Lords Sitting of 16 February 1955

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

  THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER
  William Derrick Lindsay, Lord Bishop of Manchester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
  The Marquess of Abercorn (D. Abercorn)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TEA PRICES
2.40 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will initiate a campaign to encourage electors to drink less tea and thus force a reduction in its price.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are naturally concerned about the price of tea, but they do not feel that it would be proper for them, under conditions of freedom, to offer advice on the amounts which consumers should use. Your Lordships will have noted that there has been considerable publicity in the Press about the desirability of using tea more economically, and readers will no doubt have taken note of it.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, relating to the last sentence of his reply, will the noble Earl approach his right honourable friend the First Lord of the Treasury and ask him to issue a Minute to all public Departments after Ash Wednesday next to stop having "elevenses" and drinking tea?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should hesitate to interfere with a tradition of the Civil Service which has been going on for a great deal longer than I have been in existence.

PROTECTION OF POST OFFICE MAIL
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in safeguarding the mails during the past year.]
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, since our debate on this important subject a year ago, I am glad to say that there has been a further fall in our losses. Out of a total of 350 million bags carried in 1954, 483 were lost, as compared with 720 in the previous year. There were also very considerable falls in the numbers of registered letters and parcels lost during the same period. In fact, the number of bags lost is now one-third of what it was just after the war, and the number of registered letters and parcels lost about one-half.
In spite of these improvements, I must stress, as I have done before, that there is no winning or final shot in matters of this kind. However good our dispositions may be, no one can foresee what our losses may be in the future, and we most certainly cannot allow ourselves to relax for a moment. We have to fight not only to maintain but also to improve on these figures, but I think your Lordships will agree with me that they are at least encouraging. In saying this, I should like to congratulate the staff on what is, in fact, largely their achievement. With so many millions of letters and packets travelling every day on every main and branch railway line in the country and over every road and by-road, this result could have been achieved only by the efforts of the whole of our staff, working in their different capacities and at every level. I should like also to thank and congratulate the police for their great help in ensuring the security of the mails. The number of arrests and successful prosecutions has undoubtedly had a great deterrent effect on those contemplating offences against the mail.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his reply: I am sure that all your Lordships will be gratified at the improvement in

99
the situation about which he has told us. I wonder whether he could be a little more specific with regard to the losses of registered packets and say what the figures are, and whether the decline has been steady over the intervening period.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, may I ask that he will associate noble Lords on this side with his congratulations to the Post Office staff on their achievements in the past year?
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, noble Lords opposite have always been consistently helpful in discussing these matters, and I do indeed thank them. With regard to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, as to specific figures for registered letters and parcels, I will not give your Lordships all the figures since 1945, but in 1945–46 the number was 18,000; in 1947–48 it was 15,000; it came down in 1950–51 to 9,000, and it is now just over 7,000.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I would again thank the noble Earl, and say that I am sure your Lordships would all like your best wishes conveyed to the staff of the Post Office, with congratulations upon that success.

SHELD-DUCK ON CUXHAVEN
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the destruction of sheld-duck on the Cuxhaven bombing range, and on the measures proposed in future to avoid endangering this species.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY): My Lords, this bombing range was selected with the co-operation and agreement of the German Federal Government to take the place of Heligoland which was used for bombing training until 1951. It is located on sandbanks off the North-West Coast of Germany, the target area being about five miles from the shore. It was first used for bombing training
100
in the autumn of 1953. The sheld-duck appear to use these sandbanks during their moulting season in July and August. The duck are flightless during this season which is thus the period of danger. Reports have been made from German sources of heavy destruction of duck during the moulting season of 1954, the first such season when bombing has taken place. There are, however, other estimates throwing doubt on the number of duck reported as destroyed.
As a result of discussions which I have had with the Chairman of the British Section of the International Committee for Bird Preservation, new arrangements will be made for the use of the range during the next moulting season. Only practice bombs will be dropped containing only a small charge to set off a smoke marker, which will mean that there will be no blast effect. The Royal Air Force will co-operate with ornithologists under arrangements to be made with the British Section of the International Committee, to inspect the range before and after bombing has taken place to establish its effect on the sheld-duck. By these measures, there is every hope that in the future the species will be able to moult without being seriously molested.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, in thanking the noble and gallant Lord for his statement, I think I can speak for ornithologists, not only in this country but on the Continent as well, when I say that we give a warm welcome to the assurance he has given us. We are all extremely grateful for the co-operation which the Royal Air Force have shown in this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, representing the Society for the Preservation of Fauna, may I add my sincere thanks for the interest and help which the Air Ministry have given us in this matter.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lord, may I add an expression of gratitude from these Benches for the continued solicitude of Her Majesty's Government in the cause of wild birds?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I am grateful to noble Lords for their remarks.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 34 be considered in order to its being dispensed with on Tuesday next for the purpose of giving the Cocos Islands Bill precedence over the other Orders of the Day.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

AIR POLLUTION
2.50 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR rose to call attention to the Final Report of the Beaver Committee on Air Pollution (Cmd. 9322); to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now able to make a statement on the recommendations contained in the Report; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I placed this Motion on the Order Paper early in December with a twofold purpose. I had read the Report, and was anxious to bring it to the notice of Her Majesty's Government; I also wished to provide an opportunity for a number of noble Lords who have shown a keen and active interest in the problem raised in this Report, and who have oftentimes contributed worthily in this House, to express their views. I was disappointed, when I saw this afternoon's list of speakers, to note that so many noble Lords who can speak with authority on this subject are not included on the list. I had expected a number of noble Lords from the Government Benches to speak, but for some reason or other their names are not on the list.
My first reason for putting down the Motion was to enable the Government to examine the Report and to decide their attitude towards the many valuable recommendations contained in it. There is fairly general agreement. I have been interested in reports for the last thirty years, and I cannot recall any which has received greater approval from all sections in the country than this one has. I certainly cannot remember a report upon which a Government has responded so quickly and so thoroughly to the recommendations contained in it. There is
102
general agreement, and that is the reason for the general acceptance. We would all express our appreciation for the fine services rendered by Sir Hugh Beaver and his Committee. Their recommendations were clear, definite and unambiguous. There is no misunderstanding what they are, or the reasons for them: they are all perfectly plain. I cannot at the moment think of a Report that is likely to be more helpful to solve the problem with which it dealt than this one. We have had the advantage of many previous reports; nevertheless, this is a most helpful Report.
It is generally agreed that this Committee have brought to light, not for the first time, a major social evil. There is no one to-day who would doubt that air pollution is a social evil and, being a social evil, should be dealt with immediately and drastically. The Committee have outlined various means of how to do so. They have not minimised the difficulties; they have not represented them to be bigger than they are, but they have shown them in the reality. It is a difficult problem, very technical and very delicate in some respects. The Committee emphasise that it is a big financial problem, and a costly one. Very heavy cost will be involved, but they have been wise to emphasise that to leave the problem alone would cost even more. They have not suggested that the cost of dealing with this problem will be so much, whereas leave it alone and it will be so much. They have indicated quite plainly that the cost will be very heavy. The Committee have also indicated that to leave this problem untouched would involve a heavier cost.
The Government and the country are left with a choice, not as to whether they will incur some expenditure (because that is unavoidable: they will incur it either way; they will incur it if they do not touch the problem, and they will incur it if they do touch the problem on the lines suggested by this Report) but of how to spend the money to the best advantage. More money is being spent now in leaving the problem alone than is suggested should be spent in dealing with it. What the Report says is that this expenditure is inevitable. No Government can avoid it, and no country can avoid it. The choice before us is, shall we spend the money in a way that may lessen, and possibly eradicate, the evil, or in a way

