless in his part of the world one meets more of them than in mine. Then aircraft wings and fuselages: some can be broken down and some cannot, and they have to travel about.
What are the methods of transport? Take the simplest first—canals. Most of these loads cannot go on canals because, apart from the question of bridges, the boats are too narrow. Railways are an obvious method, leaving out the question of cost. That is the obvious way to move some of them; but for railways these loads are in many cases very difficult because they cannot go under the tunnels—the loads are too high—and they cannot go under the bridges. In some cases the tunnels are also too narrow. The fact remains that railways cannot carry many of these loads—in fact, I should say that in the majority of cases they cannot.
The next method is carriage by ships. Apart from the fact that these loads have to move from the factories to ports for export, where they can be moved by ship
362
coastwise, in many cases the ports at each end are not large. There are certain difficulties about moving these loads by coastwise shipping, and I will give your Lordships an example in a minute. The principal trouble is usually that there is not sufficient deck space on the coasters for these abnormally large loads, and, in most cases, the hatches are too narrow for them to be placed below deck. Here is a case in point to show the trouble we have in moving things by roads to places where it is absolutely essential that they should go. The other day there was a 120 ft. column weighing 75 tons, which had to be moved from Woolwich a mile or two to the King George V Dock. It would seem a perfectly simple thing to do to put it on a boat and take it down to the King George V Dock; but when the question was gone into it was found that there were not proper berthing facilities for a ship that would be suitable to handle that particular cargo. In addition, a floating crane big enough to handle that enormous column would have been required, and there was not enough depth of water to float a crane. Therefore that short journey had to be done by road. In the case of the railways there was the difficulty about bridges. Unfortunately, the load had to go ninety-seven miles through the centre of London. And so it goes on.
The noble Lord pleads that we should have further regulations—which he said would save the country money, though I think in the long run it would be more expensive—to stop loads of a certain Size, height and weight from being moved without a permit from the Ministry, except by alternative methods. May I detain your Lordships for a minute to tell you the cost manufacturers are put to in moving some of the larger loads? If they had also to apply for permission and go through all this business for the smaller loads as well, the cost would become prohibitive. With these larger loads of over 150 tons or over 20 ft. width, full particulars have to go to the Ministry, and they include details of the whole of the road to be used. What happens is this. The manufacturer obtains a tender perhaps some eighteen months before the job will be ready to move. The first thing he has to do is to get in touch with haulage experts. It may be that the job is an inland job and one which it is obvious will not go on the railway. The haulage

363
contractor, therefore, has to survey the road. That is expensive and is one of the reasons why the cost of hauling these things is so high.
Suppose, for example, that there is a main road between two towns. You start off on twenty miles of it and then you come to a bridge which is too low, so you have to make a detour. You go on second-class roads and then find that there is another bridge which will not take the weight. So you have to go back and start again from the point where you first left the main road. This goes on for the whole length of the journey, which may be hundreds of miles. You try to avoid big towns but there may not be a by-pass. I know the noble Lord suffers severely at Oxford from these loads. It is all right on the North to South road, but they cannot get them round the town from East to West.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is the other way about.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry; I was always bad at geography. You can get them East to West but not from North to South. Therefore you have to go through the town. The noble Lord the other day met one of these loads going the wrong way down a one-way street because the corner could not be turned the other way. Surely the answer is not to have to get a permit to move a small load through that sort of road, putting everyone who is working on the job to a far greater expense and involving further plans and further arguments with the Ministry, delaying the move. People are not going to take these loads through the middle of Oxford if they can help it, but there is no other way, and on that road they have to go round or through Oxford. Most of these loads cannot be moved by sea; they must be moved by road. Why make it more difficult for our people who are now trying to compete in the world markets, and add to their expense? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is going to reply, will say two things. The real answer is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has himself said, modern and better roads. What I am waiting for my noble friend Lord Mancroft to say is that that is the long-term solution, but that there is no reason whatsoever why it should not also be a comparatively short-term solution.
4.30 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, replies, may I just add my contribution. I was appalled to find how utterly complacent was the noble Lord who has just spoken. After all, he is President of the British Road Federation. I take it that the object of the British Road Federation is to look after the interests of all users of the roads.
LORD DERWENT: For improving the roads.
EARL JOWITT: For improving the roads. Surely the noble Lord is aware of the frightful nuisance it is to other users of the road that these huge loads should come along. Last Friday I left this House at about two o'clock to drive along the Great North Road, through Hatfield, Stevenage and Baldock, up to the North. A good deal of traffic was going my way, which made it very difficult for traffic coming the other way, towards London, to pass. There was a huge thing coming along towards me: it looked like an enormous boiler. I do not know what its weight or width was, but it was travelling at about five or six miles per hour. It did not impede me, as I was going in the opposite direction, but there was a queue something like two miles long behind this thing, coming towards London.
I should have thought the British Road Federation would have been concerned about how such transportations are conducted, so as to avoid the great inconvenience which is occasioned to other people. But not a bit of it; the noble Lord does not seem to be aware of the fact that there is any inconvenience.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Earl, but the fact is rather that we take the view that the way the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, suggested for improving things is not the way to do it.
EARL JOWITT: Of course, it is quite obvious that the only long-term solution is to have much wider and much better roads. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was perfectly right in saying that none of us can throw any stones at the other about that. To my mind, we lost our great chance when we did not accept the proposals of Mr. Lloyd George in 1929, when, in that awful period of

365
depression, we did not get busy and set the vast army of unemployed to work building us new roads. But those are the years that the locusts have eaten; it is not a bit of good going back to that time. We did not do it.
I want to make this suggestion to the noble Lord opposite—it is the only reason why I have spoken, because I am not in any way an expert. It may well be true—I expect it is—that frequently these loads can be moved only by road. I quite understand that to move them ay rail would be impracticable; to do so by canal would obviously be impracticable, and I daresay that sea movement, too, would often be impracticable. So all that remains is the roads. But as we have got inadequate roads, and as we have these vast, heavy loads to be moved, may I make this plea: that it might be considered at, what time of the twenty-four hours these loads should be moved? It seems to me very odd that this aspect has not been considered. I should have thought that if a transporter had to give notice to some official of the fact that he was going to, carry these loads, to give the official an opportunity of studying the position, he might obtain consent subject to a condition about times.
After all, I suppose that, broadly speaking, between ten o'clock at night and seven o'clock in the morning our roads are relatively empty. It would cost rather more to send goods at night, because one would have to pay rather higher wages to the men concerned; but I would suggest that it he considered whether these heavy loads cannot be moved then, or at some suitable time of the day. In that way I believe we should prevent the grave inconvenience caused to the lieges who are using the roads of this country to get about their lawful business. I should like the Minister at any rate to promise me that that suggestion will be considered.
One thing I find a quite intolerable nuisance is some of this fair traffic, where one sees a heavy lorry towing three trailers. These vehicles block up the roads in a most insufferable way. I cannot understand why it would not be a practical and temporary solution (in the fullness of time we may get proper roads to deal with the situation) to try to space, out the traffic, and to say that certain types of traffic should travel only at certain times. Everyone would agree, I
366
imagine, that, where these abnormal loads can be carried in some other way than by road, if it can be done without very heavy extra cost, then obviously that ought to be done.
For goodness sake, however, let us avoid one point of view here: do not let us be complacent about this matter. Do not let us try to blame each other for what we have not done in the past. It seems to me that we run the grave risk of having the traffic of this country brought absolutely to a standstill within the next few years. It is easy to find cogent arguments against doing anything, but I should like to find somebody who has some idea of trying to do something. It is in the hope that what I have said will be considered by the authorities, that I have ventured to make that suggestion to try to ease what I regard as a very pressing problem. For my part I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, calling attention to this problem was most useful and timely, and should immediately be taken notice of by the Government.
4.37 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, you may think it extraordinary for me to intervene in a debate of this sort, but having spent fifty years of my life in trying to improve traffic through various natural channels, I may be able to contribute something. I should like to remark that, in regard to the use of roads, or any channels which are inadequate for the purpose, it is surely the duty of the patient, or the Government if they are going to take on the responsibility, to find means of relief. At the same time, if it is a commercial proposition surely the public ought to know to what extent they are subsidising this easing of traffic. If large forces of police have to be mobilised in order to prevent me from reaching a destination on the Great North Road for a considerable period of time, then it seems to me that my fee ought to be increased in order to compensate for the profit that the transporter is making out of fulfilling a contract when he is not paying the cost of it. Let us know what we are paying to enable the man to deliver his goods.
I support the noble and learned Earl who has just spoken in regard to the timing of unusual traffic. Many of your Lordships may remember the time when

