Lords Sitting of 28 January 1954

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Strabolgi—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
Read 2ª.
WAREHOUSEMEN, CLERKS AND DRAPERS' SCHOOLS BILL [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and referred to the Examiners.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2ª.
TEES CONSERVANCY (DEPOSIT OF DREDGED MATERIAL) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2ª.

DEFENCE MINISTER'S SPEECH
3.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether the Minister of Defence had been authorised to make his speech on defence policy to the Constitutional Club in London yesterday, reports of which appeared in the Press this morning, and, if so, why the Government elected to make the first announcement of such an important character on defence policy elsewhere than in Parliament, at a time when Parliament is in Session?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, with all deference to the noble Viscount, he appears to be under a complete misapprehension as to the character of my noble and gallant friend's speech. It was not the first announcement of a new trend in Government defence policy; it merely the
524
reaffirmation of statements which had already been made in one form or another by responsible Ministers.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I always like to have from the Leader of the House the very factual explanation which he gives to the House, but I must say that in my experience I do not remember a speech of this importance having been made in such circumstances, especially just a few weeks before the White Paper on Defence policy for the year is due to be delivered to Parliament and to be there discussed. Moreover, whilst there is no doubt that there are points in the speech which have been debated from time to time in different stages of the progress of thought, there are, nevertheless, features about this speech which cause great mental activity to some people in both Houses of Parliament.
I feel—and from my knowledge of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and of his experience in another place, I think he will probably agree—that on these matters of important policy it is fundamental that the rights of Her Majesty's Parliament should be observed in these matters. And whilst, of course, there may be exceptions here and there in public policy where that procedure may be departed from, it is fundamental, in the long run, that in one place the elected representatives of the people and the other part of the Constitution here should have their opportunity of considering at first hand changes of importance in Government policy.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure the noble Viscount will believe me when I say that I am just as jealous as anybody else of the rights and privileges of Parliament. But in fact, in spite of what the noble Viscount says, there was no new and startling declaration of policy. I do not know what the noble Viscount has particularly in mind, but if it is the question of what I may call the "flattening out" of defence preparations, that was mentioned quite specifically by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. All that my noble and gallant friend did was slightly to elaborate what had already been said. Though I would agree that startling or ultra-important declarations of policy should be made, of course, to Parliament, there

525
certainly has never been in my lifetime a sort of hard and fast rule that no expositions of Government policy should be made outside the House. That really is not so—indeed, there are a great many examples to the contrary.
I think it would be true to say— I think I have said it myself—that there have been demands in the Press and elsewhere within recent months and weeks for elucidation of Government defence policy. After all, it is a main duty—if not quite the main duty—of the Minister of Defence to inform the public and to remove misapprehensions of various kinds. I can see nothing in the speech which indicates an alteration of policy or which could do anything but good in informing the public as to what the position is. When these debates to which the noble Viscount quite rightly referred take place, I think it will be of advantage to the House to know what the Minister of Defence has said.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is the noble Marquess quite satisfied that he has made out a complete case? If there was not anything particularly important in this speech, or anything new, why was it made in such august circumstances? Why is it reported in so prominent a place in tie newspapers? It may be true that there was not any new matter, that all he was saying was, "We must be economically strong," and all the things that we knew so well. But why say so at this moment, unless there was some need of policy for doing so? Surely this House, which usually rises about tea-time, and which has the privilege of having the Minister of Defence here, is the proper place in which to make such a speech?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have never heard it said—I do not think it could be properly said—that the Minister of Defence in the Government of the day cannot make any statement on defence policy except in the House of Commons or the House of Lords. He goes round the country, and always has done, and he makes speeches. It is one of his proper tasks—sometimes an onerous one, but one which he has to undertake. People expect him to speak
526
on the subject with which he is most familiar. I think noble Lords opposite are making a mountain out of a molehill in regard to this.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I particularly did not bring to the House a copy of the report of the very lengthy speech, because I did not want it to be inferred in this House that I wished to discuss its merits. I am sorry to say that I do not quite agree with what the noble Marquess has said about the other aspect of the speech, that it is not new. I am certain that it will be treated with very great interest indeed in the world Press, as reflecting the very difficult world situation in regard to armaments. I should have preferred that it should be put before Parliament first. But in view of the fact that the speech has been made, and since it may be weeks or months before we are able to have a debate on the White Paper, perhaps the noble Marquess might consider our having an early discussion on the matters contained within the ambit of the Minister's speech. I am not in any way criticising the Minister of Defence; I am criticising the Government that the Minister of Defence has made the speech. I have no doubt at all that whatever speech he made, he made with authority. Therefore, I am criticising the procedure. I want the Minister of Defence to know that in the process we lose none of our respect for him.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, with regard to the question of an early discussion, I should hardly have thought that that would be justified. I think the information which my noble friend has given, both to the House and to the country, and to anybody who wished to read it, will be of great value when the White Paper comes along. But when a White Paper is shortly coming out, surely it is better to await it before having a debate. I have no complaint at all that the noble Viscount should have raised this matter. While I think that this is the sort of thing which should be threshed out in Parliament, I think that on this occasion his anxieties are rather exaggerated.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
3.17 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Report from the Select Committee (made to the House on July 21 last).
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, may I begin by saying that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Liberal Party in the House, has asked me to say how sorry he is not to be able to be here to-day. He is particularly sorry because the noble Lord, Lord Layton, is engaged on public duties elsewhere, and Lord Rea, who was a member of the Select Committee which considered these Orders, is, of course, abroad. The Report which is before us to-day is that of the Select Committee which was appointed in November, 1952, to examine our existing Standing Orders, some of which are more than 300 years old. I understand that it has been agreed through the usual channels that our discussion to-day should be in the nature of a Second Reading debate, and that the Report should then go to the Procedure Committee. At a later date, of course, it will come back to the House, and it is suggested that the House should then go into Committee, when any Member of the House will be able to put for ward any Amendments that he desires. Finally, I imagine that we shall have a Report stage on which the Standing Orders, as they are finally amended, will be approved.
If your Lordships will now look at the Report, you will observe that on each left-hand page we have put the Standing Order in the form recommended by the Committee, and there is a note in italics after each Order showing broadly how it differs from the existing Orders, which will be found opposite on the right-hand side of the page. Perhaps I may mention two small points, in order to get them out of the way. First, your Lordships will notice that the Committee suggest that in future the Orders should be identified, not by the Roman numerals by which they have been identified hitherto but by the numbers which we use every day. Another small point is the suggestion that your Lordships' House should be referred to in the Orders
528
hroughout as "the House" and not as "this House" or "the House" indiscriminately, as in the existing Orders. I am conscious that even in the revised Orders the term "this House" crops up occasionally, but that can be put right, if you approve our recommendation, when the Orders are reprinted. These are of course very small points.
The real aim of the Committee was to revise and rearrange the existing, Orders, so as to modernise them without attempting to revise clauses which express exactly what is usual in language which can hardly be improved. Such a clause is the Order about "Asperity of speech," which is No. 25 on page 18 of the Report. That is an Order for which we have, I think, some general affection. Another example is No. 17 on page 16 of the Report which says that if noble Lords are conversing in the space behind the Woolsack
"the Lord Speaker is to call them to order, and, if necessary, to stop the business in agitation."
The word "agitation," of course, refers to the business and not to the Lord Speaker. If we were writing that clause to-day no doubt we should say something like "business in progress" or "business before the House." But the Committee suggest that the word "agitation" should be kept as a pleasant example of the way in which, during the course of a few centuries, even common words change their meaning.
The Report also suggests the inclusion of certain existing customs which have not hitherto been Standing Orders. One such is the introduction of Bishops—Order No. 7. The introduction of Bishops is a custom which it is rather surprising to find dates only from 1891. Then there is the rule as to not passing between the Woolsack and the Table—Order No. 16. That is one of our best-known customs, but it has not hitherto been an Order. There is, further, an Order about Secret Sittings—that is Order No. 13. Then there has been rearrangement of the Order Paper, which is covered by Orders Nos. 31 to 34, and Questions to which Answers in writing are desired—Order No. 35. There is also an Order that no vote is to be counted in a Division unless the Peer giving it was present in the House when the Question was finally put. Order No. 66 concerns Peerages in abeyance. Order No. 67 deals with the withdrawal of

529
privilege and immunity from Lords of Parliament who may be held on criminal charges, and with the duty of the courts to notify the House of the arrest a Member. There is one new procedural proposal to which I should draw your Lordships' attention. The Committee suggest that Starred Questions should be permitted on Thursdays, as well as on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and they have embodied this proposal in Standing Order No. 28. That Order begins:
"Questions to which a star is attached, indicating that they are asked for information only, may be placed on the Order Paper on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays."
Those last few words should read:
"may be placed on the Order Paper for Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays."
An Amendment to that effect will be moved later. The number of Questions which may be asked on any one day will remain three, in accordance with a Resolution of the House passed in February, 1947.
I should say a word about tie Appendices. In spite of the few Orders that we have added, the Standing Orders have been reduced by the Committee's proposals from 105, as they are now, to 72. In Appendix I the Committee have set out those Orders which, though they are no longer applicable, seem to be worthy of preservation. We have put them into this Appendix as a sort of museum. In Appendix III we have placed a number of Standing Orders which have been dropped as obsolete or unnecessary and which do not seem to be worthy of being placed in Appendix I. Appendix II contains an Order which is largely obsolete but which still determines the precedence in this House, on State occasions, of the great Officers of State. It was ordered to be added to the Book of Standing Orders by way of Appendix in February, 1825; it is so long that it seems that it should stand by itself.
When the House eventually goes into Committee on this Report I will, with your Lordships' permission, ask one of my noble friends to take the Chair, so that I may be free to suggest various Amendments. I think that all members of the Select Committee would wish to express our gratitude to the Table, that storehouse of knowledge and wisdom from which we all seek guidance, and also to all other officials of the House
530
who have been of such help to us. I beg to move that this Report be referred to the Procedure Committee.
Moved, That the Report be referred to the Procedure Committee.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
3.27 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this is an unusual and important and, to me at any rate, and I suppose to most of your Lordships, an intensely interesting subject of debate. I know that we are all keenly looking forward to our future discussions on the subject. The Standing Orders of this Assembly, or, to use the old phrase, "Remembrances for order and decency to be kept in the Upper House," are our own rules, made by us, for us, and for the proper conduct of our affairs. No one can alter them but ourselves. As we read them I think we must all be struck by the way they have inspired and informed the whole atmosphere of this place. They are simple; they are robust; they are eminently sensible, and therefore, I believe, to some considerable degree, responsible for the broad spirit of tolerance which characterises our debates.
Many of these Orders, as the Lord Chairman has already pointed out, date back for many centuries, though others have been added from time to time to meet the changing needs of the day. I think it is clear that the time had come for another re-examination of these Orders. There had been, I understand, no revision made since 1889—which is upwards of seventy years ago, and even that was a very incomplete one. And there had been no radical review for over 120 years, and possibly for much longer than that. Even a body so steeped in tradition as your Lordships' House might naturally require that the Orders should be re-examined after so long a period, so that dead wood might be cut out and new Standing Orders added to conform to our present-day practice. It was, of course, for that purpose that the Select Committee was appointed, under the Chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, whose Report we are considering this afternoon. I think we can all congratulate both the noble Earl and his colleagues most warmly on a first-rate piece of work. They were, I think, in an evident dilemma between the Scylla