103
that will prolong the evil? I am pleased that there was an indication in another place that the choice had been made. The Government have come down on the side of expenditure of a fruitful kind, and not the type of expenditure that is at present going on in connection with this evil.
The difficulty of the problem need not be emphasised. Those who have been associated with it in certain parts of the country may be more conscious of it than others; they may suffer more from it, and are more anxious to see it removed. But all of us, wherever we may live, know that this is a serious problem. There is a small area of disagreement. What has been said—and I am not without sympathy for this attitude—is: "What is the use of talking now about legislation if you are not making full use of the present legislation? Are you quite satisfied that if you exercise all the administrative possibilities of the present legislation you need new legislation?"
That is a very sane attitude, and a right attitude. I am quite satisfied myself that if the maximum use were made of all the administrative possibilities of the present legislation, it would go a long way to deal with this evil. Like the Government, I also come down on the side that there is need for new legislation. I do not think the matter could be solved, no matter how diligent we were in seeing to it, with all the administrative possibilities which exist. Without new legislation of some kind, on the lines suggested by this Report, I do not think we could manage to deal with this problem as effectively as we ought to do. I believe that to-day's speeches will be interrogatory speeches. We shall want to ask what is going to be done in the interregnum. We have a few weeks, if not months, to wait before we see this promised legislation. In the meantime, much can and ought to be done, and we shall ask a few questions as to what is being done.
In case there may be those who are still doubtful whether this is a real social evil —there are still some doubters—and whether we ought to go out of our way in order to handle this problem, and who think that we shall fail in the attempt, may I give this example? Yesterday and Monday I made a journey into the South Wales valleys. During my journey on a bus I
104
was reading this Report. I stopped reading it and looked at each side of this narrow valley. In the valley there were a railway and a canal, and parallel to both were two narrow roads. As I went through one area of no more than two acres there were seven tall chimneys belching forth thick smoke. On the railway there were three railway engines in keen competition, trying to belch more smoke than the seven chimneys; and the hundreds of miners' houses were beating both in belching smoke into this narrow valley. On the roads there were scores of motor vehicles of every kind doing their bet to add to the air pollution. If there is any noble Lord—I do not think there would be—who has any doubts on this issue, I would suggest not only that he should read the Beaver Report but, something far more valuable, that he should make a journey through some of these South Wales valleys, so well known to my noble friend Lord Hall who will be speaking later. I know of the evidence given to-day that London suffers. London does suffer, as does Manchester. I should be delighted if the new Bishop could find it possible to make his maiden speech to-day, because he could speak with authority on what Manchester suffers; but I know that it is not customary for Bishops to make their maiden speeches on the day of their arrival. Those valleys in South Wales, however, cannot get away from this problem.
There is the problem, and I hope I need not spend any time trying to convince anybody that we ought to deal with it on the lines of this Report. I admire the Chairman of this Committee very greatly. Chairmen sometimes have a tendency, when they have produced a Report, to say. "There it is: the Government have got it, and that is all right." But not this Chairman. He is here, there and everywhere, speaking. He is seeing to it that his child does not die in infancy. He has been in various parts of the country, speaking with that wisdom which he possesses to such a large degree. There are those of us who did not realise that when he was made Chairman. Here, may I say that it is a compliment to those Ministers who decided to appoint this Committee. They appointed a very good Committee and a first-class Chairman. That Chairman is doing his best to see to it that the infant they brought into existence does not die in infancy.
As I suggested, I have quite a number of questions to ask. This is one of those cases where one cannot possibly avoid asking questions—questions on the administration side, what can be done administratively, and questions with regard to the prospect of legislation. I know how difficult it is for a Minister to have the answers ready if he does not receive notice, so I took it upon myself to give notice of the questions I shall be asking. I will begin with the financial aspect, which is particularly difficult. I read the Report, as I say, with the utmost care. I found that in paragraph 29, at page 12, reference is made to the existing loan scheme "for approved fuel-saving projects in industry." The Committee suggest that that scheme
"should be extended forthwith to include projects directed specifically to secure the reduction of air pollution."
That extension would require no legislation. I shall be pleased if the noble Earl who is to reply can give us the latest information regarding this matter, which was referred to in another place on the Second Reading of the Clean Air Bill.
But there is also the domestic aspect. Here is a real financial problem—I am not sure that this is not the most difficult aspect of the whole problem. It involves interfering in thousands of houses, the conversion of thousands of grates and the use of more expensive fuel—at a time when most of these people are finding it difficult to make ends meet. If you add to their cost, the position will become even more difficult for them. I realise how difficult it is for the Government and local authorities to evolve some financial scheme that would ease this burden to these tenants. I see that in paragraphs 86 and 87, at page 25, of the Report, this point is dealt with, as one would expect, very well, fully and helpfully. Indications are given that it may be possible to reduce the cost.
In first thinking about this conversion, and the use of more expensive fuel than ordinary fuel, one wonders how far it is possible to advance, especially with compulsory powers dealing with tenants in such houses. Paragraph 87 says—and I like this:
"We believe that it is only by positive measures of the kind we have outlined, combining compulsion to stop producing smoke with financial help in providing the means to do so, that a real advance can be made towards abolishing smoke from domestic chimneys."
106
I should like to ask, because here is the crux of the question, about the supply of smokeless fuel. I have heard some pessimistic forecasts by those associated with the N.C.B., but I have recently heard some far more optimistic—and, in my view, far too optimistic—forecasts. I feel that we ought to be fair with the country. Are we going to find the necessary appliances to make the conversion of these grates during the period specified in the Report? Also, are we going to find the necessary smokeless fuels to replace the old type of fuel? I hope the Minister will be able to help us on this issue.
I want to ask a number of questions and I can give my references in the Report. First of all, I should like to ask: Pending legislation, what, if any, administrative action is it proposed to take? In the Report, in paragraph 53, reference is made, somewhat critically, I agree, to a promising and substantially cheaper process for dealing with the sulphur in the flue gases of large power stations. This was said to be, after a number of years of consideration, on the point of large-scale trials. I ask: what is the position to-day? In Appendix III, paragraph 12, the Report lays considerable stress on the amount of research that is necessary to give us the information on which we can deal with the gaseous pollutants. Paragraph 12 recalls that, as long ago as March, 1954, the Committee submitted some interim recommendations. Cannot we be told to-day what has happened as a result of those preliminary recommendations? I will not ask the Minister to discuss in detail all the references in paragraph 13 in Appendix III, which deals with matters on which further research is required. Twelve references are made of an important kind. Will the noble Earl disclose, to the extent he can, what the Government intend doing on each of those twelve references?
Then in paragraphs 35, 42, 78 and 84 of the Report, reference is made to the preparation of standards by the British Standards Institution in regard to such matters as appliances and fuels, and to a code of practice for good stoking. I am fully aware that the British Standards Institution is an independent body but I have not the slightest doubt that the Government have considerable influence and could ascertain what their attitude is.

107
I should be pleased to know how far the noble Earl can help us to-day.
There is another question regarding new power stations—on this, I refer to paragraph 55. The Report specifically recommends that new power stations, unless located well away from population, should install flue gas washing. That is a very difficult matter; it is extremely technical. I want to ask the Minister, who can do that without further legislation, what is being done regarding these stations. I have only one more question at the moment. Regarding the railways, what is being done to eliminate or reduce smoke while coal-fired locomotives are still used? In paragraph 62, we have a very strong recommendation from the Committee. I should like to ask what is being done to secure the replacement of these locomotives by diesel locomotives, and also whether the Government have approached the Railways Executive on this issue and asked for an early report?
One thing that was not mentioned in another place during the debate, the Report of which I read carefully, was the creation of a Clean Air Council. I assume that this will be included in the Government's Bill, but I should like to know. No doubt the most pleasing feature of the debate in another place was the speech of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. He gave us a very helpful speech indeed, but there were passages which caused me a little uneasiness. I noticed one in the second paragraph of Column 1490 of Hansard [Volume 536, No. 26] of February 4 of this year. I will read it:
"The implementation of the policy will, as honourable Members well know, have considerable repercussions upon the design of industrial plant and industrial re-equipment plans in general. It will extend the responsibilities of local authorities and entail the recruitment of a substantial number of technical staff and also their training, because some of the more technical people are rather rare birds. Quite serious problems are raised by the considerable expansion which would undoubtedly be involved. As for the prohibition of smoke from domestic chimneys, this will involve changes at the family fireside which, at first, may not be universally welcomed."
That paragraph caused me a little concern. I wondered whether it was a paragraph intended to over-emphasise the difficulties in order to allow, at a later date, for the use of some such words as
108
"Owing to unavoidable difficulties, there has to be a great delay."
I was reassured, however, when I found, later on, that the Minister did say there would be no unavoidable delay. I hope he has the same meaning for the word "unavoidable" as I have. Then he went on to say (Col. 1492):
"Whether the Bill will get through all the stages this Session will largely depend on how far it proves to be an agreed Measure."
He is right: and it will depend on something else—on the length of this Session. That is a little uncertain. There is a gentleman for whom we all have a high regard and with whom the Minister of Housing and Local Government has some family connections. It may be that he could get to know, quietly and privately, how soon we can get this Bill through this Session. Perhaps he could get advice from his relative as to when we could introduce it; otherwise, it may be too late.
It was the last sentence of the Minister in another place which rather interested me. He said (Col. 1492):
"Honourable Members have to choose between a small bird in the hand and a bigger bird in the bush, and I have no doubt that they will choose wisely."
That made me wonder whether it is a wise thing in all circumstances to release the bird you have got because there is one in the bush which you cannot see. You have no idea how big it is, or whether it is a better bird than the one you have, yet you release the one you have got. The other place took the advice of the Minister and released the bird, and they are now waiting to see what is in the bush; it may be a bigger bird, but I am not after only a bigger bird, I am after a better bird. I agree that to put their faith in the promise of the Government was a good thing, and I hope, and your Lordships will all agree with me, that that faith in that promise will not have been misplaced. I beg to move for Papers.
3.11 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to what has been said by the noble Lord who has just sat down, and I am sure all of us, on both sides of the House, are anxious that the main recommendations of the Beaver Committee should be implemented as far as possible and, I would say, as quickly