367
an extraordinary weight of steel was brought into London to enable the architects' and engineers' plans for the construction of the Cumberland Hotel to be carried out. That was timed for a Sunday morning, when most of us were proceeding on foot to our destinations. If these considerations are borne in mind, and the contractor has to meet the price of delivering a certain article of goods at a certain place at a certain time, there is no reason why the public should pay a very large contribution to enable him to do it. It should be included in his price. It is his job to deliver the article on the site at a certain time, without any public subsidy, unless the public know what that subsidy is. Prefabrication can proceed to an enormous extent. The whole superstructure of a ship can be delivered on Clydeside and lowered on to the deck, instead of being built up on the deck; but that does not mean that your Lordships should have to pay for it. It may cost a little more to build it on the ship but why should the public pay?
Apart from these questions of ethics and economics, traffic can be dealt with in various ways. We know that it is possible to short-circuit natural channels. In case of necessity one may order an operation, instead of using natural channels, and in that way avoid damaging those natural channels—it may, indeed, save life. In another case, however, the physician may, when faced with a large stone in the bladder, break it up and transport it quite easily through natural channels; whereas if he tried to deliver it whole it might do the most dreadful damage imaginable.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I was amused when the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, accused my noble friend of special pleading, then straight away frankly confessed that he was speaking, like a lawyer with a brief and from a brief, because he happened to be president of a vested interest. I do not represent a vested interest, but I am glad the noble and learned Earl has intervened, because I attend quarterly meetings on this vexed subject of road transport, and the question of these huge trailers is one of the recurring controversies. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will bring home to the Minister of Transport the fact that it will give great satisfaction
368
to public authorities in this country who have to attend to roads and road repairs if, when the Bill is introduced, it includes a clause restricting the length of trailers.
4.42 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I find myself standing, both geographically and argumentatively, about half way between noble Lords opposite and my noble friend Lord Derwent, behind me. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for bringing forward this Motion. Let me tell him at once that I have the utmost sympathy for the whole of his arguments and the anxieties which he has displayed so pertinaciously, today and on two previous occasions. The only argument I have with the noble Lord is his suggestion that Her Majesty's Government do not share his anxiety. Let me put his mind right about that; we share his anxiety to the full. We are equally anxious to find some solution to this extremely difficult problem. How difficult that is has already been demonstrated clearly by my noble friend Lord Derwent, who has put forward some of the arguments from the other side. Moreover, we are all agreed that the real solution is larger, better and more roads. We also are not going to apportion blame for deficiencies in that respect now. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked for a figure. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, in a public speech the other day, said that in the new programme we should be spending two or three times more than the £14 million or £15 million spent last year. We all agree, therefore, on the long-term answer. Our problem today is to see whether we cannot find something to tide us over, or to ameliorate the position—because I must be frank and say that I do not regard this problem as completely soluble. I should be holding out false hopes if I pretended that more than a palliative could be found.
May I begin by asking noble Lords to bear with me while I briefly outline the legal position? It is necessary to get that clearly in our minds because if we are to meet the points of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and take up the suggestions he has made, we must do so in the light of the legal position as it stands at the moment. This is not generally fully known. Vehicles carrying loads of the kind we have been discussing fall

369
into three categories. First, there are "normal vehicles," which are governed by Construction and Use Regulations, Those regulations restrict the laden weight of the vehicle and load up to, roughly, 20 tons. Dimensions of vehicles generally are covered, but there is no restriction on width of load. It may interest noble Lords to know that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is now considering amending those regulations in order to restrict the width of a load to one foot overhang on each side, with a maximum of 9 ft. 6 in. overall width of lead and vehicle together. Many loads which noble Lords may consider as "abnormal" are carried on vehicles of this type.
The second type of vehicles are those carrying what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, rightly defined as "abnormal indivisible loads" which, on account of weight or size, cannot be moved on a vehicle complying with Construction and Use Regulations and cannot, without undue expense or risk of damage, be divided. The special vehicles which must be used to carry these loads are governed by the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order, 1952, which lays down certain conditions as to speed, attendants, wheel and axle weights; that in appropriate cases notices and indemnities must be given to proper authorities; that weight of load and carrier together must not exceed 150 tons, and that the width must not exceed 20 feet. That is the second or General Order class.
In the third class are vehicles carrying a load where the weight of load and carrier exceeds 150 tons or the width exceeds 20 feet. It is here that the special sanction of the Minister is required, and it is only in these cases that the Minister has effective power to prevent any nuisance. I have laboured this point deliberately, in order to bring home to noble Lords how rarely, according to the law as it now stands, my right honourable friend has any power to intervene or lay down the law or direct a method of transport. That applies only in that third, very restricted, category.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting him, but this is a very important point? The Minister himself makes regulations in the second class to
370
which the noble Lord has referred, and he has complete control there also.
LORD MANCROFT: That is perfectly true, and it takes me to my next point. The logical conclusion of the noble Lord's argument is to bring down the figure from 150 tons to 120 or 130 tons, and I promise the noble Lord that I will have that point most carefully looked at. My immediate reaction is that it will involve a tremendous amount of work for a large number of people. Although that is a superficial observation it is the immediate reaction in my mind. That is the only solution I can see at the moment in view of the provisions of the regulations as they now stand. The legal definition of these abnormal loads is immaterial, compared with the abnormal nuisance they cause; and that is what we are really worried about—not legal definitions but the abnormal nuisance that these vehicles admittedly cause to all road users.
Just let me show your Lordships how much nuisance there is. There were something like 10,000 to 20,000 abnormal indivisible loads moved by road last year, and of these only about thirty to forty required specific sanction by the Minister. The Chief Constable of Birmingham recently stated that an average of five "abnormal indivisible loads" passed through that city every working day. I do not think that will surprise anyone who has recently driven through Birmingham. Any single indivisible load of about 20 tons upwards is "an abnormal indivisible load." That covers everything we have been talking about: large excavators, electric transformers and all the things on that long list which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, read out to us. According to the records available to me, the heaviest load pulled so far is a series of steel castings, each of 185 tons net—or 245 tons gross, with carrying trailer—for a new giant steel press in the United States, sent from Sheffield to Liverpool for export. If the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who seems to have particularly bad luck in this respect, happened to get behind that one, I can only console him by assuring him that he was stuck behind 700,000 dollars worth of export.
The noble Lord asked me whether I had had any experience of that sort. Yes, I have. I was in Salisbury at about 3 o'clock on the afternoon of September 12 of the present year. Anyone who