531
of allowing their conservative instincts—and may I say to Lord Stansgate that "conservative" here is spelt with a small "c"?—too much rein, and therefore making few, if any, alterations, and the Charybdis of sweeping ruthlessly away everything that was not absolutely up to date, and producing something which would be, no doubt, coherent and possibly convenient, but absolutely lacking in the traditions and the dignity of this House.
It seems to me, if I may say so, with all deference, that the Lord Chairman has guided his crew triumphantly between those two dangers. Not only is the Report itself a model of clearness and conciseness, but the revised Standing Orders which are now being recommended to the House retain much, if not all, of the flavour of the old Standing Orders that preceded them, and yet obvious absurdities and anachronisms have been cut out. That is a remarkable performance. In particular, I suggest, it is especially valuable that the order of the Orders—if I may use such a phrase—has been rearranged so as to make them more comprehensible and convenient for those who wish to use them.
I do not say that I have no criticisms of this Report. In particular, I am frankly doubtful about the Appendices. I realise why the Committee decided to retain them. That historic sense which exists in us all no doubt recoiled from the idea that those Orders which are so interesting, and in many cases so splendid, should be wholly relegated to the limbo of the past and altogether lost to view. One can well understand that. But, after all, the Standing Orders of the House of Lords are practical rules and regulations for the conduct of our day-to-day affairs, and it is made clear by the Committee themselves that those Standing Orders which they have incorporated in Appendices I and at any rate, are no longer of any value for that purpose. They are either "not applicable," which I think is the phrase used with regard to Appendix I, or, to quote the yet more definite words of Appendix III, they are "obsolete or unnecessary." Then why keep them in this book, which should be concerned wholly with the operative rules of the House? I should have thought that was likely to lead only to misunderstanding
532
and uncertainty. This, I admit frankly, is a purely preliminary view, and I am quite open to conviction, but my present impression is that the Appendices are likely to lead only to confusion and would better have been included in a different volume with other Standing Orders which have already been discarded. I can visualise an exteremly interesting volume giving all the Standing Orders which have existed at one time or another for the use of this House and which, after their usefulness has been exhausted, have been discarded.
I have also, as no doubt have other noble Lords, other points of greater detail with regard to discarded Orders which perhaps might have been reprieved and new Orders which might have been included. I was a little sad about the second Order in Appendix I about the prevention of quarrelling among Peers—an Order which dates back to 1641 and which I think might yet prove useful. I should have thought there might have (been a Standing Order directing that noble Lords should not read their speeches. That is an Order which I think would be widely approved. I believe there is more than one recommendation of the House to that effect. There was one dated June 7, 1641, in which it is
"Ordered and Declared that reading of formal Speeches and Answers out of Papers in this House is no Parliamentary way."
Then, I think with extraordinary and exemplary patience, the House waited for nearly another 300 years, and on June 17, 1936, approved a Resolution:
"That in the opinion of this House the growing practice of reading speeches is to be deprecated as alien to the custom of this House and injurious to the traditional conduct of its debates."
Those recommendations were made, but they were never included in Standing Orders and, I am sorry to say, they are sometimes more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
That is a matter which I think might be considered, though we must entirely recognise the very real practical difficulties. For instance, Ministers often have to make statements of Government policy where the exact wording is of great importance. There are also cases of noble Lords, perhaps elderly, who find it difficult to speak without voluminous notes, though I am afraid that that applies even to some of our younger Members, and it

533
would be a pity if such Members should be completely gagged by making a Standing Order of this kind. But I think it is a matter to consider, and I quote it just as an example of the type of new Standing Order which we may still consider. No doubt other noble Lords have suggestions which they, too, would like to make.
On the question of how this matter should be handled by the House, your Lordships have heard from the Lord Chairman what he proposes. I entirely agree with him. The procedure which was originally contemplated was, I believe, that the Report should be immediately submitted to a Committee of the Whole House. That is the procedure which was adopted in 1889, and there is a great deal to be said for it but there is an alternative proposal which is: Incorporated in the Motion of the Lord Chairman, which is now before your Lordships, and I must say that I like that better. As the Lord Chairman has already explained, it is that, as a first step, the Report should be submitted to the Procedure Committee. After all, the Procedure Committee exists to consider just such matters as this. Moreover, it contains the leaders of the main Parties in this House. None of the Party Leaders was on the Select Committee and evidently their views are of importance in a matter of this kind. The submission of the new Standing Orders to the Procedure Committee would enable them to discuss them in a small body together with their colleagues of the Committee and report back to the House. Then, on their second examination the House would have before them not only the Report of the Select Committee but also the comment thereon of the Procedure Committee. I believe that that would enable noble Lords in all Parties, better than any other way, to have the best chance of arriving at correct decisions. I would add that of course the fact that the Procedure Committee have considered the Report will not preclude in any way other noble Lords from suggesting or putting forward any Amendments they wish when the report of the Procedure Committee comes to be discussed in the Committee of the Whole House. I submit that suggestion, as the Lord Chairman has already done, with
534
all deference to the House, and hope, with him, that it will be found acceptable.
3.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that all of us on this side of the House will join with the noble Marquess in his congratulations to the Lord Chairman and the members of the Select Committee who have produced this excellent Report. I am not at all sure how it is that such a Radical colleague as my noble friend Lord Stanseate is to be found agreeing to the Appendices to which the noble Marquess has referred. No doubt he will tell the House later why this formula for dealing with old Standing Orders has been adopted. Having read the Report, I must say that I feel that it constitutes a real step forward in the development of the rules governing this House, and makes it much more possible for us to agree and get on with our work. On this side of the House we appreciate the extension of Starred Questions to Thursday, as well as to the other two days of the week. That will give a much better opportunity of raising matters which are not intended for lengthy discussion, but only to obtain information.
I am a very young member of the House in time of service, and I do not pretend to be expert on the rules of procedure in your Lordships' House. Therefore, I am not going to address your Lordships at any length. We are indebted to the noble Marquess for his speech, which has added to the information we have in the Report itself. I should say, from what I have heard in answer to questions asked in private, that the last really radical overhaul of our Standing Orders must have been made nearly 200 years ago. Therefore, we are now making a little history, whatever the future of a Second Chamber may prove to be.
On behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, I should like to thank the Lord Chairman and, as he has done, the staff of the House who have contributed to the production of this Report. I would express our thanks, also, to our noble colleagues—even those with the small "c," which has been applied to them by the noble Marquess—and to my

535
noble friend Lord Milner, who brought his administrative experience of the other place to the work of the Committee. I agree entirely with the procedure which is proposed in the Motion of the Lord Chairman. I believe, although he did not actually say so, that it has been agreed through the usual channels that we should depart from the original intention, and take the matter from the debate to-day through the Procedure Committee. I am sure that when we come to consider the Orders in Committee of the Whole House that will lead to a shortening of the debates which might otherwise have been necessary.
3.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I hope it will not be considered presurmption if an unofficial Member from this Front Bench says a word or two. My only excuse for doing so is the deep interest I feel in the subject, and the pleasure I have had in serving under the Lord Chairman in this Committee. As he has said, we had all the riches of the learning of the Clerk of the Parliaments, the Clerk Assistant, and all the other Officers of the House at our disposal. We had, also, the skill and charm of the Lord Chairman himself—and I do not think a better Chairman could possibly be conceived for a Committee of this kind. I feel sure that we all enjoyed it. For my part, I have never enjoyed sitting on a Committee so much in all my life. I propose for a few minutes to make one or two comments on the Report; not critical, because it was a unanimous Report, but as a Member of the House interested in the job.
I should like to refer to three points. The first is that practically no recommendation for changes exists in this Report; other than the addition to the Questions, there are practically no suggestions of that kind. There were two new matters which might have been raised, one of which was raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, which came to nothing. I want to say a word about that, and then to say a word of heated defence of the Appendices which the revolutionary mind of the noble Marquess wished to sweep away. The truth is that in this Committee all the work of hacking away and destroying what was old and good was done by responsible Conservatives—if that is not
536
a contradiction in terms—and all the defence of the archaic was done by well-known "Reds" like Lord Milner and me. Of the two things that might have been done, one was to provide some means by which matters could be raised quickly and timeously. That, I feel, is a lack in our Standing Orders. For instance, take the occasion to-day when my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough raised the question of the speech by the Minister of Defence; there is no way in which a brief debate could take place on that at once. You can put down a Motion, but it is a long affair and you have to wait a long time; and it is a pompous and wordy business when it comes. If there were some way in which at a few days' notice people could, whether the authorities like it or not—and that is an important point—raise a matter and have a brief discussion, that would be a great advantage. It has often been discussed by the authorities, but never has it been done. Perhaps that is an addition that will come as a result of what the noble Marquess has said.
The second thing is the effort made by the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, by the Amendment of the Standing Order dealing with leave of absence, to get a real reform of this House from inside. As we know, there are over 800 Members of this House, but the majority of them, no doubt for very good reasons, do not attend our debates. The noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, proposed that they should not be allowed to vote under Standing Orders if they did not make a certain number of attendances. That is rather a promising suggestion: it is reform from inside, and is worthy of further consideration. But it was annihilated by the view of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who said that it could not be done, and that you could not take away from Members of the House the right to vote. He went so far as to say—and this is a most interesting point—that there is no Standing Order or Resolution of the House which precludes a Peer from sitting, speaking or voting on the hearing of an appeal. Although he said that there is the statutory requirement that there should be present at least three Lords of Appeal, as defined in the relevant Act, there is no restriction on other Peers except that which custom imposes. That is an interesting example of how loose—and

537
rightly so—the organisation of this House is. But the noble and learned Lord disposed too summarily of the suggestion made by the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, for the restriction of the work of this House to those who really come and attend to it.
In order to put myself in order, I should say that the Appendices are referred to in the Report itself. They are "of particular interest," and I should like to say a word or two about them. I have been very diffident about making this speech, because the noble Marquess might quite easily say: "Who is this amateur antiquarian who comes along with a lot of views? And, in any case, what on earth has it got to do with the Standing Orders of the House of Lords?" That is a point that I want to emphasise. If I may say so with diffidence, I do not agree with the noble Marquess when he says that these Appendices have nothing to do with the House. In the other place there are many decisions given by the Chair, and there is an immense corpus of decisions and practice. But nothing of the kind exists here. There is, of course, Erskine May: but if we want to know how we have behaved and how we ought to behave, all we can do is to go to the old Standing Orders and the old relevant Papers—and I shall say a word or two about that later.
We have a Record Office, which the other place has not. The Papers of the House of Commons were burnt in the fire of 1834, but ours were not and now, important House of Commons Papers are in our Record Office. I did not know about this fully before; I had heard a little about it, but not much. When f heard about it, I took pains to go to the Record Office—and I recommend any of your Lordships who are interested to go and examine the Record Office which is in the Victoria Tower: there is no lift, but there is an excellent staircase which will take you right to the: op of the Tower. There you will find Mr. Bond with his hundreds of yards of rolls—I never knew how well the "Master of the Rolls" earned his salary until I had seen these hundreds of rolls of Parliamentary documents. I think, therefore, it is in order, when you are considering the Standing Orders of this House to ask "What is this House?" or "What do we intend the House to do?":
538
and when you have decided that, then you can decide what type of rules should exist.
There are several schools of thought about this. Mostly I have found in my lifetime that new excuses are brought forward from time to time for the continued existence of the House of Lords. The first is that it is a revising Chamber. Well, yes. But a panel of Chairmen of Committees could put in the commas and semicolons and rearrange the work just as well as this House. In point of fact the so-called revising function of this House is largely an excuse for laziness on the part of the other place. During the time of the Labour Government masses of stuff were shot up here in an ill-digested form. Little Amendments were distributed to noble Lords who formed the Opposition, and they were moved, and accepted, and everyone said what a glorious non-Party Assembly it was that took in hand the revision of the Bills from the Lower House. That is all right if you have not got a proper legislative machine. But to call this House, in a legislative way, an expert revising Chamber is going too far.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMON WEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): The noble Viscount may collect his Amendments in that way, but I should not like it to pass that that is the general way in which Amendments are originated, discussed and passed.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I would relieve the noble Viscount on this point. I have not any critical remarks to make about the Conservative Government in this speech.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I only rose to defend a Conservative Opposition which was able to make—I speak from memory—about 6,000 Amendments to the Labour Government legislation, with the full consent of both Houses.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I do not distinguish in this Rouse between the Conservative Opposition and the Conservative Government, because wherever the Conservatives sit is the Government side.
Then you come to the second reason advanced, and that is the Great Debates. I was sorry that the noble Lord spoke so slightingly about the reading of

539
speeches, because without reading you never could have the Great Debates. You must have notice and you must have manuscripts—those are the two essentials. You want to give plenty of notice, and the professors, the pundits and the medicine men come down and erect their reading desks and prayer wheels and you have what is called "the House of Lords at its best." That is a reputation depending largely on the authority of The Times. I listen, too, of course, and I always feel intellectually outclassed. But they go on, and they are considered to be a reason for the maintenance of this House in its present form. I do not think the reasons are adequate, although I say that with great respect to the persons who are engaged in these magnificent efforts.
The real reason why the House of Lords must exist is because it is a reserve of Conservative strength. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, is not able to be here, because in the old Liberal days, during which I had the honour to serve with him, he always said—I am reading from one of our own official documents—
"The Tories"—
I apologise for the language, but it is that of the Liberal Party—
"are resolved to live up to the ideal set before them by Mr. Balfour "—
I think he was the noble Marquess's uncle—
"in 1906; that of controlling the destinies of this Empire, whether in office or in Opposition."
That, of course, is the reason for insistence on the "reserve." The reserve would have been done away with if the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, had had his way. But that is not to be. But I will say this: The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, with a statecraft which has been cultivated in his family for centuries, handles his reserve with exquisite skill. He is not like Hubert de Burgh (he is up there in the Gallery) who said:
"Look thou. Stand within the arras and when I strike my foot upon the bosom of the ground, rush forth."
As an example take the television debate. What was the problem before the Government? The problem was how to get some sort of Parliamentary approval to a scheme which they dare not offer to the House of Commons. Therefore, what
540
did they do? They did not issue a Three Line Whip; that would have been "striking my foot upon the bosom of the ground." They issued a Two Line Whip, but they made sure that enough Government men turned up in order to get a vote in favour of something which they were afraid to present to the elected Members of the House of Commons. To put the thing in sporting parlance, the House of Lords is required because it is the constitutional longstop of the Conservative Party.
There is one other thing I should like to say. I have felt gratitude to this House, as we all must have, for the courtesy and comradeship which we receive here. But I have the greatest admiration for it, because it is the last place where a man may speak his mind. That is not true of the House of Commons. They have a caucus system and paid members. The result is that a man has to think twice. The caucus system was introduced by the Conservative Party. Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Schnadhorst started the caucus in the 80s in this country.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Mr. Chamberlain was not a member of the Conservative Party with Mr. Schnadhorst at the time it was introduced.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is quite true. Mr. Chamberlain was a Conservative at heart but not by Party allegiance at that time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He was of the same Party as the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is before my time, but that is so. All I was saying was that he brought the caucus with him. I am speaking about the caucus but it is not very relevant. I do not want to get diverted from my main point. If necessary, I will concede everything the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, want conceded. Let us take that as read. But it is a fact that in this House a man may speak his mind. I remember the late Duke of Bedford making speeches, utterly sincere but of the kind with which almost every noble Lord in this House disagreed, but he was not interrupted. I have asked the authorities, and I understand that though there is, of course, a way of closure by moving "That the noble Lord