109
as possible. The noble Lord has said that the Report has brought to light a major social evil. To a certain extent, I think that is true; but this evil has been going on for a very long time, and we have had reference to it on many occasions during the last few centuries. I was intrigued to notice from a debate in another place that in the days of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth I the Company of Brewers were singled out for the greatest blame for air pollution. I trust that is not so today. Perhaps one of the two noble Lords in the House engaged in these matters may be able to enlighten us.
There is no doubt that the dangers of air pollution came to a head as a result of the great London fog of 1952, when I believe as many as 4,000 lives were lost in the area of Greater London, and which resulted in the establishment of the Beaver Committee. Then, only recently, we had the incident on Sunday, January 16 of this year, when at midday a dense cloud of smoke engulfed central London and even caused, I believe, alarm amongst some of the inhabitants. But, apart from danger to life, I would agree with the noble Lord opposite, that perhaps the most important consideration is the losses which occur to the nation through smoke. I believe that the total loss has been estimated at something like the very large figure of £250 million per year. This figure can be divided up into direct and indirect losses, and under direct losses I would include such items as excess repairs, repainting of buildings, damage to stores of wholesalers and retailers and stores of a perishable nature. Also the additional lighting required in streets represents a very large figure; and last, but not least, there are the extra medical services. Under the heading of indirect losses, I would mention transport losses owing to delay and congestion arising from fogs in our major cities, and the loss of time in industrial and commercial establishments from illness caused by smoke pollution of the atmosphere.
It is also true that our taking this matter in hand will be of considerable assistance to the coal industry, and we may save something like, I believe, 9 million tons of coal per year. It is interesting to note that in each of the three years since 1952, we have produced only the same quantity of coal, namely, 224 million tons a year, and therefore it seems that our coal production is more
110
or less static. On the other hand, coal consumption last year rose by nearly 7 million tons. Therefore anything we can do now to save coal would be of great advantage to the nation. I have been astonished when looking at the efficiency figures of some of the different industries which use coal. I find that the most outstanding one is the brick industry. I believe the highest yield is 44·7 tons of bricks for the consumption of one ton of coal, whereas the lowest yield is 4·8 tons of bricks for the consumption of one ton of coal. What a difference in efficiency! Surely it is high time we did all that is possible to improve the efficiency of industry in the burning of coal. I think it is true to say that the poorest grade of coal may be burned in an industrial boiler without the emission of dark smoke, provided there is proper equipment, and I suggest that we offer every encouragement to industry to adopt modern methods, and that we also, if necessary, enforce them.
With regard to the prohibition of smoke from domestic chimneys, I suggest that this matter should be handled very carefully indeed. It is, of course, essential that we carry the people with us on any legislation that may be introduced to make changes in the family grate. I feel that local authorities will have to be in a position to make grants to householders in order that the charges in fire grates may in fact be made. I hope we may hear from Her Majesty's Government that they propose shortly to introduce the necessary Bill to implement the main recommendations of the Beaver Committee, after due consultation with industry and other parties concerned.
3.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, your Lordships, I know, want to get on to the next business on the Order Paper, and I will try to follow the good example of the noble Lord who has just sat down and make an equally brief speech. I am sure noble Lords opposite will agree that the effectiveness that any action the Government may take against air pollution will depend upon co-operation with the local urban authorities and also with the population of our large towns and cities. The local authorities will have to work this Government Bill; they will be the administering authority under the Bill; they will have the responsibility of planning

111
and enforcing smoke abatement. It is therefore essential that the Bill should take full account of the views of local authorities. I hope that whatever the Government may decide to put into it will be decided after full consultation with those authorities and, so far as possible, with their agreement and support. I cannot speak for any of the London authorities, still less for all of them, but I believe I know what many of them think about the Beaver Committee's Report and what they would like to see in the Bill. They welcome the practical line taken in the Report which offers for the first time a practical remedy for one of the worst evils of London life, and they would like the Report's proposals to have the force of law at the earliest possible moment. They are glad of the Government's promise to introduce a Bill during this Session.
Perhaps I may comment from the London point of view on three of the proposals recommended in the Beaver Committee's Report. The first of these proposals relates to a suggested change in the machinery of local government in the Greater London area. The Report endorses a suggestion which I think, speaking from memory, was made by my noble friend, Lord Haden-Guest, when the matter of air pollution was last discussed in your Lordships' House, a suggestion that a special arrangement should be made to co-ordinate the work of the local authorities in the Greater London area. What I think is needed is a new body, a joint committee for Greater London, to represent all the authorities concerned with this problem. We may be perfectly certain that London will never be free from smoke and fog until effective control has been established over the whole area. It is no good at all to get merely isolated boroughs with smokeless zones or smoke controlled areas under the provisions of the promised Bill.
As my second point, may I mention one recommendation which I think would cause a good deal of difficulty and trouble in London? The Report suggests, in paragraph 69, that local authorities should:
"make their new housing estates smokeless by requiring the occupiers, as a condition of tenancy, to use only smokeless fuels in the appliances with which they are provided."
112
There are, I think, two serious objections to this proposal, from the point of view of the tenants of local authorities. In the first place, such a condition in a tenancy would discriminate against the tenants of local authorities, as compared with tenants who hold their leases from private landlords; and it would therefore be regarded as treating these people more harshly than the other large section of the community which does not live in flats or houses under leases from local authorities.
The second difficulty is that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to enforce such a condition. It is impossible to evict a family because it refuses to burn smokeless fuel. That would be a condition of a tenancy which it would be immensely troublesome and difficult to enforce, and it would cause a great deal of dissatisfaction. I sincerely hope that this is one recommendation that the Government will not put into the Bill. I think it would be most dangerous at the present time to try to use compulsion on householders in London. Surely the right course for housing authorities is to install grates that will burn smokeless fuel, instead of the old-fashioned grates that do not burn smokeless fuel. This has been done by the London County Council in all their postwar estates, and I believe they have converted something like 12,000 of the old-fashioned grates into the type that will burn smokeless fuel. The second thing, of course, is to encourage and persuade these families to use coke and other smokeless fuels instead of coal.
There arises out of the Report one other matter of special importance to London which I hope the Government will deal with in the Bill. As I said at the outset, the efficacy of legislation against pollution will depend not only on the local authorities but on the public—on the ordinary householder. I am quite certain that at present ordinary householders do not fully realise the noxious qualities of domestic coal. They like a cheerful bright coal fire on a cold winter's night—they are accustomed to it, and it will take a great deal of persuasion to get them to change their habit. There is nothing more difficult than to change a deep-rooted habit, whatever it may be, and for that reason, if people are to come into line with what is obviously desirable