371
lives within 100 miles of Salisbury will know why I single out that particular date—it was the date on which Mr. Chipperfield's circus was moving in from one direction to entertain the citizens of Salisbury, and Mr. Bertram Mills's circus was moving in from another direction for the same purpose. The two circuses met in the centre of Salisbury. I can assure your Lordships that if the spire of Salisbury Cathedral had been taken from the Close and put down in the middle of the high road no one would have noticed it. I do not know whether or not an elephant represents an "abnormal indivisible load," but I sat for two and a half hours behind a baker's van, and I reflected that if the good citizens of Salisbury were getting an excellent allowance of circuses that day, they were unlikely to get bread.
Lord Derwent has, I think, dealt adequately with the pros and cons of the alternative forms of transport of rail and sea, and I do not think I need labour the technical difficulties of sending certain of these loads by sea. That does not alter the fact that some of the loads about which Lord Lucas of Chilworth has been talking might have gone by sea. One can only find out and investigate every case. I should not think of contradicting the noble Lord and saying that he has not produced a case for maintaining that certain loads could have gone by sea. Lord Derwent has pointed out the technical difficulties of sending loads by sea—the considerations of cost, speed, liability to damage and so on. There may also be difficulties at the terminal points, of extra handling which is involved. The real point, however, is that some of the loads which the noble Lord mentioned could have gone by sea, and this I would not dispute. But there is, as yet, no means of compelling them to go by sea.
Now may we look for a moment at the attitudes of the various people who are concerned. I should like to deal first with the Service and other Departments, because they have been accused of not helping. The Service Departments and the Ministry of Supply (who are responsible for the manufacture and supply of Service equipment) move a considerable amount of heavy and bulky traffic. Normally, wherever possible, Government Departments use rail transport. I should like
372
to look at the cases which the noble Lord gave and see whether any other means of transport than road could have been used. I hope I shall find very good reason why in those cases rail could not be used. But, as I say, normally Government Departments use rail transport. For example, the Ministry of Supply, in this year's Estimates, provide 72 per cent. of expenditure for transportation by rail. Road transport is used only because of urgency or the unsuitability of equipment for carriage by rail. In these cases the Departments are in close touch with the Ministry of Transport about routing. I hope that Government Departments will continue to set a good example and will continue what I hope it will be agreed has been good work in the past.
Now a word about the attitude of the hauliers and manufacturers. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has put his case very clearly, as, indeed, have other noble Lords who have spoken upon this point. It is also well set out in this pamphlet Round the Mulberry Bush, a copy of which, appropriately enough, arrived on my breakfast table only this morning. In that pamphlet the road hauliers have set out their case. The practice of hauliers and manufacturers is naturally dictated primarily by economic motives. They want the minimum of expense, consistent with safety of handling and the speed required to fulfil their contracts. The cost of transport governs success or failure in competitive tendering, both abroad and at home. Hauliers are also moved primarily by the economic factor. But they are constantly consulting the Ministry's routing experts on routes for loads, voluntarily and outside legal observations. I should like to emphasise that fact particularly, because one or two harsh words have been said about them this afternoon. I should also like to emphasise that many of them have done their best, so far as they can, to mitigate this nuisance which is caused to the public. So long as hauliers observe the provisions of the Construction and Use Regulations or the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order, the Ministry have no opportunity of preventing movement, save where a special order is required because the gross weight is over 150 tons or the width exceeds 20 ft.

373
I would next say a word about the attitude of the police. The police can only enforce the statutory provisions and see that all road users cause as little obstruction as possible. Under Article 19 of the General Order, however, they can require vehicles to take a different route or alter the date or time of the journey. The existence of these powers, I hope, meets to some extent the point raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. The police, I know, take great care to try to time these journeys so as to cause the minimum of inconvenience, but they have to take into account the fact that it is not as easy as it might be to move these big loads at night. I appreciate the validity of the noble and learned Earl's argument, however, and I will bring his point to the attention of the experts once again.
On the question of charging for the services of the police, it is not the practice of the police to charge for services when police are used as escort for heavy loads. I do not like the idea of charging. For one thing it is a novel principle. Normally, charges are made by the police only when they help on private property, as, for instance, guarding wedding presents or directing cars at political parties and so on. It has never been the practice to charge for the use of police on a public highway or in public places. They do their best to keep the roads clear, and to charge for their services would, I think, open the door to charging for police attendance on public processions or public property.
I can see a danger of extra payment being offered for extra attention. The real answer, surely, is the one that Lord Derwent gave and Lord Lucas of Chilworth admitted. If the police were to charge for these duties, it would merely be an added irritation from the point of view of the hauliers; though perhaps it would be an added comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson. I do not believe that it would divert or discourage any hauliers from using the roads; I think it would merely add extra cost to their charges. I also see difficulty in assessing how the charge should be made. Would you charge, for instance, for the traffic "cop," who was in any case going out, and who took on this duty as part of his normal work? Would you charge for the traffic policeman on duty at the cross-roads in the
374
normal way? I see considerable difficulties in working this out. I also see difficulties in making the charge bear any relation to the length of the journey, or to the amount of interference. However, I will look at the noble Lord's arguments in this connection, and consult my advisers to see whether what the noble Lord has produced carries more weight than points which have been made previously. As I have said, I do not like this very novel idea of charging for the services of the police in these matters. As I have indicated, they may be merely performing their routine duties in helping citizens using the highways, and not devoting themselves only to helping hauliers. It may well be that they are helping unfortunate people like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who have to be on the highway at the same time.
The last point I wish to come to is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government. Let me say clearly that Her Majesty's Government are seriously concerned. We realise that these slow-moving loads impede other road-users, and lead to impatient driving and bad driving. They cause damage to roads and bridges which is cumulative and is not attributable, like the Ardrossan case, to one individual load. I should, however, like to make it clear that I think it would be very unfair to make any undue criticism of long-distance lorry drivers who, on the whole, are as courteous and competent a body of drivers as any on the road. Undoubtedly, the problem is extremely complicated. The traditional policy of Her Majesty's Government has always been that the roads of the country should be free to all travellers, subject to reasonable speed requirements, and that the choice and mode of transport should be open to the users, who should not be limited to one form of transport. The consequence of this policy is that no hindrance is put in the way of abnormal indivisible loads moving if suitable routes are available and if the necessary requirements of the General Order are observed.
The special provision for the movement of loads and transporters of over 150 tons weight, and with a width of over twenty feet, only with the sanction of the Ministry, was part of an Agreement made in 1951 with hauliers and manufacturers, and is considerably lighter than pre-war. I am given to understand that