541
be no longer heard," it has never been employed to suppress opinion in this House. If it has been employed it has been for totally different reasons. That is a wonderful thing. I often think that if the Pilgrim Fathers still have the same love of liberty of conscience and of freedom of speech which took them to America 300 years ago, it would perhaps not be a bad idea if they returned home to find it in practice.
Now I come to the noble Marquess's speech about the Appendices. This House is sometimes called a ceremonial House, and so it is. It is a very good thing, of course. It is part of the Court here. It is the Council of the King. But behind every ceremony you will find a record of some historical struggle, and that is why we should be sorry to see the Appendices go. I should like to see them embodied in a book, as the noble Marquess suggested. There was a little book published by the Hansard Society a short time ago. It had wonderful articles by the Clerk of the Parliaments, the Clerk Assistant, Mr. Perceval and Lord Campion. If such a hook as that suggested could be published, describing not only what the House of Lords is but why it is and why these things occur, I believe it would add enormously to the Constitutional education of this country.
The House of Lords, of course, has not any heart for a fight now. I remember when it had. I stood at the Bar and heard the Parliament Act discussed in 1911, but now it has no heart for a fight. The last kick it showed was about 1948 when the Statutory Orders Act was passed, and we were required, or asked, to change our Standing Orders in order to make it possible to pretend that a paper pushed under the door had been laid on the Table of the House. The Commons did alter their Standing Orders, but for some time we refused. That showed just a little measure of vitality, but not much. A few years ago there was a wonderful effort—I rather fancy that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was at the back of it—for the House to assert its right to meet independently of the House of Commons. The noble Viscount remembers very well the occasion—it was in the Robing Room. It was only considerations of deep Party loyalty, which always prevail in my case, which prevented my saying publicly that
542
he was right. I think he was right. But see how he was treated. Does the noble Viscount remember how he was treated? Lord Hall came along and said: "I am here," but no more. It might be said that Lord Hall was "mute of malice." He would not say a word, and to everything the Conservatives put forward he replied, "No doubt." They did not even put the cushions the right way up in the Royal Gailery—they were all upside down. Not, only that, but I went outside in the street and saw that they had not even hauled up the Union Jack on the flagpole in honour of the noble Viscount's efforts.
But to return to the records. I suppose they were discouraged, and nothing more was done. I wish somehow we could get more in touch with Mr. Maurice Bond's documents in the Record Office. There we should find many poignant stories. It is an inspiration—not to support the House of Lords; I should never support the House of Lords—but to those who love our national history. Take one or two examples. This Roll which is on the Table every day is supposed to derive from the Test Act and on it people signed. One hundred and fifty years ago you had to sign a declaration against Transubstantiation and you had to sign another declaration against
"the descendants of the person who pretended to be Prince of Wales curing the life of the late King James the Second."
Now when Lord Nelson was introduced in 1805 he came to the table and signed himself "Nelson and Bronté." The Reading Clerk said to him, I suppose, "We don't have any of the Bronte business here; we recognise only British titles." Whereupon Nelson, with a trembling hand, took the pen, scratched out "and Bronté," and in doing so implanted a large ink blot on the Test Roll.
Or take again the case of the Royal Assent. The Royal Assent is given by Commission: it is a long time since a Monarch has been present in person to give the Royal Assent. In a paper I saw of Mr. Bond's it is explained clearly in this way: that when the Act of Parliament for the execution of Katherine Howard had to be passed, it was too much even for Henry the Eighth, and he found it desirable to set up a Commission to give the Royal Assent; and. therefore, for the first time, he created a precedent which has now become

543
almost the common practice. These are personal examples, but they represent the real relations between this House and the Crown. Your Lordships will forgive me as a mere amateur referring to these matters, but they are of intense concern. Henry VIII got on much better with Parliament than did the Stuarts. This we can find clearly shown in the old Standing Order relating to the Earl of Banbury, Henry VIII had fixed the Order of Precedence of old. Charles I in 1627 gave superior precedence to the Earl of Banbury, and the Standing Order shows that this House, though it accepted it on the one occasion, re-asserted itself against the encroachments of the Crown. To take another example, there was the case of Lord Cromwell. He was appointed by Henry VIII to keep the Church in order in this House. He was to sit on the Bishop's Bench above the Archbishop of Canterbury in order to preserve the land from abuses and heresies. It would be a pity if we forgot this example of the struggle between the Crown and the Church.
The noble Marquess referred to Standing Order 28 concerning "asperity of speech."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount is mistaken. I referred to the second Standing Order in the Appendix I about quarrelling. It went beyond asperity of speech.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Marquess is right. I beg pardon. If he proposed to put in something about quarrelling I should certainly support him. I was thinking about what the Chairman of Committees said about asperity of speech. I like that Standing Order and asked the Clerk of the Parliaments whether he could produce the actual old roll. This is the second roll. The interesting thing is that, so far from the House of Lords being the respectable and stately affair that it is to-day, when nobody speaks above a whisper lest he should disturb the repose of the others, it was very rowdy; and this Order about asperity of speech was a very necessary thing. And so the Clerk was often required to read the Order about asperity of speech. The whole document, therefore, was made worse by the amount of fingering it received.
544
Or take another case—the struggle between the French Seigneurs and the Saxons—you might say the Settlers and the Mau Mau. The language question was a vital one and in the fourteenth century it was forbidden in the Commons to speak in any language but English. I remember Mr. Speaker Lowther calling to order an enthusiastic Irish Nationalist when he was proposing to speak in Gaelic. But it would be perfectly in order for any of your Lordships to address this House in French. The Clerk of the Parliaments, who is appointed under a Royal Patent, has certainly never given up the use of French. When he and the Clerk of the House of Commons communicate, they constantly use French—and a very out of date French. They say of Bills: "Soit baili é aux Commons." Well, the word "baili é" has been out of use for centuries. To this the Clerk of the Commons replies, "A ceste Mile les Commons sont assentus." It is the wrong past participle altogether. But what it shows is that this House was on the side of the Seigneurs while the Commons were on the side of the peasants.
On one occasion, when I was in a minority of one in this House someone said, "You can make a protest." No one had previously told me that you could make a protest after being defeated. I was just one on the one side—everybody else was on the other side. I felt that to make a protest was rather a bold thing to do.
A NOBLE LORD: In English?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I looked at the Protest Book and I read another protest, which had been made against the Second Reading of the Reform Bill on April 13, 1832. The protest referred to:
"The violence done by this Bill to the great principle of prescription …and the exorbitant increase of the democratic element of the British Constitution."
That protest was signed, first, by the Duke of Wellington and, second, by two Royal Dukes—"Ernest" and "William Frederick": one the Duke of Cumberland and the other the Duke of Gloucester. So when I signed that Protest Book I felt, in the words of a hymn well known to my noble friend, the acting Leader of my Party:
"Brothers, we are treading
Where the saints have trod."

545
Then, finally, the living, present time. I am addressing myself to the noble Marquess's proposal that a book should be published containing the Appendices. I hope he will persevere with that idea. Take the Parliament Act. I was a Whip in former days, forty years ago, and I used to count the Members present as they came into the House. I saw the struggle over the Parliament Act of 1911; and your Lordships know what happened. Only two Bills have been effectively passed under the Parliament Act; and, of course, not one was a Finance Bill. The Welsh Church Act and the second Parliament Act were passed. Your Lordships can imagine how thrilled I was to see the actual, original enactment. The clause, as prepared, read:
"Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the consent and advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons …"
This Bill was rejected. It was returned, but this time the Clerk of the House of Commons, Sir Courtenay Ilbert, had taken a pen and scratched out the reference to your Lordships; and so the form became:
"Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Consent of the Commons …"
The Royal Assent was given by Royal Commission in your Lordships' House, and you were entirely excluded because Sir Courtenay Ilbert erased the words in pursuance of the Parliament Act. I co not know whether your Lordships think this is just foolish exaltation.
I tink the Standing Orders and practices of the House of Lords are worth studying. I hate the word "bicameral." The truth is this country has never had a bicameral Government. It has been governed by Parliament, which is this House. It happens that the House of Commons had to come, because we wanted money from them; but if in the end they rule the roost and this place is nothing but a ceremonial vestige, that does not affect the fact that none of the schemes, blueprints and senates is applicable to this problem. Our form of Constitution has been the result of battles between people who have had the democratic Parliamentary instinct. That is the value, as I think, of the perpetuation and the study of these records, and that is why speak-
546
ing as a most humble member of your Lordships' House, have pride in being acquainted with them.
Parliament is our trade, and, after all, we should know our trade and the tools of our trade. I do not want your Lordships to think that this in any way—I hope the noble Marquess will not say that it does—shows signs of repentance or conversion on my part, because it does not. This battered, constitutional monument might be compared with Westminster Abbey. As Westminster Abbey has been the centre of the public religious life, so the Parliament Chamber—because this is the Parliament Chamber—has been the centre of the constitutional struggle. The other day I read about a good Methodist woman, one who was a fervent revivalist. She went round Westminster Abbey. The guide said to her, "There is a relief showing the Marquess of Beth who was murdered by highwaymen; and there is a statue of David Garrick, the man who wrote plays." She said, "Young man, one moment: has anyone been saved lately in this building?" If the question were put in the House of Lords, the answer would he bound to be in the negative.
4.13 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I cannot hope to follow my noble friend, with his great historical and constitutional knowledge, his experience, and. his deep belief in the processes of democracy. I have, however, had the privilege of sitting on the Select Committee, and I should first like to pay tribute to the Lord Chairman who presided over our sittings with the utmost courtesy and consideration and who has given to-day a short but comprehensive review of the scope of the various Amendments which are proposed, so that -there is but little to add for the information of your Lordships. I would, however, say that, while some of us did understand the proposed Standing Orders were go direct to a Committee of this House, I entirely approve the suggestion that has been made and the Motion of the Lord Chairman, that there should be a preliminary reference, as I understand it to be, to the Procedure Committee of this House. The more minds that are brought to bear on these Standing Orders after such a lengthy time the better.