113
on grounds of public policy, we shall have to contemplate a long and intensive campaign of re-education. Indeed, the Report recognises this fact when it says—here I again quote:
"There is continuous propaganda and education to be carried on."
The Report does not say who is to carry on this propaganda; it does not say who is to be the educational agency.
The Report speaks of a Clean Air Council. As my noble friend rightly pointed out, this was a subject which was not discussed in another place, but it is clear from the recommendation in the Report that the job of this Council would be to stimulate research and to report to Parliament on the progress of the clean air campaign. The Beaver Committee did not regard this body as one that should be given a nation-wide propagandist function. That being so, I hope that when the Government draft this Bill they will either give the Clean Air Council the additional duty of explaining to the public the evils of pollution and the means of preventing them, or (and this is another way of doing the same thing: a way which I personally should prefer) authorise public authorities to spend much larger sums of money on publicity for clean air campaigns. I think that such clean air campaigns are needed to bring home to the public the importance of clean air, and to emphasise the fact that clean air is just as important as road safety. I feel certain that if these facts are brought before the minds of ordinary people, and if they are given a reasonable opportunity to do their civic duty in all our towns and large cities, then they will respond and accept this public responsibility.
3.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, this afternoon we are not dealing with a new problem; this is a problem which has existed from the first day that this nation decided to take coal as its national fuel. Indeed, for 150 years the notice of the public has been called to the continued pollution of the air we breathe and its serious effect, not only upon the health of the people, which is the more important, but upon the economy of the nation. Let us be quite frank about it: this nation has been rather spoiled. We have been misusing coal, for the reason that it has been cheap and abundant. But
114
we are now arriving at the time when the production and use of coal has become a real problem. One of the difficulties is that we are regarded by most coal-using countries of the world as the biggest coal wasters in the world. Last year, in an international journal, I saw that we were described in that way.
The Report has brought us right up against real problems, not only that of dealing with air pollution caused by the burning of coal, gas and oil, but also that of the scarcity of coal. These are clearly set out in the valuable Report which is now before your Lordships. I wish to join with my noble friends Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor and Lord Listowel in giving credit to Sir Hugh Beaver and his Committee for the excellent work which was done in order to produce such an impressive Report. As has already been said, the Report was much discussed a short time ago in an important non-Party debate in another place. I must say that it is a long time since I have read such convincing speeches by honourable Members, and particularly the speech which was made by the honourable Member for Kidderminster.
I have no doubt that your Lordships, like myself, have read the Report and have been shocked at our inability to deal with such a menace to the health of the people and to the nation's economy. Of the twenty eminent persons who served both on the Committee and as assessors, four were highly qualified medical men. They reported that
"whilst the scientific evidence about the effects of air pollution on human health is incomplete, enough is known to make it abundantly clear that it is injurious to both physical and mental health. It fosters disease and can cause death. … There is a clear association between pollution and the incidence of bronchitis"
and other similar ailments. The statistics which we have in this connection are really frightening. I have a cutting from the British Medical Journal of the early part of last year. The medical man who wrote this article is of the same opinion as the four doctors who served upon the Beaver Committee and who acted as assessors of the effect of air pollution upon chronic bronchitis and bronchitis generally. It is brought out here that no fewer than 30,000 persons died from chronic bronchitis in 1950 and that the

115
incidence of death through bronchitis in this country is higher than in any other country in the world.
A table which I have before me gives figures of the death rate from bronchitis per 100,000 of the population in different countries in the world in 1950. They were, England and Wales, 65; Belgium, 28; South Africa (White) 15; Germany, 10; France, 6; United States of America, 2; Denmark, 1. Is it realised that in this country in 1953 no fewer than 16½ million working days were lost as a result of bronchitis and chronic bronchitis? There has been much criticism of the 2½ million working days lost last year through industrial disputes; but in one year more working days were lost through this disease. I will not say that this has been caused altogether by air pollution, but pollution is a factor. In eight years we lost fewer working days through industrial disputes than were lost in one year as a result of the causes which are brought out in this Report. My noble friend, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, was quite right when he referred to his visit to the Welsh valleys. I can speak from experience because I am a product of one of those valleys. My health is not too bad, although if I had to declare an interest in that I was suffering from a certain disease no doubt noble Lords would be able to guess that, when I have to consult my doctor, it is for the same kind of trouble; but fortunately I am still able to get along.
Air pollution is a very serious matter and for these reasons alone something ought to be done to deal with this question. I have before me a letter which was sent to one of the Members of Parliament who took part in the debate in another place. It is from a very eminent surgeon of Harley Street, who wrote:
"It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the alarming increase in the incidence of cancer of the lung is associated with the fouling of the atmosphere by smoke, exhaust fumes and the offensive and deadly eructations of gas works, power stations, and so on. There are more than twice as many victims of cancer of the lung in the towns, as in the country."
particularly those who are employed in gas works. This has been going on under our very noses and with our knowledge for over a century.
116
Not only does air pollution as it occurs in this country to-day do untold harm to human health and happiness; there is also a prodigal waste of our nation's resources. The problem is now a serious economic one. My noble friends have referred to the cost of air pollution. The Report has brought out that it costs no less than £250 million a year in the damage it does to houses and in other ways, details of which are set out in the Report. Noble Lords would, I am sure, like to see what those ways are. This £250 million does not include the value of fuel lost through incomplete combustion—one of the main causes of smoke—estimated, as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has said, to cost from £25 million to £50 million a year, representing an annual waste of coal of possibly 10 million tons. The nation cannot afford to waste 10 million tons of coal at the present time; and, from what I know of the wastage which goes on, that figure is a minimum. An estimate is that 20 million or 30 million tons of coal are lost as a result of the old-fashioned equipment which is used by some industrial firms.
The national coal position is critical. As has already been said, for the last three years output has been static. What is not realised is that, to make up the 224 million tons output of last year, 11 million tons was opencast coal, a form of mining that ought to be brought to an end; but, because of what one might regard as the dearth of deep-mine coal or lack of production in the pits, we have to continue a procedure we had expected to carry on during only the war period; we have to continue opencast coal production with all the consequences which it involves. We know, to our cost, that last year we imported no less than 3 million tons of coal at a cost of £17 million, and it has now become a regular habit for this country, which always had a coal export market—in some years we exported up to 50 million tons—to import coal. For the first three months of this year we are expected to import another 2 million tons to supplement our own home production. This is serious from the angle of the balance of payments.
It is not realised, perhaps, that fuel oils of all kinds—petroleum motor spirit and so on—last year cost us £312 million to import. On imported fuel—oil and

117
coal—we thus spend no less than £329 million. There is now no excuse for any industrial firms not replacing their old and inefficient equipment by new equipment, which will prevent the wastage of these millions of tons of coal, and at the same time prevent much of the air pollution. No excuse can be made by such industrialists. In the promised legislation the Government should take powers to deal with this matter, for many miners are cynical concerning the plea for more production when this wastage of coal continues. It is not to our credit that we should be tarred with the brush of being the biggest coal wasters in the world.
There is no disagreement with the recommendations of this Committee, and we welcome the announcement made by the Minister in another place that the Government will frame and introduce a comprehensive measure, including the financial provisions needed to make it effective. The Bill, we understand, will follow the general lines of the recommendations of the Beaver Committee, and it will be introduced during the present Session. We welcome the Minister's statement and, as my noble friend, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, has said, so far as we are concerned, if the Bill is based upon the recommendations of the Report we will give every facility needed for passing it through all its stages. In their Report the Committee indicated that the first attack to deal with this air pollution should be directed at the black areas. In those black areas there are some 7 million households, and the amount of coal used is about 19 million tons—that is, half of the domestic coal used in this country. And these black areas really contain the districts wherein are found coal fields and also the very heavy industries of this country. It is intended that the utmost possible should be done to make black areas clean areas during the course of the next ten or fifteen years.
One aspect of the Report, particularly when it is dealing with this problem, is that it has not given as much attention as it should have given to the question of the replacement of raw coal for burning by smokeless fuel. I have read with great care Appendix XI of the Report. That Appendix was written by a distinguished fuel technologist who was a member of the Beaver Committee—Dr. G. E. Foxwell. He has written a valuable
118
memorandum which deals with this important matter. It points to the fact that there is a real scarcity of smokeless fuel in this country. On page 70, Dr. Foxwell deals with the position in a table—it is Table III. He says that bituminous coal to be displaced in these black areas amounts to 19 million tons. Solid smokeless fuel to assist in the displacement of that 19 million tons—fuel which they ought to have—he puts at 15·2 million tons. But solid smokeless fuels, transferable and new production by 1958, is put at less than 4 million tons. That is all the smokeless fuel there is to deal with this problem of displacement of something like 19 million tons of bituminous coal, leaving a gap of something between 11 million and 12 million tons of coal.
Inquiries have been made of the various fuel-using and producing industries about the prospects, and (this again is on page 70) this is what is said of the attitude of the British Electricity Authority with regard to supplying additional electricity:
"The replacement of house coal for continuous room heating by electricity from coal-fired power stations would materially increase the national demand for coal … but there is an absolute shortage of coal of all types; consequently, if only for this reason, it does not appear to be nationally desirable to stimulate the use for space heating of electricity derived from fuel-fired stations."
I welcome the announcement made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House yesterday in relation to this matter, and indeed it has received a welcome everywhere. It really means that there is a new Industrial Revolution. We have now a product which is likely to take the place of coal, and if we can, during the course of the next ten years, switch the electricity generating industry over from coal—not entirely, but to some extent—to nuclear power, we shall, it is suggested, save at least 40 million tons of coal a year. More than that, I think this is one of the solutions for dealing with the problem of air pollution.
It is no use looking to the National Coal Board for, on page 71, it is said:
"The National Coal Board do not expect to be able to give any appreciable assistance through the increased production of natural smokeless fuels. Such assistance as can be forecast has already been taken into account in Tables I and II."
Tables I and II are the tables to which I have already referred. Then it is stated