375
so far it has worked well. Nearly all these abnormal indivisible loads are of vital importance to industry, and particularly to the export trade. Very many of them must go by road. They do not go by road and cause obstruction for the fun of it, but because they have to go by road and (though I have no statistics to prove it) because they cannot go by any other way. That does not alter the fact that there are loads which could go by some other way. Any stricter control over abnormal indivisible loads would require legislation and would mean a considerable increase in work, but those are not insuperable difficulties.
Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, if it is any comfort to him, that the Government are now going to reconsider the whole field of this problem. They are going into the whole thing from the beginning. They will consult all the interests concerned to see whether any steps can be taken to meet the difficulties of everybody who has to deal with this undoubtedly serious menace on the roads. I cannot hold out any hope that much more than has been suggested on both sides of the House this afternoon will come out of it. The Government will consider the noble Lord's suggestion of extending the existing powers to cover loads of 120 tons or 130 tons. What I think we must first do is to consult all the interests concerned, to see whether we cannot get some tidier, speedier and more satisfactory plan for the whole question of abnormal loads. I should be holding out false hopes to the noble Lord if I held out more than that. I do not think I have left anything out. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson who, as a surgeon, might be anxious about leaving anything in, in this case I am anxious not to leave anything out. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with whose views I express my sympathy. I hope that my assurance that we shall do everything we can to meet his difficulties will be of some comfort to him. We shall consult him and those who think like him, and hope, in due course, to find some real solution to this problem.
5.5 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, left anything out. I must confess that I did not expect him to give
376
me everything for which I asked, but I feel that we have made progress. I am rather disappointed that he did not say something more positive, but at least I am happy to know that the whole field will be now covered. I congratulate the noble Lord on his reply. It was frank, exceptionally courteous and charmingly made. But I should like to say one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. When he accused me of special pleading, I do not know on which side he thought I was specially pleading. I admit that I am a shareholder in the railways; so is he. I have no shipping interests.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry that there seems to be some misunderstanding about the unfortunate remark of mine about "special pleading." What I meant was that the noble Lord specified one or two loads which did not, perhaps, represent the majority of that type of load.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I frankly confess that there will always be abnormal loads that will have to be carried by road. Even if we have roads like the German autobahnen, we shall still have abnormal loads to be carried by road. I instanced some loads which I was certain could have been carried by other means, either by rail or by ship. If these loads are for export, eventually they must go by sea; so if they can be loaded on ship at one port, I feel equally certain that they can be loaded at another port. All it needs is organisation and co-ordination.
I warn noble Lords very seriously that unless something is done, within twelve months' time we shall have in this country an agitation to limit the number of motor cars on the roads. We have already had a proposal from a somewhat authoritative voice to prohibit any motor cars from coming into the City of London. We cannot have it all ways. Any "special pleading" that I do is for the convenience of all road users, and not for the monopoly of one. With 750,000 motor cars coming on to the roads—because the production of motor cars during the next three years will quadruple itself—what is to be the end of it all? Do we want restriction? Do we want the Ministry of Transport to be forced, as they once were, to issue licences for motor cars and to measure the number of motor cars to be purchased

377
by the condition of the roads? Surely the noble Lord would newer agree to that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for what he is going to do. If he wants some more information about the malpractices of the Ministry of Supply on the West Cumberland road, I would tell him that I received my information from a retired naval captain who is a member of Cumberland County Council. He told me, in language characteristic of a retired naval captain, that he had transported more and bigger guns by rail than those that are now blocking the main South-West Cumberland road. If the noble Lord would like me to give him privately this gentleman's address, I shall be only too happy to do so.
One last point: the noble Lord said that he did not like ray suggestion that the police should be able to charge for their services because it was novel. What a confession for an uprising young Minister of approximately forty! Surely this Government are not burking such a suggestion. They are very shortly to introduce a Bill to rent the highways for the use of motorists. That is novel. Surely they do not burke allowing the police to charge for their services—not that it will make a major contribution to this problem, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, pointed out, the present situation is unfair to the ratepayer and the taxpayer, and at least if the police were able to charge it would swell the police fund; and out of the police fund we might get some more police patrol cars. I thank the noble Lords who have joined in this debate, and I thank my noble friend Lord Calverley for his contribution. I feel that we are going to make progress, and I shall have pleasure in watching that progress. I warn the noble Lord who replied that I shall return to this matter in three or four months' time. Leaving that threat hanging over his head, I Low beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

IMPORTS FROM JAPAN
5.10 p.m.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government if, as a result of current discussions at Geneva, admission to G.A.T.T. is accorded to Japan, by what means is it contemplated there will be adjustments in connection with entry of consumer goods from Japan into the United Kingdom or the Colonies to meet the much lower wage costs ruling in Japan than in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Question arises from the considerable change in the timetable of the economic part of the debate on the Address. I would ask your Lordships' indulgence if I take a little time in explaining the reasons for the Question, which has no angle of partisan politics, because it is a matter of interest to all workers in the country. I refer particularly to the perplexity caused by the statement made in your Lordships' House by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who, with his long administrative experience, is exceptionally familiar with this subject, and also the statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I will not take up time in quoting to your Lordships the passages to which I refer, but they are, of course, recorded in Hansard.
During the debate my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye raised this question at some length, and I felt that he received an insufficient reply. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised the matter from the angle of Japan, and referred particularly to the admission of Japan into G.A.T.T. I find myself in entire agreement with him as to the propriety of Japan's admission to G.A.T.T. while it exists; indeed, it would be inconsistent to deny her entry, and it is obvious to us all that she must be allowed to export to survive—as, indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, emphasised in the debate. I am perplexed, however, about the apparent reasoning as to the results of such a step The Japanese, as all of us who have been to Japan know well, on a traditional preferred diet of fish and rice, are, and always will be, able to under-sell us in the consumer goods industries, because the British working man needs his beef, white bread and beer (and thank heaven! he can get them) which makes the cost