547
I would venture to make one or two observations. May I say, first of all, that there are a great many Amendments which some of us, and certainly those of us who served in another place, would have wished to make to your Lordships' Standing Orders, but it was the constant endeavour of all of us sitting on the Committee to retain, so far as possible, the traditional character of your Lordships' procedure and not to burden it with a number of detailed Standing Orders which would only complicate the procedure without adding to its real effectiveness. We hope that that course may commend itself to your Lordships. Then your Lordships will observe that there is now a new title to the Standing Orders, and a new table of Standing Orders which is in accord with modern practice and which, it is thought, will lead to greater ease of reference. I assume that in addition there will be, in due course, an index at the end of the Standing Orders giving their various numbers and enabling still more ready reference to be made.
Something has been said about the Appendices. Whilst I am in general agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, I had assumed that those Appendices were really printed for the information of your Lordships, and that it was not intended that for all time they would form part of the Standing Orders. That is what I assumed—I may be wrong—but I feel that the proposal that they should be published in a separate booklet would be greatly to our advantage.
Then your Lordships will observe quite a number of new Standing Orders. I do not propose to call attention to all of them but your Lordships will see that Standing Orders Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13, relating to admission to your Lordships' House, exemplify the process of simplification and clarification which the Committee have endeavoured to bring about. I should also like to make special reference to Standing Order No. 16 and to obtain your Lordships' view thereon. Standing Order No. 16 provides that when your Lordships
"must needs go across the House"—
I am reading only the relevant portion—
"from one side to the other they are to make obeisance to the Cloth of Estate."
I submit that if it is desirable, as I think it is, and as I hope your Lordships will
548
agree, to preserve that courteous practice of bowing when crossing from one side of the Chamber to the other—a practice which is obviously designed to add to the dignity and respect in which the House is held—it may be thought at least as desirable that Members of your Lordships' House should each similarly bow on entering and leaving the House. This was, I believe, the ancient practice, but for some reason the provision was omitted in the revision which took place in 1888. I hope that if I venture to move an Amendment to insert the words
"enter or leave or"
after the words
"but when they"
in the fifth line of Standing Order No. 16, your Lordships may think fit to support that change.
In Standing Order No. 28, provision is made, as we have heard, for Starred Questions to be asked on Thursdays, as well as on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. I should have thought that such Questions might be admitted on any days on which the House sits for other than purely formal Business—that is to say, that there should be every opportunity on all Sitting Days to ask Questions. I am aware that your Lordships sit very occasionally on a Monday and on a Friday, but it seems to me that, if those are, in fact, Sitting Days, in the ordinary sense of the word, and not merely Sittings called for the purpose of carrying through formal Business, then Starred Questions might properly be asked on those days. Then your Lordships will see that there is a new Standing Order, Standing Order No. 35, relating to Questions to which a Written Answer is desired. It is a curious thing that apparently hitherto there has been no Standing Order relating to Questions, and therefore I would commend to your Lordships the two Standing Orders in which provision is made for both Oral and Written Questions. In Standing Order No. 42, your Lordships will observe at the end an addition, to which the Lord Chairman made reference, which may or may not commend itself to your Lordships. The addition is:
"No votes shall be counted unless the Lord giving the same was in the House when the Question was finally put."
I do not know whether that addition will or will not commend itself to your Lordships. There are other matters to which

549
I should have liked to refer, but this matter will come up again and will come before the Procedure Committee in detail and there will be opportunities at a later stage to move Amendments. May I therefore content myself by making a personal reference. I played a small part in the revision of the Standing Orders relating to both Public and Private Business in another place some of which had not been amended for over 70 years, and I am grateful to your Lordships for permitting me to serve on the Select Committee to consider the revision of your Lordships' Standing Orders, which I now commend to your Lordships' favourable consideration.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE RESERVES BILL
4.21 p.m.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

SPEED LIMIT IN BUILT-UP AREAS
4.22 p.m.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now take steps to see that the speed limit in built-up areas is more effectively enforced, and if not, why not; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject which we are now to discuss is, I am afraid, not so entertaining as that which we have just been debating, though perhaps in its own way hardly less important. I do not expect to have to impose for very long upon your Lordships' patience, since the questions which I shall put to the noble Lord are both few and simple—designedly so, because in the past I think too often our discussions on this and kindred subjects have raised so many subsidiary issues, and diverged down so many side turnings, that the Minister, not altogether unwillingly perhaps, has found himself lost in a maze of by-roads, and the stark central issue, or one of the stark central issues, of the Government's responsibility for the enforcement of the law has almost altogether disappeared from view. That is the issue on which I wish to concentrate for a few moments
550
this afternoon. I propose to put three simple questions and to make one simple suggestion about the speed limit, and I hope that we shall not diverge into discussions on all those wider measures which, of course, would be necessary for a serious attack upon road casualties as a whole.
My first question is very simple. A good many years ago now the Government enacted the statutory speed limit of 30 miles per hour in built-up areas. The Minister at the time said that it would save life, and later he said, on more than one occasion, that it was saving life. I would ask the noble Lord who is to reply, first, whether the Minister still agrees that, if by some miracle the speed limit were to be generally and universally observed, fewer men, women and children would suffer death or mutilation on the roads. Of course, the sober background to that question is the announcement yesterday that last month's road casualties were the highest ever recorded, and that last year's total of 226,520 is larger by nearly 9 per cent. than the total for 1952. We shall not, I hope, digress into a general discussion of the measures necessary for a wider attack upon that formidable total. The first question is merely; Does the Minister agree that a wider observance of the speed limit would save life?
My second question is equally simple. Not lone after the introduction of the speed limit it became obvious that a steadily increasing proportion of motorists were ignoring it; and to-day, as any motorist knows, it is only necessary on a clear stretch of road ill a restricted area in sonic suburb or country town to travel at 30 miles per hour, or less, to find oneself overtaken by a steady stream of motor vehicles, including lorries and Government service vans, all travelling at anything from 31 to 60 miles per hour—that is, unless the imaginary observer to whom I have just referred chances to he a police officer in a clearly marked police car, in which case he will be agreeably surprised at the apparently law-abiding character of every motorist within sight. But, my Lords, I am not a policeman, and for many years now I have been noting the universal disregard of the speed limit and, I must confess, constantly breaking it myself, as I am sure all your Lordships who are motorists

551
would be ready to confess—not excluding the right reverend occupants of the Benches in front of me. I will assert without fear of serious contradiction, therefore, that where there is a clear stretch of road in a restricted area all motorists, including ourselves, repeatedly ignore the speed limit. Therefore, my second question to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is equally simple—namely, does he agree that there is a widespread disregard of the speed limit?
Now for the third question. It is, of course, true that there is no reform more deperately needed, and none which would more certainly earn lasting public gratitude and wide public renown for the Minister who adopted it, than a measure which succeeded in reducing the prodigious annual tragedy of the roads, which has already overshadowed countless families in this land and will be remembered centuries hence, I suppose, as the most flagrant social scandal of our day. Nevertheless, there is another and, in its own way, very compelling reason for putting an end to the anomaly of a speed limit which is universally disregarded. On the widest social grounds, which will be now apparent to all of your Lordships, it is surely highly undesirable to maintain in nominal existence a law which, to the common knowledge, is disregarded everywhere and every day. When I was a child I was brought up to assume, justifiably then, that society was permanently divided into two clear-cut divisions—a vast majority of law-abiding citizens and a small criminal minority which lived outside the law. To-day, alas! thanks to the growth of a jungle of restrictions, the speed limit is only the most important of a multiplicity of laws and bylaws, rules and regulations, which the most respectable citizen is constantly tempted to contravene; and of course, the constant breaking of this particular law in populous thoroughfares, and by respectable citizens, is specially conspicuous.
So, my Lords, I suggest that, on these grounds, there is something to be said for abolishing the speed limit altogether—if the Minister really has made up his mind that it is not possible to enforce it. Indeed, some while ago, I introduced a Motion in your Lordships' House, in
552
which I asked the Government whether they would either enforce or abolish the law. I need hardly say that that was only a rather desperate attempt on my part to deliver a fresh attack from a new angle on the impregnable fortress which I have been attacking for the best part of twenty years. I did not really want abolition; what I wanted was enforcement. Unfortunately, the wording of my Motion enabled the official reply which was read out by one of the noble Lord's predecessors to write off the issue of enforcement altogether and merely refuse, at considerable length, to repeal the law. My third question, therefore, is quite simple. It is merely this: Does the noble Lord who is to reply agree that it is undesirable that there should be a law which is contravened by all classes of citizens in all parts of the country?
There are three simple questions, to each of which I cannot imagine that the answer will be other than a monosyllabic "yes." The noble Lord can hardly deny that the speed limit would save life if it were generally regarded; that it is, in general, disregarded; and that that disregards helps to undermine popular respect for the law. But the noble Lord will hardly wish to leave the matter there. He will doubtless remind us that there are every year (I think this figure is correct) upwards of 50,000 prosecutions for speeding, to which, I am afraid, the reply must be that 50,000 prosecutions probably represents less than one in 100,000 of the offences.
The noble Lord will doubtless also point out, quite justifiably, that the responsibility for enforcing the speed limit rests with local authorities. As to the responsibility resting with local authorities, I have always found it very hard to believe that a modern Government, with all its formidable direct powers, and all its scarcely less formidable indirect influence, if it really possessed the will, could not induce local authorities to enforce one of its own laws. As to what a local authority could do, I will venture to make one simple suggestion for the noble Lord's consideration, a simple measure which would certainly very quickly bring about a more widespread observance of the law and therefore, presumably, result in a considerable saving of human life.
I must admit at once, that the measure which I wish to suggest will be far from popular. I think, indeed, that at this stage no measure effective enough to reduce the appalling totals of road deaths and casualties is likely to be other than drastic. There will almost certainly be an outcry from the official spokesmen of the motoring organisations, just as there was from the official spokesmen, though not from the majority of members, of the motoring organisations, when the speed limit, itself, was introduced. But enforcement of the law is seldom popular, and, surely, a little initial unpopularity should not count against the saving of human life. The Minister may very well know much more effective methods of enforcing the speed limit than that which I am going to suggest. I hope he does. In fact, he certainly ought to, for if British citizens were being killed and wounded by a foreign enemy half as fast as they are being killed and wounded on their own roads, the Government of the day would certainly introduce effective countermeasures overnight. If the Minister of Transport has some effective new measure, no one, I am sure, will be more delighted than your Lordships.
In the meanwhile, however, may I draw the attention of the noble Lord to this contrast. If I am driving clown a clear stretch of road in a restricted area, and desire to drive at more than thirty miles per hour, I have only to verify, by a glance in my driving mirror, that there is no uniformed "speed cop" on my tail, to reassure myself that it will be safe to drive at any speed I please. Suppose, however, I knew that there were plain-clothes policemen in nondescript cars—in other words, that any car I saw reflected in my driving mirror might contain an official authorised to time my speed. And suppose I knew that there were police on foot, concealed and authorised to time my speed—in other words, suppose there were police traps in the area. Then I should certainly hesitate long before I broke the law t and so, I am sure, would tens of thousands of my fellow citizens.
If the Minister were to encourage local authorities to use plain-clothes police and police traps, he would be told, certainly and at once, that this method is "un-English." It was used in the past with success in Cardiff, I believe. I suppose
554
that there Welsh Nationalists said that it was "un-Welsh." I fancy that Lord Nuffield was the first to affix this curious epithet to this particular method of saving life, but for some irrational reason it has stuck. It is completely respectable to use plain-clothes police to discourage British citizens from breaking into the homes of their fellow-citizens but to use plainclothes police to discourage other British citizens from endangering the lives of their fellow-citizens is un-English and odious. Perhaps, in the last resort, it is merely a question of how seriously we are prepared to take an annual casualty roll of 226,520, and whether we can shake off the fatalistic apathy bred of over-long familiarity with an annual casualty roll which would shock us into horrified and instant action if it were suddenly caused by cholera, floods or railway accidents.
Naturally, all motorists, including myself, would be irritated and inconvenienced by the knowledge that we were being observed by plain-clothes police, but I am sure that most of us would submit with good grace. I am sure that we should welcome the measure—or other equally drastic measure which the Minister might prefer—so soon as it became evident, as would become evident, that it was increasing observance of the law and, therefore, was beginning to save human life. Naturally, too, a serious effort: to reduce road casualties would need an attack on a very wide front, which would involve many measures far more elaborate and extensive than that of which I have been speaking. I have confined myself to a discussion of the speed limit and of the dangerous anomalies of the present situation. I have suggested one possible method of increasing observance of the law within the restricted areas. If the noble Lord who is to reply can tell us that he intends to use a more effective one, no one will be more delighted than myself, What would induce a mood of despair and would be disastrous would be if the noble Lord were to tell the House that we should still have to rely on the old, familiar, half-hearted, ineffective measures—education, courtesy propaganda and the like—and if he were to tell us that the Minister knows of nothing more that he can do. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.40 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I do not think that any noble Lord would dissent from the real purpose which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has in mind in moving this Motion—that is, the reduction of the number of road accidents. But, with great respect, I doubt whether the noble Lord would have many knowledgeable folk agreeing with the premise of his entire argument. What the noble Lord has conveyed to me by his remarks is that all we have to do, to do away with the appalling number of road accidents, is to enforce the speed limit.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I am sorry if I gave the noble Lord that impression. My argument was intended to convey that the observance of the speed limit within restricted areas would be one small contribution towards the reduction of the appalling total, not a solution of the whole problem.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. He has now said that an enforcement of the speed limit regulations would be a small contribution; I will examine in a minute how large or how small it would be. I want to treat this matter as seriously as did the noble Lord. I spent some time in the Ministry of Transport and road safety was my special care and responsibility. I tell your Lordships, frankly, that from my own researches, and from the unanswerable statistics provided for my Department by the police, I was driven to the conclusion that the major cause of road accidents in built-up areas is congestion and all the ills that stem from congestion—intolerance, selfishness, bad behaviour and frustration, not on the part of the vehicle driver alone, but on the part of everybody who uses the highways.
Every accident that happens is subject to meticulous investigation by the police and the Ministry of Transport, and they have produced statistics which I have given to your Lordships before. Noble Lords may query them, but in the absence of any other figures we must accept them. Approximately 80 per cent. of road accidents take place in built-up areas subject to a 30 miles per hour speed limit. When the speed limit imposed under the
556
1934 Road Traffic Act came into operation in 1935, the number of vehicles on the roads, and the number of pedestrians on the pavements, was nothing like the number there is to-day, twenty years afterwards. Last year alone, the number of vehicles using the roads increased by 400.000. The short fact is that in built-up areas our roads are too narrow to carry the vehicular traffic, and the pavements are too narrow to carry the pedestrian traffic. Police statistics show that the number of accidents in built-up areas in which speed is the main contributory factor represent under 1 per cent. of the total. The factors which contribute most to road accidents are carelessness, frustration, bad temper, lack of tolerance and bad manners. In the Library of your Lordships' House this morning I happened to pick up a daily paper and read these words about a lady (I hope she will forgive me for mentioning her—she is a former Mayor of Bermondsey):
"She stood on the street corner waiting for the traffic to pass. Tired of waiting, after five minutes she stepped out into the road."
In those simple words is to be found the cause of the majority of accidents in built-up areas. This lady did not even trouble to walk down the pavement to the next pedestrian crossing. I have seen more bad driving in built-up areas by drivers of vehicles travelling at under 20 miles per hour than I have seen by drivers of vehicles travelling at over that speed. I would not condone for one moment the bad driver, but I would rather see an enforcement of the law dealing with careless and dangerous driving, because, as some folk drive, it can be dangerous to drive at ten miles an hour.
Another factor which the noble Lord should take into consideration is the abnormal loads which we see being carried by vehicles on the roads, and I would beg the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government to take this matter to heart. When we see ships, almost, being carried through the narrow streets of some of our provincial cities, surely there is something wrong somewhere. We see advertisements by hauliers boasting about loads of 100-feet long being carried on the roads, about ships' boilers being carried from the Tyne to Southampton. Surely a boat can go by sea and does not have to be carried by road. I would beg the noble Lord who