119
that no assistance is likely to come from coke. With regard to the hard smokeless fuel, "Phurnacite," it is said:
"Little further production of 'Phurnacite' other than that now in train can be foreseen because the market for this specialised product at present prices seems to be nearing saturation. …"
And this eminent technologist towards the end of the Appendix says:
"The conclusion from these investigations is, therefore, that while there are modest prospects of increasing the supply of solid smokeless fuels by certain of these established processes, the total quantity provided would fall a long way short of the quantity required to bridge the gap shown in Table III."
Dr. Foxwell was a little optimistic in the last paragraph of his memorandum, because he said that it will not be easy, but the possibility is that we shall be able to carry this out in the distant future. I hope that the Government will take notice of this, because it is no use framing new legislation unless there is a sufficient supply of smokeless fuel to take the place of the coal which is now used.
Let me give a case in point. Of the 19 million tons of coal which are used for domestic purposes in the black areas, over 5 million tons is free coal—concessionary coal given to miners who are employed in the pits. That represents 25 per cent. of it. The miners are allowed by their agreement to have a ton of coal—in my day it was a ton a month, but at the present time I think it has been reduced by agreement to something like a ton every two months. Are we going to ask the miners to dispense with their concessionary or free coal for the purpose of meeting a problem of this kind? They will want to know what is going to take its place. What is as important, they will want to know what the price is going to be. That is one thing of which the National Coal Board has to take some notice. I would say to the noble Earl that before there is any interference with concessionary or free coal in the black areas the National Union of Mineworkers will have to be consulted, otherwise there will be trouble. There should be on offer sufficient smokeless fuel to meet the demand, and if there is a supply on hand at a reasonable price I have no doubt that the people who are living in the black areas will readily respond and assist in every way.
120
I went to a small display of smokeless fuel and appliances at Charing Cross, which gave a good demonstration of the types of fuel and grates which have to be used. I saw "Phurnacite," "Coalite" and all kinds of coke—a good display. But one thing was missing—the price of these smokeless fuels. I inquired of one of the attendants and was told that in London a ton of "Phurnacite" costs £10 7s. The cost where I live is about £10 15s. a ton. It is no use hiding from the public the cost of these fuels while inducing them to put new equipment into their homes, because then they discover that it is almost impossible to get at a reasonable price the fuels which should take the place of coal. When the consumer has to pay £10 15s. a ton for "Phurnacite," it is no wonder that, according to this Report, the Coal Board say that the market for that fuel has become saturated. It has become saturated because of its high price. "Coalite" costs £9 2s. a ton, half as much again as coal. There is scarcely a person who has been used to a coal fire who would complain if he could get smokeless fuel at the same price as coal, but when he has to pay half as much or twice as much for smokeless fuel as for coal, that creates a problem which has to be faced.
I am pleased to see from the recommendations that it is intended to deal with spoil banks and tips. One has only to go into the coalfields and see the spoil banks, some of which have been smoking for years, to realise that this is something which is difficult to prevent. It is no good blaming the National Coal Board because a certain amount of coal was buried in these tips and has caught fire. It is impossible to dig down, sometimes fifty, sixty or seventy yards, to the source of the trouble; but something ought to be done to prevent these spoil banks from blowing up into the sky an abundance of smoke. I am pleased to know that my noble friend Lord Burden is satisfied that the reorganisation of the railways would make a great contribution to smoke abatement, and it should be carried through with all speed. I am not being critical; I want to bring out these points because I do not desire any Government to legislate without having all the facts before them. If people are given an opportunity of having smokeless fuel at a reasonable price, they will respond, but they cannot buy smokeless fuels at the

121
cost at which it is supplied at the present time. I have begged the National Coal Board to deal with these points. That is the only way in which we shall get the use of smokeless fuel and bring about the changes we all want and which are to be the subject of legislation soon to be placed before us.
Much could be said about the increasing use of oil fuel. There is four times as much sulphur dioxide in oil content as there is in coal content, and the increasing use of oil fuel is only going to add to the difficulties unless it is treated before use. I have referred to some of the difficulties which must arise should the changes proposed in the Report be adopted, but I want to assure the Minister that any legislation based upon the recommendations of the Committee will receive our full support. I hope the Minister will not regard what I have said as criticism. I have only tried to show some of the difficulties about which the Government ought to know in considering legislation.
3.58 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor for raising this question, and we all join with him in congratulating the Beaver Committee on an excellent job of work. I am sure, too, that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Sheffield will agree with me when I say it is possible any day to stand on a hill on the outskirts of Sheffield and see a pall of smoke hanging over the Don Valley. He will agree with me, further, when I say that the Pennines are grimed and fouled by industrial smoke from adjacent towns. I believe that the leading industrialists in Sheffield, and in other places, would be willing to cooperate in any real effort to abate this terrible nuisance.
In addition to the smoke from factories, we have to consider the smoke produced by domestic users. The problem here is not only to overcome the consumer resistance, due to the high cost of smokeless fuel—a matter to which my noble friend Lord Hall has made reference—but also, I am informed, the fact that, even with the smokeless fuels available, owing to the low margins allowed by the National Coal Board for delivery it is unprofitable and uneconomic for coal merchants to push the sale of smokeless fuel. That is a
122
factor which ought to be taken into account.
Coming back to the Report, paragraphs 113 to 120 deal with the administration of the statutory provisions for the control of air pollution. In the opinion of the Committee, the main responsibility for administering these provisions should continue to rest with local authorities. If the recommendations of the Committee are put into effect, as the Government have promised, local authorities will have considerably increased powers, and on them will fall a major part of the work of eliminating air pollution. Local authorities are anxious and willing to accept these responsibilities. Indeed, the Association of Municipal Corporations object to local authorities being deprived of the responsibility for controlling certain industrial processes which the Beaver Committee suggest should be transferred to the Alkali Inspectorate of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
Clearly, if the objective set by the Committee, to reduce smoke in all heavily populated areas by something of the order of 80 per cent. in ten to fifteen years, is to be achieved, local authorities must be able to play their part to the full; and to do that they must have adequate trained staff to tackle the job. At the present moment there is a serious shortage of sanitary inspectors, the officers whose particular duty it is to deal with pollution. I am informed that in England and Wales there are more than 500 vacant positions. This shortage is rapidly becoming critical, especially in industrial areas, and I venture to suggest to your Lordships that unless adequate inducements are quickly provided to attract the required number of men into this important branch of the public health service, not only will the campaign against the evil of air pollution be frustrated but the health of the nation in other directions will be seriously jeopardised. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to take note of this alarming situation, and to see to it that prompt and effective steps are taken to ensure that local authorities—on whom, I am glad to note, the Beaver Committee indicate the responsibility should rest—have fully trained officers and sanitary inspectors to deal with the new duties which will devolve on them in this clean air campaign.
4.3 p.m.
LORD GLYN: My Lords, I should like to intervene in this debate for a moment or two to say a few words in regard to smoke emitted from locomotives, especially in shunting yards. It is, I am sure, within your Lordships knowledge that the Transport Commission are to alter the present shunting system so as to use diesel locomotives, so far as possible. I happen to know that the Transport Commission are well aware of this problem of the emission of smoke, and every effort is being made to solve it. There is a reference in paragraph 107 of the Report to what can be done. It seems to me that Parliament must recognise that locomotives in this country have used coal because we in this country were able to produce it at a cheaper price than any other country in the world; and it takes a long time to alter the system. But the Transport Commission are well aware of this problem, and where local authorities may declare an area to be a smokeless area they will be willing to do everything that they can to eliminate the smoke from shunting yards by the building of diesel locomotives to take the place of steam locomotives. I hope your Lordships will realise that this cannot be done at once, and that it must take a little time to switch over. I hope that in any legislation that is contemplated, it will be recognised that the Transport Commission cannot do any more than they are doing in giving orders for oil fuel shunting engines to replace those using coal.
4.5 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I am moved to intervene in this debate by a remark made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, when he said that we are the greatest coal wasters in this country. If we are going to try to get smokeless fuel, it is not compatible with tearing the coal out by saws and various drill methods in order to produce a lot of dust. I rather doubt whether we can get smokeless fuel at the right price by these methods. I am merely saying this to make sure that we find the right way of doing this. No one in your Lordships' House would disagree about getting rid of smoke pollution. We are selling our anthracite and our hard coal abroad, because there is a good market; and even then I doubt whether the dust that we get from it is smokeless. All I want to see is that we get the three forms of "R": the right fuel, at the
124
right price, for the right working people. I want to see that we do not have a vast number of grates installed for smokeless fuel until suitable fuel is available at the right cost. I am in agreement with the noble Lord opposite who said something about this; but I disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, who said that industrialists put out a lot of smoke from their chimneys.
VISCOUNT HALL: I was referring to the Report, which brings out the point that inefficient boilers cause more smoke than those which are efficient.
LORD WALERAN: Then I am in disagreement with the Report and with the noble Viscount, because I do not think anyone running an efficient factory wants to lose a lot of heat units from his chimney. What happens is that a great deal of smoke comes out of bad, low-cost fuel.
4.8 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I feel that somebody from these Benches should associate himself with what has been said in appreciation of the Beaver Report, and should express gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for their prompt response to that Report. I have spent most of my life in places which are well in advance in the matter of air pollution—Glasgow, Tyneside, London and Sheffield—and I feel keenly on this subject, because I realise the bad effect of smoke on many aspects of human life, as well as on buildings. Three or four weeks ago, on a Sunday morning—one of those sunny clear Sunday mornings that we do have occasionally—I was driving from Sheffield to Rotherham. As I came through the industrial area, one chimney of a large and extremely prosperous undertaking was belching into the air a lot of smoke, heavily charged with sulphur and virtually obliterating from sight a district where people have to live. It is not the first time I have been in that district where it is extremely difficult to see across the road. Last Wednesday I was in the Ruhr, in Germany, which is now having an extremely prosperous time, from the industrial point of view; and, speaking generally, the atmosphere was as clear as we sometimes associate with the rural areas of this country. I think we ought to take note of that fact.