379
of his labour higher. Here I come to one of my perplexities, though this is not the main purpose of my Question.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, seemed to doubt that, should unemployment on a large scale arise in this country from the import of low-labour cost products at a time when the Socialists happened to be in office, they would face strong demands for the application of corrective measures. He seemed to think that such demands would be rightly refused. I go on record as saying that I feel convinced that, if that should happen, whatever Government were in office, they would find great difficulty in long opposing such demands. I remember raising the same point on another occasion, and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, then seemed to think that such protection would be quite natural. His view seemed consistent with the usual demands of organised labour for protection in varied forms.
I particularly make a plea now for the textile industries from the rigidities of G.A.T.T.—and I may say that I am interested in the textile industries. In the Dominions there is uneasiness as to G.A.T.T. Australian labour calls for more protection. Surely, the import restriction technique there, which is properly condemned by G.A.T.T., will remain as part of their protective system, whatever may be our hopes. Organised labour in Australia is strong on that principle; and it is, indeed, discriminatory. South Africa invokes special measures to deal with low labour content imports, whether from within or without the Commonwealth. To them imports from India are as menacing as those from Japan. And it must be remembered that some day China, too, will become an exporter of manufactured goods. Labour costs in China will long remain low. Her population increases each year by a fantastic figure, and when they get organised for export they will be extremely serious competitors.
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to refer to my own experience when I had the privilege of going to Japan some years ago on a semi-Government mission, being familiar, through personal association, with the cost of operating textile mills in the United States, in England and in Poland. The cost in England was then half that
380
of the United States, and the cost in Poland half that of the United Kingdom. We found that the cost in Japan was, in turn, half that in Poland, and when we went to the mainland of China, it was obvious that no Japanese could compete with the Chinese on the mainland, because the cost in China was half that in Japan. I mention that point because it presents a problem with regard to this matter which seems to me to be exceedingly difficult.
I will anticipate a reminder that Canada is an ardent supporter of G.A.T.T. It is true that she has accorded entry to Japanese exports under the General Tariff, but I prophesy that, when the full impact of low wage imports of consumer goods, from whatever origin, has produced enough unemployment, and has gradually disintegrated various light industries in Canada, whatever Government is then in power in Canada will be driven to apply protective measures. Naturally, and rightly, any countries thereby affected will do their best to oppose such measures. We hear the argument that Canada, to sell her wheat, should risk the destruction of her consumer goods industries to facilitate wheat exports to the countries that cause it. That refers, of course, to such imports as are admitted from countries with sufficiently low labour costs as to make competition difficult. Why should any country buy wheat from Canada when it is heavily protected by special Government measures, such as the Canadian Wheat Board practice, when those countries can buy the wheat more cheaply from Russia or elsewhere? Canadians, perhaps rightly, think that British wages, at only one-third of theirs, are too low; they certainly fear severe competition from Britain under those conditions. Why do we press for more consumer goods imports by Canada, imports which would produce unemployment there, when other types of imports from other possible Wheat-purchasing countries should first displace the immense quantities of semi-durable and capital goods which are at present imported from the United States? Those would not produce unemployment in Canada, because Canada has not the installed manufacturing capacity to produce them.
That brings me in my perplexity to the special measures adopted by the United Kingdom to protect the workers of

381
Dundee from the competition of low-wage-cost imports from India. Users of these products in this country are subject to the uncertainty of the present system. Take yarns for the carpet industry. In addition to the high price, Government control, still lingering on, compels users to order at least six months ahead. How hazardous under present conditions! The recent raw material modification may help, but Government control remains. Surely, it is the first duty of any Government in this or any other country towards its own nationals, who are entitled to protection against impossible competition from wherever it comes. The noble Lord who is to reply is himself familiar with the carpet trade. He gave it signal service for a period when he acted as its independent chairman.
The United Kingdom appears, in these circumstances or from these reasonings, to circumvent G.A.T.T. when it suits herself, but opposes other countries' quests to protect their own workers. We have not heard any vehement demand from the Opposition for the removal of control from the United Kingdom jute industry, and this might be said to make for perplexity in their own reasoning with regard to G.A.T.T. Certainly what might be workable for the heavy industries is menacing for the consumer goods industries. Here I would say that I well remember, when I was President of the Federation of British Industries, the frequent conflict of view between the consumer and the capital goods industries, and how the preponderance of influence always lay with the heavy industries.
At this point we should remember that amendments to G.A.T.T. have already proved necessary with regard to horticultural produce. We bind ourselves and loyally implement any agreement, but other nations will suit their own convenience under pressure, even the United States, if they ever ratify. The Ottawa Agreement prevents a change in preferences, while G.A.T.T. prevents an increase of duties. That is a confusion with regard to G.A.T.T. which is known to all and, indeed, it has been frequently stated here by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. Now we find perplexity with regard to Eire. Why should we permit free entry of Irish manufactures into the United Kingdom while
382
Eire imposes a 40 per cent. duty on goods from the United Kingdom to Ireland, or even, as she has done, arbitrarily imposes complete prohibition of entry on selected items? We must remember that the United Kingdom herself, under the plea of exchange control, prevents entry into the United Kingdom of manufactured goods which could undersell United Kingdom products.
The United Kingdom cotton industry is concerned about the competition of Japan. I have heard many speeches in this House, and we have read plenty made in another place, concerning the competition of Japan. Nowadays there is concern about the import into this country of goods in the grey from India, where the wages are low. Is it contemplated to limit the entry of goods subsidised in India which are at present entering the United Kingdom duty free, when there is a duty of 50 per cent. or more on goods entering India from the United Kingdom? These are serious illogicalities.
I look at this matter in the light of practical business experience. It is now a lifetime since I first was sent out to the United States to manage a business there, and ever since I have been actively in business with the exception of the times when I was serving the Government, either on active service or in a civilian capacity. I have had practical experience in a great variety of countries, and I have travelled a great deal as an exporter for the United Kingdom, watching how these things work. What I say is based on a lifetime's experience. I was all last week in the West Riding of Yorkshire, attending to my business. I listened to accounts of competition by Japanese semi-manufactured and fully manufactured exports at ruinous prices which the wool textile industry is meeting in every part of the world. Export subsidies and currency exchange rate manipulation are punishing our exporters and in time, unless countered by special measures, will threaten employment here. These G.A.T.T. does not condemn in principle, but it does deny retaliation. This rigidity of G.A.T.T. has as much practical sincerity as the Russian pretence that they do not wish to proceed to communise the world.
Flexibility is essential to permit tariff adjustments to correct the basic differences of wage rates between competing