557
is going to reply to take this question seriously. I can give him plenty of cases where all the traffic has been held up, mile after mile, by one of these cumbersome heavy-load trailers going through the centre of a city, although at times there has been a by-pass road which could have been used. Just imagine the sense of frustration. Stand on any street in London and watch people who have been standing waiting to cross the road. In desperation they take a chance, and before they know where they are, they are knocked over—and not by anybody who is exceeding the speed limit.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will give us the latest figures, but police statistics, again, show that outside the built-up areas the number of road accidents in which speed is a major factor is relatively small, and the overall percentage is small. Some noble Lords may say: "I can knock the bottom out of your argument, because if all these vehicles were travelling so much slower the risk of accident would be less." That reminds me of the old saying that the safest way not to be injured is to stay in bed. That was all right until somebody said that 99·9 per cent. of the people of this country die in bed, so that if you do not want to die, do not go to bed. That is no argument.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked the question: What would happen if the speed limit outside the built-up areas were enforced?—and I take it that he was referring to the speed limit over the entire country. In that ease, the whole industrial, commercial and social life of this country would come to a standstill. It is not generally known that no vehicle other than a private car is allowed to travel on any road in this country above 30 miles per hour. I am quite satisfied that the whole question of the speed limit in relation to road accidents requires careful consideration. I am disappointed that the right honourable friend of the noble Lord, the Minister of Transport, has had to announce a delay in the new Road Traffic Bill. I know what a difficult task he has. But I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the responsibility for road accidents is solely that of the vehicle user, or that that is so in the majority of instances.
LORD ELTON: If the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, I do not think I ever said that it was.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is the only one the noble Lord mentioned. One of the troubles is that too many roads are restricted, and you thereby breed contempt. I believe that in the Metropolitan Police Area there are 7,000 miles of restricted roads. What one has to consider is that, as the vehicles increase in number, the average speed in most of our cities and towns is getting lower, and yet the accidents go up.
Again, from my personal experience—I say this with reserve, but quite emphatically—the 30 miles an hour speed limit is the refuge of the indolent and lazy local authority. When I was at the Ministry all the applications for the 30 miles an hour limit came to me. I used to go and inspect every road concerned, and I took along with me the officials of the Ministry of Transport and the police. Time without number we have examined the stretch of road; we have had before us a report of the accident record of that stretch of road, and of all the accidents that have happened for a period of two years prior to the application, and not one of those accidents was due in a major degree to speed. Then there is the question of the parking of vehicles, behind which people blindly cross the road. There again, what are the local authorities doing to provide parking places and so take these vehicles off the road?
I do not think the accident ratio would worsen at all if the noble Lord and his advisers would make an investigation of all roads that are restricted with the view of removing the restriction on same, in the same way that the Ministry of Transport investigated all the signs some two or three years ago. We were getting "signed off" the road entirely. I am not at all certain that the police are not wise in their attitude to speed limits. I do not mind speaking in even a semi-official way for the Ministry of Transport, but I should hesitate to speak for the Home Office. Perhaps the police showed considerable wisdom, knowing that speed is not a fader, and that continual prosecution of people has not diminished road accidents, in not taking the same line of action which they did earlier—that of Setting police trap. I

559
have never liked it. I think the police trap in motoring is akin to the other aversion of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the gin trap as regards rabbits. The police trap did not give the victim a sporting chance; he had no defence. I think the police are wise in that respect.
Even upon this question of enforcement there seems to be a considerable amount of muddled thinking in the city adjacent to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, lives, and from which I live not very far. I should like to cite a case. The noble Lord wants enforcement by the local authority. I happened to pick up a copy of the Oxford Mail the other day, and there was a case reported of a motorist who was summoned before the Oxford City Magistrates on two grounds: one was of driving dangerously, and the other of exceeding the speed limit in a stretch of road in Oxford which the noble Lord knows well, running from Folley Bridge to Hinksey— I expect many other noble Lords also know that road. There is no road running into this road on the left-hand side, but there are some roads running into it on the right-hand side. This motorist was summoned for dangerous driving and exceeding the speed limit. The offence took place at 12.20 a.m., in the middle of the night. According to the newspaper report, the police, in evidence, said that there was no other traffic on the road at the time. The magistrates dismissed the charge of dangerous driving, but as the man had pleaded guilty to exceeding the speed limit, he was fined in respect of that offence.
I mention that case because the noble Lord wants enforcement. I am in no way criticising the Chief Constable of Oxford for bringing the case. I have no criticism of the magistrates. They found that the man was not driving dangerously. In 1934 Parliament, in its wisdom, imposed a 30 m.p.h. limit, and I can only assume that Parliament imposed it because it was considered dangerous to drive a motor vehicle over 30 m.p.h. in a built-up area. The magistrates said that this man was not driving dangerously, but was driving over the limit, which the man admitted. Now I say quite frankly that that action and that prosecution did only one thing, and that was to antagonise a citizen. It
560
did not contribute in the least to road safety. I am glad to know that that kind of case does not often happen.
I do not want to go into the whole question of road accidents because, as the noble Lord said, he has narrowed this Motion down. But I am certain that this factor of the speed limit must receive some serious consideration. Consideration has to be given to-day to the construction of vehicles, and many other things. I will not reiterate what is in the Press to-day and anticipate what is in the mind of the Minister of Transport, but I say, quite sincerely, that it is no good creating class prejudice in this matter. Everybody who uses the roads of this country has an equal responsibility; the pedestrian has an equal responsibility with the motorist or the vehicle driver. We cannot say to-day that the pedestrian has every right over every other road user. We shall never cure this problem in that way. And I doubt whether we shall cure it, or make any substantial contribution to curing it, by the noble Lord's suggestion.
I have no objection to the noble Lord's other suggestion, of plain clothes police— what was known as the Oxford County experiment so long as the plain clothes police in a motor car do not have the same rights of arrest and prosecution as the uniformed police: with that I would not agree. But I do not object to any measure for guidance, for corrective advice, or for checking abuse, bad behaviour, dangerous driving or bad manners. I am afraid, therefore, I cannot wholeheartedly support the general argument of the noble Lord, but I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Lloyd, will seek his right honourable friend's undertaking that, as there is to be this delay in the new Road Traffic Bill, he will do something in the meantime. He cannot expect to widen all the streets and all the pavements of this country in a short space of time but what he can do — and he could talk to his right honourable friends, the Ministers of the Service Departments, who are the worst offenders in this— is to keep these abnormal loads off the roads when other means of transport are available. He can make certain that by-passes are used instead of the busy thoroughfares, and that everything is done to see that the streets are not used in the middle of the day at the peak

561
traffic hours for the loading and off-loading of goods which could be done at some other time. If he will do that he will make a valuable contribution. I wait, with the greatest pleasure and with some anxiety, for the day when the Bill, which has long been promised, will recognise the responsibility of every road user in this country. Then we shall start doing something to cure this problem.
5.5 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CARLISLE: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I rise to address your Lordships' House so soon after becoming a Member of it, and I am encouraged to do so only by a strong feeling in me about the grievous extent of death and destruction that prevails upon the roads of this country. There is only one major consideration that I wish to place before your Lordships, but before I do so I should like to say a word concerning the specific point of the enforcement of the law in a built-up area. I am not in favour of abolishing the speed limit, nor do I believe that it can be enforced strictly as things are, for the good reason that, if my observations are right, there are many parts of the roads which are limited to 30 m.p.h. traffic but which ought not to be so limited. Their mere existence detracts from the observance by motorists of the 30 m.p.h. limit in a general way. Therefore, the first plea I would make is for a revision of the areas that are regarded as built-up, so that there is a less widespread use of the 30 m.p.h. limit; then every motorist with a sense of responsibility would regard it as his duty to observe that limit. We shall not be able to enforce its observance until that is done.
The second essential point to which consideration should be given is the penalties for motoring offences. I doubt very much whether, for exceeding the speed limit or for any motoring offence, a fine of one, two or three guineas is much of a penalty at all. In many cases it is not a penalty. Nor, indeed, is an endorsement of the licence. In view of the extensive mutilation and the many deaths of men and women on the roads there should be suspension of licence. That, alone, will bring home to some people the enormity of their offence. I contend that the destruction on the roads not only demands but justifies the use
562
of the suspension of licence as a much more frequent penalty, even though, in some cases, it might create a real hardship.
I should like to look at the matter in a bigger setting. Just as I believe that you cannot deal with the 30 m.p.h. limit alone and hope to solve this problem to any extent, so do I believe that so long as road safety is regarded as an isolated problem we shall not make headway. It is part of the far bigger question of general social behaviour; and it is because of that that I feel impelled to voice my opinion here in this debate. Bad driving or dangerous driving is bad manners, and we should develop a public opinion which expresses that simple truth, making the offender aware that he is behaving in an unmannerly fashion. Bad driving or dangerous driving is social immorality, and it a civilised society must see that such actions receive the censure they deserve. I believe that, in the eyes of Christian men, had driving is a sin against God and a sin against God's, creatures—a sin which daily adds to the suffering, the sorrow and the bereavement of the world. Bad driving is a more subtle form of selfishness.
It is most extraordinary that many men who would despise themselves for ignoring the normal courtesies of life seem to be possessed of quite a different spirit when they get behind a driving wheel and have power at their disposal and a horn to blow. While I would not disparage the steps taken to enforce the law, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said, and while I would not disparage all those isolated efforts which aim at promoting road safety or at any rate preventing accidents, I believe that the problem has to be approached in a far more positive way and in a far bigger setting, and that we should try to form in men and women a far greater sensitiveness to their social responsibility. Then, whether they are motorists or pedestrians, they will act in such a manner that each has the care and welfare of the whole of the community at heart—the community of which he or she is an individual member and in which he moves and has his being.
5.12 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, this debate, it seems to me, would have been well worth while if only for the speech to which we have just listened from the right