125
One point I wish to make is this. During all my time in these smoke-laden atmospheres I have tried to do my small best to kindle an enthusiasm that would lead to some kind of action, both from my industrial friends and from local authorities. I am bound to say that the response so far has not been remarkable for its enthusiasm. Therefore, when the Government produce their Bill, if, as it must, it lays responsibility upon the local authorities, I hope they will not allow some local authorities merely to lapse into sympathetic inactivity. The other point I would make is that in my view the things which have been said in this discussion about smokeless fuel are extremely important. I am a burner of "Phurnacite" in my own study, and I am always aghast when I have to pay the bill. It is no use saying that it is desirable to have grates which burn only smokeless fuel unless the cost of smokeless fuel can be brought within the means of an average number of people in this country.
4.13 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I do not wish to stress again the frightful waste which is involved in air pollution at the present time. These buildings are an illustration of it, because the repair of the corrosion of the stone work has already cost far more than the original total cost of erecting the whole Palace of Westminster. That gives an illustration of the kind of losses which are involved. But there are other losses which are not included in the computations of economic loss which have been made. There is all the extra labour and wear and tear upon the housewife who is continually struggling against the influx of grit and soot into her house. In central London, if she brushes her steps one morning they are the next morning covered with a coat of grit upon which one can feel one's shoes gritting. That also involves a serious waste of labour and energy which could be avoided.
Then there is the aspect to which my noble friend Lord Hall referred—the injury to health; the invalidity and the premature deaths which are caused by the absence of sunlight, by the pollution of the atmosphere and the breathing in of all the noxious and poisonous constituents which are in it. Certainly we were all shocked in 1952 when a few days of fog
126
in London caused 4,000 extra deaths. But tens of thousands of deaths are being caused every year in this country by atmospheric pollution. The Report which we are considering to-day is, after all, only directed, or for the most part directed, to one particular aspect of atmospheric pollution. As the authors of the Report themselves say, it is directed towards reducing visible pollution of the atmosphere —that is to say, the particles of grit and soot which are seen by the eye in the form of smoke. But, in addition, there are all the gaseous pollutants with which the atmosphere is filled and to which, up to the present moment, not sufficient research and attention has been devoted.
It is well known that there are oxides of sulphur contained in smoke-laden atmospheres, and there are other constituents which are detrimental. Coal contains anything up to 175 parts per million of fluorine, and fluorine compounds get into the air and are capable of causing injury. Indeed, in certain industrial districts where there are also industrial processes which use fluorine compounds the effects are so noticeable that cattle which graze in the area are actually killed by fluorine poisoning. In addition, there are the pollutions which come into the air from vehicles, whether driven by petrol or diesel oil. There is not the slightest doubt that extremely dangerous substances are emitted in both cases. Petrol is treated with lead compounds for certain purposes, and the lead which is given off in the petrol fumes is poisonous. I understand that in recent times it is also treated with certain fluorine compounds, and again a toxic substance is being delivered into the air. The same applies to the fumes which come from diesel engines and which, as I quoted in another connection not very long ago, in the opinion of one of the greatest world authorities upon cancer have been specified as cancer-producing substances.
This Report really does not begin to deal with that phase of the problem at all. Certainly we want to eliminate the smoke and try to get the atmosphere clearer; and that is in itself, for the economic reasons which my noble friend Lord Hall pointed out, a far from easy problem. If you are going to attack this matter by using more electricity as a source of domestic heating, you have a

127
more expensive form of heating. More than that, as the Beaver Report quite correctly points out, you have to burn 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. more coal in order to obtain the same space heating from electricity as you could have from burning bituminous coal directly. If electric power stations are going to be sited as they are at the present time, in populous centres, the total amount of poisonous gases which are emitted into the atmosphere will actually be increased. Look at the picture of London at the present moment. As you go down this river valley you see gigantic power stations at Fulham, at Lots Road, at Battersea, at Bankside, at Greenwich and at Deptford. Look at the picture which was drawn in the Report of the Ministry of Health upon the fog of December, 1952, and see how it is concentrated right along the valley of the river in the line of these gigantic power stations, coupled, of course, with a number of extremely large gasworks and a certain number of industrial establishments.
But, in the latter respect, remember that London is in a far happier position than are quite a number of industrial towns, because London, although a great centre of industry, is not a centre of heavy industry, such as smelting and other enterprises of that kind, which throw far more dirt and poison into the atmosphere than the normal kind of industrial enterprise here. But, even so, if that kind of thing were to be accentuated, the conditions in London and elsewhere would certainly become a great deal worse. Although the atmosphere might, to the naked eye, appear to be clearer, it would nevertheless have become more poisonous. These are extremely serious considerations which I hope will receive the attention of the Government. I hope that, in framing their legislation, they will take some steps at any rate to try to cope with this aspect of the problem, which may, from the human point of view, from the point of view of health, be more serious than the economic losses which are involved in our present wasteful consumption of power.
It is proposed, for example, by the British Transport Commission—and this is in line with the Report of the Beaver Committee—to replace coal-burning locomotives by diesel locomotives. I should be very unhappy to live anywhere in the
128
neighbourhood of a railway line upon which a number of these locomotives were travelling, because there is not the slightest doubt that they will give off poisonous vapours, even if they are not visible to the naked eye. I hope, therefore, that this point will receive consideration and, so far as the scientific knowledge is now available, will be dealt with; and so far as scientific knowledge is still lacking, I hope that it will be the subject of earnest and intensive research.
4.24 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I suppose it is hardly surprising that soon after the publication of the Beaver Committee's Report so many of your Lordships should have been anxious to take part in the discussion to-day. It is clear that noble Lords are anxious to know from the Government the views which they hold, having regard to the recommendations contained in this Report. I do not wish to delay the House longer than I need this afternoon, but I feel that I must deal adequately with the whole of this subject and reply as best I can to the many questions which have been addressed to me.
The House will recall that the Beaver Committee were appointed in July, 1953, and although they published an Interim Report, the Final Report was received only in November last year. I venture to think—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor—that never, perhaps, has any Report received such a song of praise from all and sundry, or been more universally acclaimed. Here, let me add my humble tribute and congratulations to Sir Hugh Beaver, and also to his many colleagues, upon their excellent work and the admirable Report which they produced.
I have no doubt that the public hoped that the Government would take the lead at a very early date and, in spite of the very heavy expense involved, declare their full acceptance of a clean air policy. As noble Lords are aware, that we have done. I would repeat this afternoon that we accept the Committee's Report in principle, and intend to introduce legislation to bring into force those main features of the recommendations with which I shall deal in the course of my observations. I have no doubt that noble Lords in all parts of the House, when