383
countries. As a boy, I attended every one of the great national gatherings at which Joseph Chamberlain appealed for tariffs for the development of the Empire against free trade folly and rigidity. This was finally demolished by the McKenna Duties and the Safeguarding of Industries Act. In some ways we are to-day a high-protection country, and organised labour has certainly prospered under it. But I repeat that I doubt whether, should there come a time—we have seen it in the past and can remember the competition in the 'thirties—when there is a demand for protection against ruinous competition from low wage cost countries, it can be refused. There is another angle. Perhaps our Government, in its support of G.A.T.T., contemplates the gradual abandonment of textile exports (and textiles appear at present to head the list of exports) and other consumer goods exports by a contemplated expansion of exports of semi-durable and capital goods. As a long-range policy for internal redeployment of labour this is possibly far-sighted. I suggest that it calls for clarification by an authoritative statement from the Government.
My question is, what special measures, as indicated, by Government spokesmen, are contemplated to secure adequate flexibility under G.A.T.T.? I seek, before it is too late, to persuade the Government to modify its credulous philosophy on G.A.T.T. I suggest realism instead of idealism. International trading is a tough business and other nations will surely practice opportunism. Such difficulties we can see, but we cannot clearly depict the threatened worse alternatives. Better the devil we know than the devil unknown. At any rate, I anticipate that the reply will be reserved in tone. Whatever it be, the Rules of the House deny me the chance of comment so I shall have to reserve that for another time. I beg leave to put the Question standing in my name.
5.31 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has given us an interesting and wide-ranging speech, based on his extensive practical experience. I hope that he will not think me in any way discourteous if I do not follow him into the wide economic fields in
384
which he has browsed. I hope, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, will not think me discourteous in asking to speak now. I thought it might be for the advantage of the House if I were to try straightaway to answer the noble Lord's Question in its narrowest sense, in the way in which it appears on the Order Paper. Then I shall be happy to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, later.
The discussions which are taking place in Geneva at the present time are not concerned with the possible accession of Japan to the G.A.T.T.: their purpose is to review the provisions of the G.A.T.T., and they are general, rather than particular, in their application. The contracting parties recently voted their approval of a recommendation for tariff negotiations to be arranged with Japan as a first step towards Japan's accession to the General Agreement. The United Kingdom Delegation abstained from this vote. These tariff negotiations between other contracting parties and Japan have not yet begun, and the question of Japan's accession may not be considered again by the contracting parties collectively until the tariff negotiations have been concluded in the course of the summer.
My noble friend Lord Barnby will, therefore, understand that the question of the attitude of the United Kingdom Government will not arise for some time, but, of course, the matter is being watched very carefully and the issues involved, to some of which he has drawn attention, are the subject of continuing consideration. In reaching their decision, the Government will have due regard to the considerations to which my noble friend Lord Barnby has referred, and to the possible effects on our own industries, not least, of course, the Lancashire textile industries and the potteries, of unrestricted Japanese competition in our domestic and Colonial markets. Her Majesty's Government will also consider carefully the international implications of the problem of Japan's accession to G.A.T.T.
May I again remind the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and the House of the views recently expressed by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in another place: that our eventual decision must depend on whether an acceptable basis can be found to enable us and other countries to undertake relationships within the G.A.T.T.

385
towards Japan without any violent disturbance of existing trade patterns or the development of disruptive or unfair Japanese competition. My noble friend's mention of Japan's lower wage costs is, of course, very relevant to any consideration of our commercial relations with that country. Though any accurate comparison between wages here and in Japan is almost impossible, because of the very different conditions of work in the two countries, it is calculated that, speaking broadly, the level of wages paid in Japan may be taken at, on an average, about 40 per cent. of that of the United Kingdom.
However, Japan is handicapped in competing in world markets not only by the relative inefficiency of much of her labour but also by the facts that a good deal of her capital equipment is out of date, that in many respects her industrial techniques have not caught up with modern development and that she has to pay high prices for many of her raw materials. In a number of fields of industry these disadvantages offset, and more than offset, her lower wage costs. In other important industries, however, notably in cotton and rayon textiles and in some branches of engineering, Japan is fully competitive. I should like to remark next on the emphasis which my noble friend placed on consumer goods.
LORD BARNBY: May I interrupt the noble Lord, before he passes on? Although I referred considerably to Japan, I should not wish it to be inferred that that showed an attitude unfriendly to Japan. I repeat that I would strongly support the view that Japan must be allowed to export to survive. It was to correct the differences in the wage rates alone, be it Japan or any other country, one against the other, that I used the illustration of Japan, but not to be unfriendly or discriminatory against Japan.
LORD MANCROFT: I quite appreciate what the noble Lord says, and I am sure the House is glad to hear him emphasise it as clearly as he has done. Reverting to consumer goods, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, had in mind, and very rightly so, that it is in the field of consumer goods that we have in the past most felt the impact of Japanese competition and where, in some cases, we are feeling it already again. But let there be no thought that Her Majesty's Government regard the consumer goods
386
industries as less important than the industries concerned with capital goods. It may well be that, with the growing industrialisation of so many markets abroad, capital goods will form a somewhat higher proportion of our total exports than they did formerly. But our economy depends on the well-being and expansion of both capital goods and consumer goods industries, and we draw no distinction between them.
Lastly, I should like to say a few words on the one aspect of Japanese competition with which the Government are closely and continually concerned; that is, the use of copied designs, especially of textiles. The Government have many times brought to the notice of the Japanese Government, both here and in Tokyo, the great importance which we attach to the acceptance by Japanese industry of the ethical standards adopted by other countries. The remedy must come ultimately from a change of heart in the industries in Japan concerned. Very useful talks have taken place between representatives of the United Kingdom and Japan's pottery industries, and discussions between representatives of the cotton industries of the two countries have been opened. The Government very much hope that these also will be helpful.
Her Majesty's Government, when they come to make up their minds finally on this all-important problem, will, of course, bear in mind all the points which the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has made and which other noble Lords, now that I have finished speaking, may wish to make. It is on the basis of similar arguments and similar difficulties that the eventual decision must be taken.
5.39 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I have come down specially from Yorkshire to support the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, on this Japanese question. I do not know the Rules of the House as well as does the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I will accept a ruling from him if he thinks that I ought to sit down.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE F0R COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): I did not make any observation at all.
LORD CALVERLEY: Then I will carry on. Frankly I am hoping that the President of the Board of Trade, before