563
reverend Prelate. It was a speech of such obvious sincerity that I cannot help feeling it must have touched the hearts of many. If only there could be a wholehearted response to the appeal in the closing words of that speech, I am perfectly certain that the conditions which we all know exist on the roads to-day would improve vastly and that an appreciable reduction of accidents would surely take place.
I must, however, deal with the Motion submitted to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. It was in 1951 that the noble Lord produced a similar Motion in this House. On that occasion, as he has to-day, he urged enforcement of the law. He also urged the use of plain-clothes police, concealed traps and heavier penalties. In the same debate the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, took part, and he submitted the point of view that the speed limit was completely unenforceable; and he criticised the criterion for a restricted road. Well, my Lords, everyone who has experience of the roads as a user must know—as indeed Lord Elton must know himself —that the criterion for a restricted road is not a matter of the state of the road, or road safety; it is simply a question of whether you can find in it street lamps.
There are one or two roads that I am tempted to bring to your Lordships' notice. One of those roads runs from Mitcham to Croydon. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Elton, ever has occasion to go along there. If so, he will find that in that road of about two and a half miles there is one house, standing back about fifty yards. There is one road intersection. But because there are street lamps on that road it is a restricted road. When the police want to take action to secure convictions for exceeding the speed limit, a police car is usually to be found concealed behind the house; and presumably the occupants wait there until they see a car doing more than 30 m.p.h. Then there is a summons and prosecution, and no doubt a fine. That, my Lords, contributes nothing to road safety; it only irritates people and does nothing practical. No one could go within a hundred yards of that road without being seen. The official answer is that children occasionally play on the common nearby. It is not only children
564
who go there; there is also a public golf course. Yet no one could say that a motor-car proceeding at thirty or forty miles an hour could possibly cause any danger. Another road which is a restricted road is the one that goes from Edinburgh to South Queensferry. On the one side there is a completely unclimbable wall, and on the other a line of ribbon development of bungalows. The restricted area is a long one, yet the road is one of the broadest in Scotland or England. When the police want to get a conviction they use this road for the purpose. That contributes absolutely nothing to road safety. It seems to me that this question of the enforcement of the speed limit needs looking into. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that this question of the speed limit should receive some experienced and careful consideration in these days.
There is a further aspect of the matter. There is a Report issued every year—I have a copy in my hand at this moment—by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary. The latest edition which I could get was for the year ended September 30, 1952. Paragraph 56 of this Report says this:
"Road traffic and the wide range of legislation related to it make an ever-increasing demand upon police resources. The aggregate amount of time spent in dealing with accidents, reporting offences, attendance at court, etc., is a very high proportion of the total, and although such duties make a valuable contribution to road safety it is in our view important that no tendency should be allowed to develop towards giving undue emphasis to traffic duties and responsibilities which might result in individual members of the uniformed branch allowing their traffic consciousness to divert them unduly from their basic police work of preventing and detecting crime."
In other words, my Lords, if you really want to increase the opportunities for the criminal population in this country to indulge in their "smash-and-grab" raids and other such pursuits, you cannot do it better than by employing more policemen on detecting offences concerned with motor traffic.
I hope that no one will think that the police allow the motoring population to exceed the speed limit without doing something about it. They obviously cannot do that, and they have not attempted to do so. On page 80 of the Report for 1952 of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, your Lordships

565
will see a paragraph to the effect that prosecutions for dangerous or careless driving remained at the same level as in 1951, but that prosecutions for excessive speed in a built-up area showed a marked increase to nearly 23,400, which is 44 per cent. more than for the year before. Obviously, the police do what they can, but they cannot be everywhere and do everything. As we all know, in certain big cities—the Metropolitan police are a good example—the police forces are seriously under strength, and are employed not only in detecting offences against the speed limit but in other duties as well. They are too busily engaged, surely, to have to pro3ecute people who have committed the technical offence of driving at more than 30 m.p.h.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, who addressed us this afternoon, dealt with motor traffic as a whole. But there are various classes of motor traffic. He did not tell us his ideas about heavy commercial traffic. There are some of us in this House who have pleaded, in season and out, that the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles outside the 30 m.p.h. areas should be reconsidered and, if possible, done away with altogether, because it again represents nothing. We have a Report from the Road Research Board to the effect that 94 per cent. of the drivers completely ignore it, and yet we cannot get the Government to do anything about it. The Government answer is usually: "Oh, well, when there is agreement between the employers and the trade unions we will alter the law." In the meantime, the law is broken consistently by 94 per cent. of the heavy vehicle drivers on the roads up and down the country. It is a scandal to have that state of affairs. The law ought to be brought into line with the common practice.
With regard to the observance of the speed limit, many of your Lordships will know that it is at times difficult for a motorist to know when he is within a restricted area. It is true that signs are put up at the side of the road, but just at the moment when he is passing such a sign there may be some form of traffic emergency on the road, involving a vehicle or a pedestrian or some other road user who may get in the way; there may be something that demands the attention of the driver on the road itself and not
566
at the side of the road. And at that precise moment he may be passing one of these 30 m.p.h. signs. There is nothing to tell him that he is in a restricted area until he comes to the end of it, when he is warned that he is going out of it. In the case of derestricted areas, there are little plaques which are put on lampposts, telegraph posts and the like, showing us that we are in, a derestricted area. It would be much more to the point if we could have those little plaques to show us when we ate in a restricted area. It is difficult, from the point of view of the driver, to know for certain whether or not he is in a restricted area. I do not know whether the noble Lord who is to reply can give us any hope on that point, but if he could it would do something to help.
The question of the restricted areas in the Metropolitan Police area has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The figure is actually slightly higher than the one he gave. There are in the Metropolitan Police area 7,500 miles of restricted road, and it is quite impossible, I submit, to expect that the police, without making an altogether extravagant demand on the force, would be able to detail officers to detect motor cars travelling at over 30 m.p.h. over 7,500 miles of road. It cannot be done. If it would make a significant contribution to road safety, we should all be in favour of it; but the fact is that it would not. I hope that the Government will give consideration to this question of the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. Whether it is possible to do anything with regard to revising the areas which are already restricted I do not know, but if it were, is might do some good. If we could ensure that roads were not restricted and subject to the 30 m.p.h. limit unless it was essential from the point of view of the public safety, then I think we should see a closer observance of the law. But, for myself, I feel that what we should concentrate on is not so much the observance of the 30 m.p.h. limit as the question of whether a man is driving dangerously, whether he is behaving in a proper way or not, as outlined in the speech made by the right reverend Prelate who preceded me. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will be able to deal with one or two of these points.
5.25 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, it is not easy for me to address your Lordships for the first time on a subject which has been so ably dealt with by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but I shall hope to add something to this debate. I must confess that, for a very long time, I have felt much opposed to arbitrary speed limits. For one thing, it is impossible to choose any speed limit which will be entirely suitable for all cars, all drivers, all times of day or night and all weather conditions. All those things vary. It is as easy to drive to the danger of the public at 25 miles an hour as it is at 50 or even 70 miles an hour. I well remember a journey from London to Dorking which I took some years ago in a friend's car. The car was an ancient one and I doubt whether we ever greatly exceeded 25 miles an hour, but I certainly arrived at our destination with my heart in my mouth. The whole cause of the danger was lack of control of the car and lack of decision on the driver's part. It seems to me that those are two of the chief danger factors on the road to-day, along with the ones which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, mentioned— congestion and the irritation which arises therefrom.
It may be argued "How are we going to restrain the reckless driver, the true 'road-hog,' who insists on reaching his destination in a record time at the expense of everybody except himself?" That is certainly a problem which has to be faced, but I doubt whether it will ever be solved by imposing or enforcing a speed limit. For one thing, the dangerous form of speeding is uncontrolled speeding—that is to say, uncontrolled because the driver is going too fast for him to control his car within visible distance. That, as we have already heard, is merely one feature of bad manners and lack of consideration for others. Even if we were to enforce the speed limit, there are hundreds of other ways in which he could show those features of his character, and show them to the danger of the public. One has only to go into a congested area just outside London—I think those are the places where one meets the worst examples of it—to see that sort of con-
568
duct going on continuously, but not necessarily by people travelling over 30 miles an hour.
I am no less anxious than is the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to increase the safety of the roads. I think it is a vital matter, something that must be dealt with; but I doubt very much whether the mere imposition of arbitrary speed limits, which may or may not be enforced, is the way to do it. The roads must be made safer for all classes—for motorists, for cyclists, for pedestrians and, I may add a fourth class, for dogs. Incidentally, I think that it should be a penal offence for the owner of a doe to allow his dog to wander on the public highway without his being present to control it. How often, I wonder, do we suddenly pull up and swerve to avoid a dog, with possible danger to other people?
It is a great fallacy, I think, to assume that when an accident occurs it is necessarily the fault of the motorist. There is to-day a great campaign against dangerous driving—your Lordships will observe on every lamp post at the moment one comes into a built-up area, posters to the effect that "Such-and-such a borough welcomes careful drivers" but not a word is said about careless walking. Whenever there is an accident, one party being a motorist and the other a pedestrian, it is more or less assumed at once that the motorist is the villain and the pedestrian is the innocent victim. Well, my Lords, I have been both a motorist and a pedestrian, and I have also been a cyclist, so I think I can speak from a detached point of view. I am convinced that more—or, shall I say, a greater percentage, because one cannot judge in actual numbers—pedestrians than motorists are a danger on the roads, because they are not trained to the use of the roads. They do not have to pass a walking test; they do not have to learn any Highway Code—they lust do as they please.
It often happens in the country that one has to pull up suddenly. Your Lordships may have noticed a pedestrian walking in dark clothes at night, with his back to oncoming traffic. Possibly one has had to dip one's headlights at that moment because of an oncoming car, and so one does not see him until one is practically on him. Then, of course, one's whole instinct is to swerve out to avoid him,

569
with the possible result, if the road is a narrow one, of a collision. But there is no doubt that it was the pedestrian's fault. I think it a little unjust that pedestrians do not receive more strictures for their misuse of the roads. Another great danger comes from those who persist in dashing out from behind a bus the moment that they have alighted from it, without bothering to look to see whether anything is coming in the opposite direction. One meets that kind of thing every day. I could go on mentioning many other possible causes of danger, but I will not take up your Lordships' time with them.
I should like to give some statistics which I have received from the Automobile Association and which I think prove that, in itself, speed is not a danger factor. It may be, I grant, a contributing factor, if it is not wisely used. If there is an accident, there is no doubt that the speed at which the motorist was driving should be taken into account; but, in itself, I do not think speed can be counted as a danger factor at all. To revert to the statistics: in the Metropolitan Police District, the percentage of accidents in 1952 due to excessive speed was only 0·5. Incidentally, it is a noticeable fact that this figure has declined from 1·1 per cent. in 1950 and 0·8 per cent. in 1951, in spite of the fact, as the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, told us, that a great many more fast cars have been put on the roads. The Ministry of Transport estimate for 1951 for the country as a whole is that out of a total of 178,409 accidents, only 6,369 (that is, something like 3·5 per cent.) were due to excessive speeds and, incidentally, out of those, only 1,887 were due to private cars.
My Lords, any responsible driver knows very well the speed at which he is safe and the point up to which he may go with safety. To my mind, the chief danger is either lack of experience or lack of responsibility. With regard to lack of responsibility, as I have already said, one can do nothing except by gradual education. With regard to inexperienced drivers, I think it might be possible to consider the idea of imposing upon a driver who has just passed his driving test, a limit of 40 miles an hour for a given period, at the end of which period he would be released from
570
the restriction, provided that his licence was clean. Whether or not that would be effective I really cannot say, but it might be worth considering. However, I am sure that consideration for others and due attention to the control of one's car are the things which are going to bring safety on to the roads, and that speed in itself is no danger factor at all.
5.37 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, it is my privilege to-day to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Somers, on the speech that he has just made. I do so with complete sincerity, because, as I am sure all your Lordships will agree, it has greatly enhanced our debate to-day. I have seen the noble Lord sitting in your Lordships' House for some time, and I am sorry that we have had to wait so long before hearing him. Now that he has taken the plunge, I hope that we shall hear him again soon.
To turn to this Motion, I welcome the opportunity of speaking on this subject, but I am afraid that I disagree with the terms of the Motion and with much of Lord Elton's speech, though we all have the same common interest in speaking on this subject, which is to try and cut down the toll of dead and injured on the roads. I do not believe that the right way to tackle this problem is to try to enforce the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. In 1952, there were 61,000 prosecutions, which I think shows that the vigilance of the police is very high. But the fact that there were so many prosecutions also shows something else—namely, that there is something wrong with the present system on the roads. I believe that that may well be the great liberality with which 30 m.p.h. speed limits are scattered throughout our land. Many of them are unnecessary; and, because of that fact, they have brought the system as a whole into disrepute with the public. A more serious side to this matter is that it has brought the police into conflict with the public. That is borne out by no less an authority than the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, who says that the London policeman is losing his traditional popularity with the public by having to enforce laws which have no popular support—and the Commissioner lists parking offences and speeding in the 30 m.p.h. speed limit area, I believe that