129
that legislation reaches us, will give us all the help and assistance they can to bring it into effect as quickly as possible.
The majority of your Lordships who take an interest in this subject will be aware that shortly after the publication of the Report we entered into discussion with local authorities and industry. Much detailed work has already been done, and the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Federation of British Industry have both offered their co-operation. I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, will appreciate that, at a later stage, it will be necessary for fuller consultation to take place with industry, with local authorities, with trade unions and with other interests, so that the statutory provisions which will need to be framed will in the end be agreed by all the respective parties.
I think it was said that the Beaver Committee estimated that the smoke, grit, dust and noxious gases emitted into the air from domestic buildings and industrial plants caused damage to property and other harmful effects, to the tune of £250 million a year. That figure did not include the waste of heat value which results from allowing excessive smoke (about which I shall say more in the course of my remarks), and which alone was estimated by the Committee at between £25 million and £50 million a year. Nor did it take into account injury to health: but it seems pretty certain that if the density of smoke and the impurities of the air could be reduced by as much as 80 per cent. in the next ten to fifteen years, then the health of the people, so far as certain diseases are concerned, ought to be improved. Here let me say at once that I do not dispute in any way whatever the observations which the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, made on the subject of illness and the loss of time in industrial employment. It is, of course, a very heavy loss to industry. The more the Government and medical science can do to relieve it, the better it will be for everyone concerned.
The noble Viscount also said that air pollution was no new problem. He is, of course, perfectly right, and he will be well aware that for some years now Parliament has been granting powers to local authorities from time to time to enable them to establish smokeless zones
130
throughout the country. In fact, twenty-one authorities in England, Scotland and Wales, now possess such powers; so I do not think it would be inaccurate to say that Parliament has for some years sanctioned a gradual programme which, over a period of time, would have lessened the pollution of the air, quite apart from the action which we propose to take now. The very fact that the Government have accepted the Committee's Report in principle will mean that during the next ten to fifteen years clean air policy will gradually become more effective, although let us not forget, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that, to achieve this, local authorities will require a number of additional technical staffs; but it ought to be possible to recruit and train them in the allotted time.
I pass from that point to remind the House of the main recommendations contained in the Committee's Report. The recommendations, taken together, would, in the opinion of the Committee, reduce the density of smoke in heavily populated areas by 80 per cent. over the next fifteen years. I think noble Lords will agree with me at once that if this were the result, it would be an enormous contribution to the solution, indeed, perhaps the final solution, of the problem of air pollution.
What are these recommendations? I suggest to the House that they are six in number. First, it was suggested that, subject to certain exceptions, the emission of dark smoke should be prohibited by law. Secondly, it was suggested that industries which installed new plant, burning pulverised fuel or large amounts of solid fuel, should take all possible steps to prevent the emission of grit and dust. Thirdly, it was suggested that local authorities should be given powers to designate smokeless areas, subject, of course, to confirmation by the Government. Fourthly, it was proposed that the main duty of inspection and enforcement of the Acts should be placed upon the shoulders of the local authority. Fifthly, it was suggested that householders in these designated smokeless areas should be obliged to convert their domestic grates to burn smokeless fuel and that a portion of the conversion costs should be met by the Exchequer and by local authorities. Finally, it was proposed that the Government

131
loan scheme for approved fuel-saving equipment in industry should be extended to include equipment installed to reduce air pollution.
LORD TEYNHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Could he be more specific and say whether those six recommendations will, in fact, be embodied in the Bill?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes. Her Majesty's Government have accepted these proposals; others which I have not mentioned to-day will require further decision and about those I cannot make any announcement to-day. Nevertheless, with regard to these six, I can assure the noble Lord that they will all be incorporated in the Bill when it is presented to Parliament.
Noble Lords will realise at once—and, indeed, much was said on the subject by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall—that the success of this general scheme rests upon our ability to produce sufficient quantities of smokeless fuel. The fact that the introduction of the scheme is gradual will give time for the production of different kinds of smokeless fuels—I will turn to that aspect in a few moments. There is one way, however, in which assistance can be given at once. It is the policy of my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, during the next few years, to convert the heating of public buildings from coke, which is in itself a smokeless fuel, to oil. Although I should not like to guarantee the exact amount of saving of coke, it is estimated that about 2½ million tons are used each year in public buildings for heating purposes. The quantity saved by converting the heating installations to oil could in future be used in the smokeless areas. Incidentally, let me also remind your Lordships, as indeed the noble Viscount Lord Hall, did, that at Charing Cross Underground station there is an excellent exhibition of fires which burn smokeless fuel. I would recommend noble Lords who are interested in this subject to pay a visit to that exhibition.
The Beaver Report points out that, though much can be done to reduce industrial smoke, if the scheme is to be really successful, domestic chimneys also must play their full part. It is estimated, I should imagine correctly, that 50 per cent. of all the smoke in towns is caused
132
by domestic fires. If an improvement in any area is to be achieved, then many of the present domestic fire grates must be re-adapted or altered. In passing, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, that that process of altering or re-adapting them will be gradual, but I understand that it is estimated that up to two million domestic appliances of the kind required can be made available every year. That should certainly go some considerable way to help and assist the conversion.
I am prepared to admit at once that householders will need some help to meet the cost. It will, at the same time, be no small part of the task to educate the public to adopt a new and effective method which, while producing greater heat for the amount of fuel used, will assist the carrying out of a clean air policy. It was the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who said that we must carry the people with us. It was the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who said that we must re-educate the people; and, indeed, the right reverend Prelate has himself been engaged in persuading industrial magnates in the North of England to do what they can about industrial smoke. Dare I make one other suggestion, and express the hope that Members of another place might use their unrivalled chances to explain to the electorate in their own constituencies the benefits which will be achieved by the co-operation of the domestic consumer?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Before the noble Earl leaves that point, can he say anything about the Clean Air Council?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I will come to the Clean Air Council a little later, if I may. I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that the Committee estimated that the waste of heat value resulting from allowing excessive smoke was between £25 million and £50 million a year. This represents a loss of 10 million tons of coal, or something like 5 per cent. of the output of the country. How wise and right the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, was when he said that we cannot afford this! I should have no difficulty in agreeing with the noble Viscount that all we can do to save that quantity of fuel will assist our balance of payments and our trade.
The noble Viscount also mentioned the difficulties in the black areas (here I return to the subject of smokeless fuel)