387
he gives his consent and his vote for the admission of Japan to G.A.T.T., will obtain adequate guarantees as to the good faith of those in Japan, particularly those who belong to the textile trade, not only in woollens and worsteds, but also in cotton fabrics. It is no new situation with which we in the North are faced. It is not only a question of unfair or rather severe competition; I want the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to bring home to the President of the Board of Trade that what we object to is unscrupulous competition. The Japanese copy our designs. As Lord Mancroft has properly observed, one cannot understand their ethical standards. I do not understand the ethical standards of the captains of industry in Japan. They copy our designs, but, what is more serious, they forge the copyright names which are used by all reputable firms in the North of England. Recently Mr. Yoshida visited the North of England. I read his speeches; I listened to him, and I tried to fathom what he was talking about when he replied to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, but, for the life of me, I could not understand him. He walked all round the mulberry bush and, as they say in good Lancastrian English. "He talked but he said nowt."
I want to emphasise the fact that the President of the Board of Trade is in a strong position, not in regard to dictating terms but in regard to laying down reasonable conditions before we take Japan underneath our international umbrella. Since Mr. Yoshida left this country and went to Washington and was received by the State Department in Washington, the world has been subjected to an implied threat by the State Department that unless those competing with Japan lower their tariffs the Americans would not lower their tariffs to us. To me, that is one reason why, when such things appear in the Press, the operative classes, who see just as far as their noses (but they are jolly good noses for smelling with), may misunderstand what is happening in the State Department in Washington. I am hoping that I may have sufficient confidence in the President of the Board of Trade to believe that he is going to uphold our interests.
We know that the operative conditions in Japan are nothing like those in this
388
country. It is not just a matter of living on rice and fish; these people, especially the women, are barracked and live in conditions that would apply rather more to conscripted operatives than to free human beings. I offer this little piece of advice to the Japanese Government: that they might try to copy the Welfare State in this regard. Seeing that we tax ourselves up to the hilt in order to maintain our Welfare State, the Japanese Government might tax Mitsui & Company and similar institutions in order to create better conditions of life and living for the Japanese operatives. It might send the cost of their materials up, but it would do some good.
I view with some trepidation the immediate future in regard to Japan. Since Mr. Yoshida went back to Japan he has received from his own Party what they would call in Wigan "his cards." There is a new Prime Minister. He is simply a "caretaker" Prime Minister, maintaining his position on the condition that he orders a General Election in March. There is an upsurge of nationalist feeling amongst the ordinary people in Japan, who are perhaps as decent as we are. Therefore, I am hoping that something good will come out of this Question which my noble friend, of thirty-six years' standing—we have always differed—has put down. I believe that we are going to have some trouble with Japan. General MacArthur adopted these magnates as his "blue-eyed boys"; yet there is not a blue-eyed innocent amongst them. Now Mr. Dulles has adopted them, which makes our position more difficult. But I want the President of the Board of Trade to stand up even to Mr. Dulles and his implied threats, and to see to it that this country gets a square deal. In this respect speak not only for the operatives but also for the larger interests that Lord Barnby represents, and has represented in his ninety-five trips across the Atlantic. This is by the way, but the other day they made him a birthday present—it was a portmanteau so that he could make a hundred more. That is all I wish to say. This is a serious matter. The coming General Election in Japan may turn out badly for this country, and I am certain that the Foreign Office will take particular note of it.
5.47 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I was most interested in the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and I am delighted that he has had an opportunity of expressing them. For any responsibility that rests upon me that they were delayed, I apologise to him; but with the consent of my noble and learned Leader I agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, to altar the time-table of the economic debate to which he has referred, and it was not until afterwards that I heard that it had inconvenienced not only the noble Lard, Lord Barnby, but also many other noble Lords. However, as I think he realises, the decks had to be cleared for naval action, so, of course, we ordinary mortals had to lake second place.
At this late hour I will not even attempt to comment on the wider issues of this subject, but on the narrow issue which, from a wealth of experience, the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has so eloquently put forward, I would just say that we can no more do anything to keep Japan out of G.A.T.T. than we can keep Western Germany out of a European alliance. I must say that I find myself completely on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I do not for one moment deny the substance of what the noble Lord has said about the delinquencies of Japan in the field he has mentioned, but I am certain—
LORD BARNBY: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I hope I do not misunderstand him. I should not oppose the entry of Japan into G.A.T.T. I have consistently believed that Japan should be admitted to G.A.T.T.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I believe we can go a long way within the framework of G.A.T.T. to overcome all the difficulties which the noble Lord has mentioned. It is an interesting comment that whereas we consider Japan is a low-wage, almost sweated labour, country, America thinks the same about us. I sincerely believe that we in this country have to look to the future and to a wide expanse of almost free trade within the conditions which the present times impose, upon us. We are the greatest trading nation in the world; we have to seek our markets in every country in the world and
390
we, of all countries, must surely benefit most from an absence of restrictions, import tariffs, quotas, call them what you will. I would also impress upon noble Lords that the Japanese economy is in bad shape. Unless we and otter countries in the Commonwealth and America do something to rehabilitate the Japanese economy there may be serious repercussions upon the peace of Asia.
LORD BARNBY: And there is Indian competition.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes; but since when have we in this country been afraid of competition? One cannot go round this country and the world wrapping up various countries and various industries in cotton wool—one has not enough cotton wool. We all have our vested interests when you scratch upon our surface. My latest information about what is happening in Geneva—perhaps the noble Lord will contradict me if I am wrong—on a point about which the noble Lord is most apprehensive, is that agreement between other countries and ourselves, Canada and America, is getting very close. I have great hopes that we shall emerge from the conversations at Geneva upon the General Agreement a better and stronger community, and I sincerely hope that we shall be able to build up a real international trade organisation such as was envisaged at Havana many years ago and which was ruined through circumstances that I will not now mention here. I hope the noble Lord will not take offence, but I believe his fears are somewhat old-fashioned. After all, we and the world have moved a long way since the days of the Ottawa Conference in 1932. In the context of 1954 I believe the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this particular issue of G.A.T.T. is correct. I would only say, show a little more courage and do not leave it wholly to America to be the chief exponent in urging Japan to join G.A.T.T., for we know that Japan eventually will become a first-class member. We should help her, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has said, to recognise that if she is a member of a decent club she cannot go and steal things out of members' pockets and that she has to play the game. I am certain that if we play our part as a country, G.A.T.T. can be made a useful organisation.