571
it is of no use at all trying to bolster up, by greater police enforcement, by heavier penalties, and perhaps by the use of plain-clothes police, and "specials," a system which has lost its public support. That public support must be regained., and I believe that the only way to do that is to have a general overhaul of the whole of the speed limit system throughout the country.
I can think of two types of instances where a 30 m.p.h. speed limit is unnecessary. The first is that of places where service roads run beside main roads—as for example on the Dover road, at Rochester, in Kent. The main road goes through, and on either side of it there are houses, but between those houses and the main road there are service roads. Surely it is necessary only to put a 30 m.p.h. limit on the service roads, so that fast traffic may use the main road. There must be many instances of that kind in various parts of the country. The other instance which I have in mind has already been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe—that is, where speed limits are in force in places at which there are no houses. The example of this which I know best—it has irritated me intensely in the past—is the road running out of Epping Forest towards Epping. There is a long stretch of road—about a mile, I should say—with no houses at all upon it. On one side of it is forest, and on the other side is a high wall. That stretch is covered by a 30 m.p.h. limit simply because there are street lamps at intervals of 200 yards or less along the side of the road. The provision for that was brought in, as your Lordships know, in the 1934 Road Traffic Act. I see that it is also provided in that measure that the Minister can waive the terms of the Act for the imposition of a limit where he thinks fit. I am sorry that more advantage has not been taken of that provision in the past.
One further point concerning this aspect of the subject relates to the procedure for derestricting roads. The Ministry of Transport can by order derestrict roads which already have a 30 m.p.h. limit, but I am told that the process is a very long one, and that it sometimes takes as much as two years. That is a long time. During, the course of it a great deal of irritation is likely to be caused, and the
572
police will doubtless be made to waste a great deal of their time by patrolling the road in question. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that this procedure for derestricting roads should be speeded up. I feel sure that they could find some quicker and better method of doing it. In passing, I may say that I should not like to see "washed out" altogether any machinery for consulting the local people. I think they should be consulted. None the less, as I have said, I am confident that the whole process could be greatly speeded up.
In my view, there should be a general overhaul and revision of the present 30 m.p.h. limits throughout the country and also of the circumstances in which the 30 m.p.h. limits have been imposed. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, has already shown your Lordships that speed by itself is not a great cause of accidents. I believe that he is right about that, and it is borne out by the police analysis of road accidents for 1952. I think we need have no fear that there will be increases in the numbers of accidents if the number of 30 m.p.h. speed limits in this country is reduced to the essential minimum. In fact, the reverse may well occur, because people will realise that those limits which remain have been retained for some good purpose, and will probably observe them without any supervision. That will be a good thing for this country. I believe that the adoption of the course I have suggested would release a great many police for more important work than some of them are now doing and would save the public a great deal of irritation.
5.46 p.m.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I should like to contribute a few words to this debate, but before doing so I wish to take the opportunity of warmly congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Somers, on an excellent maiden speech. I, too, hope that we shall hear him often in this House in the future. With regard to the matter under debate, the basic problem which we have to face in this country (I have mentioned it before, but I see no reason why I should not mention it again) is, as Lord Lucas has said, congestion. There are too many cars on too many bad roads in this very congested country. I wonder whether it would be possible to

573
calculate the number of millions of miles that were covered yesterday throughout the United Kingdom by motor vehicles, and to put against that number—if it could be found—the number of accidents that occurred. I am sure that the proportion would work out at some very small decimal point; and it would, if anything, I think, lead one to the view that, on the whole, the standard of driving was not too bad, and that the standard of common sense of the people of this country was not too bad either.
But we have this basic problem. Many thousands of miles are being coveted daily by dangerous machines like motorcars of all kinds, and owing to human frailty mistakes are sometimes made. All of us make mistakes now and then. Sometimes we are guilty of little acts of thoughtlessness, like that of stepping off the pavement into the road from behind a bus without taking good care to see that it is safe to do so. That lady who has been referred to this evening who did that may never have done it before; and, in all probability, she will never do it again. She did it once, owing to momentary thoughtlessness, and risked an accident. But that sort of thing is going on all over the country. We shall never be able entirely to cure it, but doubtless there are ways in which it can be greatly mitigated. We can, perhaps, help by education, particularly in our schools, and try to rear up a new race of marvellous people, with far more road sense than is possessed by the present generation. If that can be accomplished, it may do a great deal towards helping in the solution of this problem.
I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in one matter. I agree with him and with other noble Lords who have emphasised that speed in itself is not a dangerous factor. The great danger factor is, undoubtedly, dangerous driving, and dangerous driving not necessarily connected with speed. Either in built-up or derestricted areas dangerous driving, as we all know, may occur at quite slow speeds, by the hesitant driver, the driver who does not know what he or she intends to do next. I do not quite agree with Lord Somers that all drivers know what safety factors they have. I wish that all drivers knew the capacity of their brakes. I wish that all drivers knew the capacity of a smooth tyre, when a car
574
is pulled up, as compared with the capacity of a good tyre—and so on. I wish that all drivers would have their brakes tested more often than many of them do, especially in the case of those whose cars are pre-war models. But that, in itself, is an extremely difficult problem. The regular testing of brakes is something that can be done only as the outcome of a personal desire on the part of motorists to see that their safety factors are as. good as they can possibly be made.
With regard to the use of non-uniformed police, I believe that they could do a great deal to check dangerous driving including the bad driving of hesitant drivers who, as I say, can be dangerous as: well as reckless ones. But, of course, in view of the present state a the police force—it is still something like 5,000 under-strength: In the Metropolitan area alone, I believe—we cannot expect them to be able to watch our roads as carefully as we should wish, to check either speeding or dangerous driving. To introduce a number of non-uniformed police in cars which are not necessarily recognisable as police cars would be an experiment well worth trying, I believe. We can all recognise quite easily those beautifully washed and polished Wolseley cars with their two great loudspeakers on top. They can be spotted half a mile away, and when they appear all motorists, of course, become as gentle as lambs. The police, I suggest, could have vehicles a little less conspicuous than those now used, from which to watch the roads and give advice, as they do in the County of Oxford. If this were done, we should greatly economise in the use of police for traffic duties. One car doing that on the Great West Road would have the value of half a dozen uniformed police whom everybody can recognise a long way off.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us how we should be able to differentiate between tie un-uniformed police in a car and a party of motor bandits?
LORD HAMPTON: Presumably they would have their police uniform under an un-uniform coat, or a badge to show that they had full authority. Surely something like that is perfectly easy to arrange.
EARL HOWE: There are many lady drivers to-day. I can imagine they would be rather afraid if another car ranged up alongside and a party of men not in uniform told them to stop. I think they ought to have some distinguishing badge.
LORD HAMPTON: That may be so at first, but in course of time people would get used to it, as they get used to most things. I do not advocate it entirely but I think it is worthy of experiment. It has been successful in Oxford-shire in curbing reckless and really dangerous driving, and I think it is worth trying. If it is proved to do no good whatever, nobody is hurt and no expense has been entailed. I agree with what has been said about the overhaul of restricted areas, and with that I should like to couple my agreement with what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said about making the signs of restricted areas more continuous. I think that would be a very useful help. That is all of your Lordships' time I want to take. I should like to see some experiment made on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Many of these rules and regulations which we make with regard to safety on the roads are undoubtedly uncomfortable things to live with, but we have to be drastic somewhere. If the number of suggestions—many of them excellent suggestions—made in our debates on the subject of danger on the roads were counted up and put against the number of suggestions which have been acted upon, it makes one feel that we are talking against a brick wall.
5.55 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, the brick wall rises. I hope that when I have finished the noble Lord will feel slightly less frustrated than he does at the moment. The Motion on the Order Paper refers to one specific and limited point—namely, the enforcement of the speed limit in built-up areas. I cannot imagine that anybody will quarrel with the principle that the Motion seeks to enunciate, which is, that if there is a law, it should be enforced effectively, or as effectively as possible. We all must agree that failure to enforce any law will eventually bring the law into contempt. I do not wish to go now into
576
the question whether the enforcement of this particular law is or is not adequate: I should like to deal with that later. If I may answer the third point of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, first, I would say that on the principle involved there is nothing between him and Her Majesty's Government. Although the Motion is directed to a limited point, obviously much greater considerations are at stake than the mere enforcement of a law. After all, the purpose of this particular law, which was introduced in 1935, is to protect the citizens of this country from injury and death on the roads. Whilst we should certainly respect the law merely because it is the law, no law can ultimately be justified unless, broadly speaking, it fulfils the purpose for which it was enacted. And it is against the background of road casualties that this matter must be considered.
As your Lordships are aware, it was only the day before yesterday that the December figures of road casualties were published. I am sorry to say that the total is the highest December total of which the Ministry of Transport has a record. I admit straight away that these figures are a matter of the greatest concern. At the same time, I suggest that if we are to form a proper judgment on the present position it is essential that we should view these figures in their proper perspective. Therefore, I hope that the House will forgive me if, for a moment, I hark back to the past. During the war petrol rationing caused an enormous reduction in the number of vehicles on the roads, and there was an equally great reduction in the number of road casualties. As petrol rationing was relaxed and finally abolished, more and more vehicles came back on the road, and inevitably the casualty rate increased. Since 1945 there has been, with minor fluctuations, a steady rise both in the number of vehicles on the roads and the number of casualties. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has already touched on how the number of vehicles has increased. In 1945 there were 2,552,000 vehicles in circulation; to-day there are 5,286,000—more than double that number. In 1945 there were 138.000 casualties, and last year, as your Lordships are aware, there were 226,000. No doubt this is a serious increase, but I think it only fair to point out that though the number of vehicles has more than doubled since 1935—the

577
year in which the 30 m.p.h. limit was first introduced—the total of casualties last year was still 2,000 less than it was in 1935 and 13,000 less than in 1934: and it may be some consolation to reflect that there has been a steady decline in the number of casualties per 1,000 vehicles, which has declined from 99 in 1934 to 43 in 1953.
I give these figures to try to set the present position in perspective with what happened before the war, and not because I wish this afternoon to sound any note of complacency. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, seemed to suggest that the Government were complacent about this matter. I can assure him we are nothing of the kind. Nobody could be satisfied to find that, so far as casualties are concerned, we are little better off to-day than we were twenty years ago. When we consider that road casualties over the last five years have been nearly double the United Kingdom Service casualties—killed, maimed and wounded, but excluding air raid casualities—during the six years of the last war, I think there can be no possible justification for complacency in any quarter whatever. On the contrary, I should like to emphasise with all the force in my power that this is a serious matter, and it is essential that all concerned—not merely the Government, the police and the magistrates, but also private citizens—should do everything in their power to arrest this unhappy trend.
For this reason, the Government welcome this debate this afternoon. In the first place, it has been valuable because it has given us the advantage of a number of constructive proposals from noble Lords who have not only knowledge but a keen interest in the problem. I repeal: what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that we will try not to be too obstructive to the suggestions that have been put forward; and I can assure your Lordships that all the suggestions will be carefully considered. But, what is possibly even more important, the debate this afternoon may do something to awaken the public to the gravity of the situation. I always think it remarkable that the public, who are undoubtedly shocked by railway accidents or aircraft crashes, where the casualties are numbered in tens, are so completely apathetic about road accidents, where the casual-
578
ties are numbered in hundreds of thousands. I am convinced that, whatever may be done by the Government or by the police, the problem will not be solved until the public cease merely to accept these figures and come to regard driving a car so as to endanger the lives of one's fellow citizens with a disapproval equal to that with which they regard the crimes to which a moral stigma is now attached. I feel more and more that the public must be brought to realise that a motor car is a lethal weapon and must be handled accordingly. In saying that, I only echo what has already been said by a number of noble Lords this afternoon.
The Motion, being limited, deals purely with the enforcement of the speed limit, and, therefore, only with built-up areas. But since 72 per cent. of the casualties in 1953 were sustained in the built-up areas, in this respect, at any rate, the Motion is very much to the point. Obviously, if the casualties for those areas could be eliminated, or at any rate largely reduced, then the back of the problem would be broken. The question that we have to answer is this: How can this be achieved most rapidly, most efficiently, and last, but by no means least, most economically? All noble Lords have spoken about this question of speed, and I should not wish to be left out. Therefore, I will briefly add my own comment. First of all, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that by concentrating his Motion on this one point of speed, I cannot help concluding that he, at any rate, believes that excessive speed is the main cause of the majority of accidents. It seems to me that had he felt otherwise he would have drawn the Motion in broader terms.
LORD ELTON: If I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, I certainly did not intend to say that excessive speed was the main cause of accidents everywhere. Here you have something forbidden by law which makes a contribution which is not exactly assessable in statistics.
LORD LLOYD: I apologise if I have misrepresented the noble Lord. I should like to reiterate what has been said by other noble Lords. It is admitted that where an accident does take place and the vehicles concerned are travelling at high speed at the time, the danger of serious

579
results will be greater—if your Lordships are interested, I believe the chances of an accident to a pedestrian on an unrestricted road are four times as likely to be fatal as they are on a restricted road. But the opinion of the experts—and I must assume that the police in this matter are probably the greatest experts, because they are daily in touch with road accidents—has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Somers: he said, quite accurately, that in the Metropolitan Police District in 1952 the number of accidents where speed was considered to be the main contributory cause was one half of one per cent. One cannot disregard that fact if one is to face up to this problem in a constructive manner. In passing, I should like to take this opportunity of echoing what other noble Lords have said already about the admirable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sot-Tiers, and I hope hat we shall hear him often again.
Not only the noble Lord, Lord Somers, but also the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, my noble friend Lord Howe, and others who have spoken, have taken the same point. Here, again, my case is not that the speed limit is unnecessary and that we should abolish it. I do not think that any noble Lord, especially in the present situation, would suggest that it should be abolished. All I say is that we must try to look at the matter in its proper perspective. Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that if all motorists were invariably to observe the speed limit, no doubt we should get a certain reduction in the number of accidents, I am by no means convinced that by this method alone shall we be able to cure this great scourge which is afflicting us at the present time. I will not weary your Lordships by going into all the points that have been raised, but I should like to emphasise one or two of them.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Lord confirm that the figure of accidents outside the built-up areas where speed is a contributory factor represents only 7 per cent.?
LORD LLOYD: It was 7 per cent. for the year 1951, over the whole of England, for all areas. I should like to reiterate what I believe was said by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that, so far as the
580
motorist is concerned, speed is only one factor and there are many others. There is sheer bad driving; there are breaches of the Highway Code, of which we all know; and there is the mechanical factor—cars that are unroadworthy, bad brakes, bad lights, and so on. Then, again, it is not merely the motorist who is involved. There are cyclists who may ride four abreast and who may also have bad brakes and bad lights; there are the jay walkers, children who run out, and so on. I feel that it is not only unjust, but unwise, if we are to solve this problem, to regard the motorist as the only criminal in the business. I do not suggest that the speed limit is without value. On the contrary, if you look at the figures after its introduction in 1935 you find that casualties per 1,000 road vehicles fell in the first year from 99 to 89: and the monthly average of deaths in the Metropolitan Police district fell from 119 in 1934 to 92 in 1935, and 80 in 1938. Therefore, the speed limit has a value; and certainly, so far as the Government are concerned, we entirely support it, and feel that, so far as is possible, it should be enforced effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that the speed limit was generally disregarded. In the light of the facts, that can be nothing more than an expression of opinion—and I think the noble Lord admitted that. With more serious crimes, such as burglary, as noble Lords are aware, there are statistics giving the number of crimes known to the police, and the number of convictions secured, by which we can assess the total amount of breaches of the law in the country at any time. But clearly, no one can produce statistics of the number of people in this country who are breaking the speed limit at any time. Therefore, it can only be a matter of opinion. Personally, I feel that the noble Lord put his case rather high. He suggested that the vast majority of people were continually breaking the speed limit. That is not my personal view. I will certainly agree with him, however, that there are still far too many who do habitually break the speed limit, and that everything possible should be done to reduce their number. The noble Lord said, or suggested, that the measures of the police for enforcement are totally inadequate. On this I should just like to make the following points.

581
The first is this (it has been mentioned elsewhere; my noble friend Lord Howe has mentioned it to-day): one cannot forget the shortage of manpower in the police at the present time. The second is that traffic control is just one of the many responsibilities which fall upon the police. The situation is a difficult one for chief constables. On one side they are being urged by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to put more men on to traffic control; and on the other side they are being urged to switch men from traffic control to the prevention of crime. Quite clearly, they can only do their best to strike a reasonable balance between these various considerations. And on the whole, if we consider the figures of convictions, I think that, despite these handicaps, the police in the two years after the end of petrol rationing made a most remarkable attempt to enforce the speed limit. In 1951, there were 40,000 prosecutions—I am leaving out the odd figures —and 5,000 written warnings. In 1952, there were 54,000 prosecutions and 7,000 written warnings. These, of course, do not include the large number of cases in which a caution was given by the policeman on the spot, nor the useful preventive work which is done by police traffic patrols.
I should like to make this point to noble Lords who feel that, merely because they see a motorist exceeding the speed limit on any stretch of road, there is no enforcement in that area. Obviously, with a limited number of men chief constables have to use them to the best advantage, and they may well think it best to concentrate their enforcement measures on those stretches of roads which have a bad accident record. That, in fact, is exactly what they do. Therefore, you will find those roads very well controlled and other places perhaps not quite so well controlled.
Having said that, I will again admit to the noble Lord, Lord Elton that I do not suppose that even the police themselves would say that enforcement could not be considerably improved in certain circumstances; and in view of the mounting road casualties it is clearly the duty of everybody concerned to try to effect any improvements that are within reasonable possibility. I should not like to disappoint the noble Lord. He suggested that I might say that the whole initiative
582
does not he in the hands of the Government and that the local authorities have to be consulted. I do not think I can say less, because that is, indeed, the truth. His Motion rather suggests the question: What are the Government going to do about it? The Government are going to do their best, but I would remind noble Lords of the actual position. So far as the police are concerned, it is an accepted principle that the police are a local service administered by local police authorities and commanded by chief officers who are not subject to directions from the Government on how they should operate their forces. The Government cannot instruct: police authorities and chief constables to take this measure or that. They can, and indeed do suggest and advise, and they do invite the police authorities to consult with them on matters of national significance, such as road safety. Equally, of course, the Government cannot issue instructions to magistrates on the penalties which they should impose. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord in this way, but there is a limit to what: the Government can do. Nevertheless, the Government are determined—and I give him this assurance—in view of the present situation, to do everything in their power in this matter.
I will come now to what is probably the first and most important thing, and I think almost without exception every speaker this afternoon has touched at greater or shorter length on this point—I refer to the question of the speed limit areas themselves. I think it will be agreed that if there is to be a law it must be a law which appears reasonable to the average citizen. It is undoubtedly true that there are many stretches of road in this country where, to the ordinary citizen, it probably seems ridiculous that there should be restrictions. That, I will admit quite freely, and I agree that it merely acts as an irritation to the motorist. Of course, the reason, as noble Lords know, is that there is great pressure by local authorities, who naturally wish to have their own particular citizens protected, and this position has grown up over a period. I do not believe that we shall solve this problem until we have restricted areas which not only are reasonable but which appear to any sensible motorist to be reasonable. I think that is what noble Lords had in

583
mind, and I am glad to be able to tell them that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is at the moment considering the possibility of initiating a review of the areas subject to the 30 m.p.h. limit, with the intention of making improvements in this respect. I am sure that if that could be achieved we could start on the right basis—that is to say, there would be a reasonable law which people would feel was reasonable and which they would therefore respect.
Now I turn to the question of the enforcement of the speed limit in those areas which are restricted. Clearly, the most effective method of enforcing a speed limit is the use of police patrols. This was amply demonstrated in 1938 and 1939 when, as an experiment, the number of patrols in seven areas, including the Metropolitan police district, was substantially increased. The changes in the casualty rate in the districts where this experiment was tried were rather remarkable. They ranged from a decrease of 37 per cent. to an increase of 1 per cent. in one area, and the average decrease over the whole lot was 8 per cent. in one year. That is all the more significant because at the same time the rest of the country showed an increase of 3 per cent. There is therefore a strong case for increasing the number of these patrols.
There are two difficulties which confront police authorities in this particular task. The first is manpower and the second is finance. As your Lordships are well aware, the Government are making the most strenuous efforts to step up police recruitment, and we all hope that the improved pay for the police will assist the recruiting drive and that we shall gradually build up the force to the total which we think adequate. But there is no doubt that, at the present moment, it would be impossible to step up the patrols greatly because of the shortage of actual policemen on the job. Nor do I think that the suggestion of a special corps of traffic police, which has sometimes been put forward, is really a possible one, for a number of technical reasons. However, we can try to save the police manpower in the smaller ways wherever that is possible.
I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that the Home Secretary is at the present moment studying measures
584
to save the time of police witnesses attending magistrates' courts. There is a Working Party on this problem which has recently reported. Some of its proposals will involve legislation, and they are receiving further consideration. Briefly, the object of the proposals is to find out in advance the case where the defendant does not want to attend, and therefore will not dispute the case, or where he will indicate that he will plead guilty so that the attendance of at least one or two witnesses can be dispensed with. I agree that it is a flea-bite—a small thing —but if in these ways we can save the manpower of the police, then policemen, instead of wasting their time in the magistrates' court, can be out on the road. I do not pretend for one moment that, by small measures like that, we are going to solve the manpower problem or enable a greater number of police patrols to go on the road. Obviously we are not. But we are doing what we can to help.
Not only is there a problem of manpower; there is also a question of vehicles; even if the manpower is available, there is always the problem of vehicles. At present there are 1,600 vehicles on the road on this particular job, but obviously, if we are going to enforce the speed limit more strictly, we shall need more vehicles. The Government are at the present time considering whether it might be possible, by the increased use of motor-bicycles, which are more economical in both manpower and in money, to step up the numbers of police patrols. But here again, the Home Secretary cannot impose any such scheme on the police authorities, and therefore we have got to wait until an agreed scheme is in operation.
The question of plain-clothes police patrols and police traps, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred, is, of course, an important one. So far as police patrols are concerned—indeed so far as both these methods are concerned —I must remind the noble Lord once more that the actual methods of law enforcement are a matter for chief constables, who know what sort of method is likely to be most effective in their own areas. Therefore it is not for my right honourable friend to suggest a particular method to them. They are free to choose the method which they think best.

585
In the Metropolitan Police district we know that fixed speed controls are used where there is habitual disregard of the limit and where the accident record is bad. I have no doubt that they are used elsewhere. Opinions differ—they have differed this afternoon—as to the merits of plain-clothes police patrols. I can only say that in some areas, particularly in Oxfordshire, they have been found invaluable. In the Government's view, and in the light of the appalling toll of casualties, there is no doubt that the proper use of plain-clothes police patrols is of great value in protecting innocent people against offending motorists, and is fully justified. There are two further points to which I should like to refer. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, mentioned abnormal loads. Unfortunately he is not here at the moment, but I can certainly give him an assurance that I will take up that matter with my right honourable friend. Lord Howe raised the question of the better indication of restricted areas, and that point also I will certainly bring to my right honourable friend's notice.
I end where I began. The final solution to this problem is in the hands of the public as a whole. Until there is a genuine public horror about the situation, and a determination on the part of every individual motorist, cyclist or pedestrian that he or she personally will avoid any action that might possibly lead to an accident on the road, the problem will never be finally solved. A certain amount can be done, and is being done, by education, and I wish to pay a tribute to the work which has been done by teachers at schools and by the police. Then there is the work of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the road safety organisations of the local authorities, the training schemes at local motoring schools, and the work of the Road Research Laboratory, All this work deserves our thanks. But apart from these, others have their parts to play. Magistrates, for example, might consider whether, particularly in cases of dangerous driving, the present penalties which they impose are sufficient. No one can tell magistrates what to do, but I think it is a matter which they should consider at the present time. I entirely agree with the opinions put forward in this House, that probably
586
the greatest deterrent to motorists is disqualification for a period. Certainly the penalties which magistrates can impose, if they wish, are perfectly adequate today. I am convinced that the police are doing their job adequately. Considering their resources, they have done some fine work. I hope that I have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the Government are giving continual and energetic attention to the problem and are striving by every means in their power to promote measures for its solution. I hope that I have said something useful, and that the noble Lord may think tit to ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
6.26 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for his characteristically charming speech. Even from my extremist point of view he has been more accommodating than I had expected t and if he has been, as he said, "a brick wall," he has left one or two cracks and crannies in the wall. I thank also every other noble Lord who has taken part in the debate. I have found much interest in what they have said, even though very few agreed with me. I fully agree with what other speakers have said—and obviously I ought to have said it myself—that if the speed limit is ever going to be enforced the restricted areas should certainly be revised. It is no good passing laws unless the public feel there is not some injustice lurking beneath them. Lord Merthyr made that point in our last debate and I wholeheartedly agree with it. I note also what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said—he has sent me a note saying that he had to leave the Chamber. It is a point of view which I believe is shared by other noble Lords: that it is not really a matter of stricter enforcement of the speed limit. The noble Lord really does not like the speed limit at all. Well, my Lords, if Lord Lucas of Chilworth is ever Minister of Transport—as I suppose he might well be in a future Labour Government—I hope he will abolish the speed limit, because if it is not going to be effectively enforced and if the Minister does not approve of it, it had better be abolished.
The only other point on which I would comment is what almost every other speaker has mentioned, some with great force,

587
concerning the low percentage of accidents in which, according to police statistics, speed is the major factor. I feel the gravest doubts about all statistics and particularly about those. Before the war I was chairman of a body known as the Road Accident Emergency Council. It was formed largely of trade unionists in an attempt to represent the ordinary citizen in this matter, as distinct from the motoring organisations, which represented the car owners, and the pedestrians organisations, which represented pedestrians. We studied the matter to the best of our ability and formed grave doubts on this particular subject. We were constantly told that speed was not a major
588
factor in the causing of accidents. But whilst a car may have been doing 50 miles an hour just before the accident, and at the moment which caused the misjudgment out of which the accident would spring, at the moment of impact it might not be travelling at more than 10 m.p.h. And so it seemed to us that very often speed was a much greater contributory factor than was allowed. However, the noble Lord has dealt with the various suggestions and I thank him for having done so. I beg, leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers by leave withdrawn.
House adjourned at half past six o'clock.