PROPOSED FORTH ROAD BRIDGE
5.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the average annual number of vehicles that have made use of the Forth ferries over the last five years, giving separate figures for the various categories, such as private cars, lorries, omnibuses and ambulances, and if they will give the approximate year in which it is expected that construction of the Forth Road Bridge will be begun. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the earlier debate upon abnormal loads this afternoon the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, remarked that he would not be surprised to see the traffic system of this country come to a complete standstill within three or four years. The noble Earl need not wait that long to see it in the neighbourhood of the approaches to the Forth Bridge. It is all too apparent upon any summer day; and not only upon summer days but upon any occasion on which there is any somewhat abnormal flow of traffic, caused, for example, by football matches in winter, or throughout the three weeks of the Edinburgh Festival in the summer. Even on ordinary summer days anyone who approaches the Forth ferry and is fortunate enough to be able to get across without having to wait for at least two boats, may feel that he has done something out of the ordinary. The position there is truly chaotic and no amount of tinkering with or improving the ferry system can do much to cure that situation.
I understand that at present a new pier or quay is being built so that the present number of ferry boats may be increased from three to four. That will help a little but, at the time of the greatest stress of traffic, not to a very appreciable extent. The personnel of the ferry are helpful and efficient, and I think there cannot be any improvement from that point of view. We are practically at the point where no further improvement merely of the ferry service can have much effect. If the appalling congestion is to be relieved, it is necessary that the question of the Forth Road Bridge should be considered at once and given very early priority. Not only do vehicles get held up at the ferry for a long time, but many—particularly the heavier lorries, with abnormal loads,
392
of which we have already heard this afternoon; all lorries with trailers, big motor buses and the like—cannot use the ferry system at all.
It may be asked: why do they not use the Kincardine Bridge, some miles further up the river? The answer is that the approaches to that bridge from both sides are tortuous, and on the north side narrow as well, so that route does not afford much relief. The result is that the main flow of traffic, which is unable or unwilling to face delays at the ferry, is compelled to come to the bottleneck between Stirling and Perth. That is my only "special pleading," for that section of my county which is comprised in the bottleneck and where, in this past year, unfortunately, fatal accidents have risen very considerably. Many of these accidents are caused by collisions with lorries. More often than not the lorry is not to blame, but when another vehicle meets a lorry in a head-on collision it is usually the occupant of the other vehicle who leaves the scene in a mortuary van. I have no other special pleading. I am pleading on behalf of the whole of the people of East Scotland, from Aberdeen to the Border—and, indeed, for manufacturers of the North of England, as well, for they are very much incommoded by the present position.
Since I put my Question on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House Scotland has had one further rebuff over this question of a Forth Road Bridge. The ingenious solution put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has met with an uncompromising and flat refusal from Her Majesty's Government. The Times newspaper, reporting it this morning, remarks that it is causing a sense of frustration in Scotland. The Scottish newspapers naturally put it much more strongly and crudely. The Times is in error only in stating that a sense of frustration is now being caused. That frustration, admittedly growing fast, has been there for a very long time, and Scotland as a whole is not enthusiastic about what is, in the view of many of us, the miserable alternative offered, that of priority to a tunnel under the Clyde at Glasgow. This project, though it must be of undoubted service to the manufacturers of Glasgow and the Clydeside area, will be of little, if any, use to trade and industry in the rest of Scotland.
The continual refusal by successive Governments (for this is not a Party question, in any shape or form) to do anything concrete about a Forth Road Bridge is likely to worsen relations between Scotland and England. Scotland does not feel that she is getting a fair deal. It is for that reason that I am asking this Question to-day. I am asking Her Majesty's Government to give figures for the traffic that has passed over the present inadequate ferry system, so that it may be realised what a very large amount of extra traffic would go over a road bridge if it were there—a road bridge which could be at least kept up, and very likely largely paid for in part, by a toll system. If a toll system were adopted, it would certainly not meet with great objection front any quarter in Scotland.
Most particularly do I ask the second part of my Question: that Her Majesty's Government should give some indication when they are prepared to take—even though it be in the distant future—some definite action on this most important and vital question, a question in regard to which, as I have already said, Scotland feels that she is being somewhat scurvily treated. I beg to ask my Question.
6.2 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has asked this Question. I think it may be appropriate for me to intervene briefly at this time before the Answer to the Question is given by the noble Earl who is to speak from the Government Front Bench. This is a matter which is causing a great deal of concern in Scotland, and has given concern over many years. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, is quite correct in saying that more than one Government has responsibility for the growing feeling of frustration that exists in Scotland with regard to this vexed matter of the increasing congestion—because I think that as the years pass it steadily increases—at the Forth ferry crossing.
I do not favour, and I never did favour, the idea put forward recently of having this matter dealt with by private means; by attempting to raise the money that would be necessary to build a Forth road bridge. I think that this is clearly a matter for Government action, and that the bridge should he built at public expense. The red herring—as I looked
394
upon it—that was drawn across the track in order to divert attention from the urgency of the matter and the need for Government action on it, deserved, I thought, the answer it received. We have now had it clearly stated, on behalf of the Government, that this is not a matter for private enterprise; that it is a matter for the Government to take in hand, and that at some time—when we do not know—there will be a road bridge across the Forth.
All that has been done up to the present time is to consider the matter sufficiently to enable it to be decided at what point, and by what means, the Forth will be crossed near Queensferry. The borings and all the rest of it have been done, and the decision has already been taken that when a Forth Road Bridge is erected it will be erected at a particular site. The plea I have made previously, in order to demonstrate that this scheme will not be for ever in the position in which it is at the present time, with nothing concrete being done, is that the approach roads at least be started, and that the approaches to the new Forth Road Bridge site be prepared. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has just stated that the Kincardine Bridge—quite a good bridge—somewhat fails of its purpose because of the nature of the approach roads. Therefore, I should like to be sure that, before the Forth Road Bridge is erected, an adequate road system is prepared to carry the traffic that would be forthcoming.
The noble Earl has made reference to statistics about potential traffic. My feeling about that matter—and this is why I was anxious to intervene in the debate before the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, replied—is that no real idea of the amount of traffic that would he carried by a Forth Road Bridge can be gained from statistics about traffic that is flowing at the present time. I am certain that this bridge, once it is erected, will carry much more traffic than anything that can be thought of at the present time. I am sure that it will be a popular crossing with the essential traffic. It will also be a popular addition to the road system of Scotland, and will add to the opportunities that we have of dealing with the tourist traffic—indeed, it would be quite an important adjunct to the road system in Scotland from that particular point of view. I hope that something can be said,

395
now that all the alternatives have been cleared out of the way, to indicate that the Government will give us something to show that they are in earnest about the erection of a Forth Road Bridge. I believe that one method of doing that, and of giving a guarantee, so to speak, would be to proceed with the approach roads which, I understand, have already been planned.
6.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I for the moment sidestep the special and general pleadings which we have heard and answer the Question which is on the Order Paper? The answer to it is this. On the ferry between North and South Queensferry, which is operated by the British Transport Commission, the average annual number of vehicles crossing in the last five years has been 402,789, made up of 339,520 private vehicles, 59,649 lorries, 2,529 buses and 1,091 ambulances. This amounts to a daily average of just over 1,100 vehicles. The actual numbers would be higher in summer and lower in winter. No detailed figures are available about the ferry between Granton and Burntisland, which was operated from early 1951 until the end of 1952 by a private concern. It is understood, however, that this ferry carried about 100,000 vehicles a year during its period of operation.
So far as the second part of the Question is concerned, I think the noble Earl is aware that about a year ago the Government announced an initial road programme under which schemes involving a total Exchequer expenditure of £50 million would be approved in the first three years. The Forth Road Bridge was not included in that programme and the Government are not yet in a position to outline any further programme beyond that period. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, says that there might be unlimited traffic on the bridge. Even should the traffic be put up to 6,000 vehicles, I still do not think that the cost would be covered, and I am afraid that at the moment we have no reason to believe that anything like that figure could be justified.
The cost of the bridge at the present time would be in the neighbourhood of £15 million. On a programme of £50 million for three years, which is all the
396
Government have announced, the noble Earl is expecting a very great deal if he thinks that one quarter of that amount should be spent in one place. If the noble Earl goes to Cornwall, as I did the other week-end, and hears what they have to say about the bridge at Saltash, or goes to the Severn and hears what they have to tell him there, or to the Humber or the Tyne, he will see that there is a row of bridges in all parts of the country that are urgently needed. Even if he goes to the Hebrides he will find that there is what is known as the North Ferry, between Benbecula and North Uist, which urgently demands, attention. For these reasons I think it is rather a pity that the noble Earl should discount the improvements which are being made to the existing ferry between North and South Queensferry. The noble Earl will remember, as I remember, the old ferry of some twenty years ago. The improvement on that of what we have today is enormous.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords. I would remind the noble Earl that the traffic problem has worsened slightly since twenty years ago.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I was going to add that if there is as great an improvement between the ferry we have to-day and the next ferry as there was between the ferry of twenty years ago and that of to-day, there will be an enormous improvement. Steps are being taken to improve the piers, which will enable two boats to berth instead of one, and to improve the boats on the service, and it is hoped that these improvements will be in operation in not much more than twelve months' time from to-day.

THE CHRISTMAS RECESS
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that it is proposed to adjourn for the Christmas Recess on Wednesday next, December 22, provided business has been completed by then, and to resume on Tuesday, January 25.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past six o'clock.