133
of replacing the 19 million tons of bituminous coal, which I think I am right in saying is at present used by some seven million householders. I am advised it is estimated that the extra quantities of the various smokeless fuels required will gradually become available. I agree with the noble Viscount that it is a matter which must be constantly watched. The difficulties which are mentioned in Appendix XI and which I need not go into in greater detail have not been overlooked. My right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power is well aware of this problem, for indeed he realises, as I think does the noble Viscount, that on its solution depends the final success of the Committee's proposals. I hope that in due course we may have sufficient quantities of smokeless fuel which can be used when this conversion of the domestic grate takes place. The noble Viscount was perfectly correct in saying that some of it is expensive, but I am told that there are other fuels of a smokeless nature which cost about the same to use as household coal at the present time, but there is not a sufficient quantity of them. One of them is "Rexco," another is the ordinary plain gas fuel, and there are one or two others, in addition to "Phurnacite," which is the most expensive one and which, as I understand it, is used as a rule only in closed stoves.
Before going on, may I make one further point? I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power to the observations which the noble Viscount made about the Coal Board. I have not much doubt that he will take into consideration the observations which noble Lords have made in the course of today's debate. I will also direct my right honourable friend's attention to the question of free coal for miners; but I have not much doubt that free coal would not be done away with until consultations and conversations had taken place and some agreement had been reached. I am also advised (in this I think the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, will bear me out) that if the conversion of the domestic fire-grates in fact takes place and the new appliances ultimately come to be adopted, the new fuel which will take the place of coal may, ton for ton, be more expensive, but, even so, in terms of useful heat, coke will be no more expensive than the coal now so
134
wastefully consumed. I have no doubt that, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, if the Government, local authorities, trade unions, fuel-producing industries and private industry all work closely together, a clean air policy will gradually come into being for the benefit of this and future generations.
It is mentioned in the Report that sulphur dioxide can have a deleterious effect upon health and upon our buildings. I should like to go into this point in some detail, because the Report certainly contains a good deal of what the noble Lord particularly asked me in his opening remarks. It was suggested by the Committee that the most efficient method of removing sulphur dioxide from flue gases should be adopted at all new power stations to be built in or near heavily populated areas. My right honourable friend is quite prepared and ready to accept that in principle, but there are a number of technical and economic difficulties to be overcome. The Beaver Report referred to a number of outstanding technical problems and recommended that research and development work should be undertaken or accelerated. They are all enumerated in paragraph 13 of Appendix III. As the noble Lord rightly said, these recommendations do not, in fact require any legislation at all. I understand from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research that the Central Electricity Authority are putting up a pilot scheme in the Midlands to carry out large-scale trials into a cheaper process of reducing sulphur pollution. This process produces sulphate ammonia as an end product and is referred to in Paragraph 53 of the Report. The plant which is to be erected will produce 50 million cubic feet of flue gases per day, which renders this an experiment on a satisfactory and adequate scale.
The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in conjunction with the Home Office have already made the necessary arrangements for making more frequent and intensified measurements of all kinds of pollution in the London area and in several provincial towns. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, will readily understand, some of the most useful information that they require cannot, in the nature of things, be obtained, until another smog is experienced. Nevertheless,

135
all those points which are mentioned in that Appendix, and indeed in the Interim Report of the Beaver Committee, are being followed up. For instance, various bodies in London have increased their recording instruments from eight to thirty, and more are being installed. The Fuel Research Station has installed twenty additional instruments in South West London as a temporary measure. The noble Lord will also remember that the Committee requested that there should be an intensification of research into reducing the amount of sulphur in fuel and the prevention of the release of sulphur into the air. As the noble Lord probably knows, many experiments have been made, but they have as yet not proved to be a great success. However, further experiments are being continually undertaken. Work is now going forward on the development of new and improved instruments for recording pollution. As regards the remainder of the items in this most important paragraph, the Atmospheric Pollution Research Committee has considered the recommendations in detail, and while steps are being taken to implement them, much of the work involves long-term research requiring more basic knowledge before the problems can finally be solved.
The noble Lord who moved this Motion also asked me about the preparation of standards by the British Standards Institution. From inquiries I have made, I understand that the Institution have set up committees on the questions of the measurement of grit in the atmosphere, smoke control, and smoke indicators. As regards the code of practice for good stoking (which is a most important matter), I can only hope that industry and the trade unions will have noted the Committee's remarks.
Finally, I turn to answer the question of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. It is true, as he says, that the Beaver Committee recommended the setting up of a
136
Clean Air Council, and that suggestion is now receiving the attention of Her Majesty's Government. The composition and the functions of such a Council will require very careful thought, and though I can say nothing definite now, it may be found that legislation will not, in the end, be the best method to institute it. I hope the noble Earl will not press me further on that point at the present time, as it is difficult and Her Majesty's Government are examining the matter very closely indeed. I regret having delayed the House so long, but I have, I think, dealt with all matters of major importance which have been raised this afternoon. Naturally I will convey to my right honourable friends principally concerned the views which have been expressed by noble Lords. I would only add, in conclusion, that I hope that when the Bill reaches your Lordships' House we may expect support from all sides to enable it to reach the Statute Book as rapidly as possible. It will be introduced without undue delay.
4.51 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, it only falls to me to thank all noble Lords who have intervened in this debate for their valuable contributions, and in particular to thank the Minister for his full and helpful reply. I have seldom listened to a more sympathetic reply to points put forward. I feel that the preliminary canter has been fully justified, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform the House that it has been arranged, through the usual channels, that we shall not sit after 7 o'clock to-morrow. We shall continue the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill probably on Tuesday next.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
4.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 3 [Application to pedal cyclists of provisions relating to reckless, dangerous and careless driving]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause:
"(4) It shall be an offence under this section for any person while riding a bicycle or a tricycle to carry or have affixed to such bicycle or tricycle any article or load which will interfere with the view of the road or with the proper control of that bicycle or tricycle."
The noble Lord said: We now come to review Clause 3 of this Bill, and, of all the clauses in the Bill, I think this best fits the noble Earl's description of "breaking new ground," because—apart front the fact that a few months ago, by a regulation, it became obligatory, for the first time, for cyclists to have any brakes—this is the first time since 1835 that cyclists have been made subject to the law. Now the cyclist is brought under the same provisions as the motorist in respect of reckless driving, dangerous driving and driving without due care and attention. I applaud this principle and I believe that noble Lords on all sides of the House will be very gratified that it has been introduced.
As I said on Second Reading, this will bring within the arm of the law approximately 12 million cyclists. While I believe the majority of the offences against road safety could properly be encompassed by this clause and the law relating to reckless or dangerous driving and driving without due care and attention, there are some that will not be so encompassed. There are some offences committed by cyclists, highly dangerous and greatly conducive to accident, which would not be picked up by the provisions of Clause 3. I have therefore put down this Amendment to direct the attention—and I hope the sympathetic attention—of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, to one which we see every day of our lives; that is, the cyclist who hampers himself, either by
138
carrying something or by having something attached to his cycle which prohibits him from having proper control over his machine.
I will cite one example: a man carrying something over his shoulder, such as a ladder, or carrying a bag. What does that cyclist do? He has to keep proper control by one hand. He has to steer the cycle, to use his brakes and to use his bell—all with one hand. What happens in an emergency? He generally comes off, perhaps with dire injuries to himself or to the person with whom he collides. There are also these trade cycles which are popular and are ridden, in many cases, by—not, perhaps, small boys, but at any rate not mature individuals. These cycles are loaded with a basket in front which prevents the rider from having a proper view of the road and are accident-prone from the time the cyclist gets on them. I feel, therefore, that in any Bill which sets out to rectify those things which I and all noble Lords have in mind, and to make the roads of this country safer for every type of user, it is common sense that we should insert a provision such as I have upon the Order Paper.
Noble Lords may tell me that this point is covered by the clause. I shall be happy to be told precisely where, as I have failed to find it. I want to give the police a chance, because we are going to put a terrific burden upon the police of this country. They are the only people who can enforce this law and any of these regulations under Clause 3 that will, in the future, affect cyclists. I feel that my Amendment would make things easier for them, because a cyclist will seldom be summoned for exceeding a speed limit—for carelessness, yes, but what kind of carelessness? For dangerous riding of a bicycle or for riding a bicycle without due care and attention. It may be said that the point of my Amendment is covered by this provision, but I should not have thought so. As this practice is very common, I should like the noble Earl to receive this Amendment sympathetically and thus to give the police a chance; because the Amendment does, I believe, pinpoint one of the main causes of accidents. Without further explanation of my reasons for putting down this Amendment, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
EARL HOWE: With much of what the noble Lord has just said I find myself in complete agreement; but I am not one of those who join in the hunt against cyclists as a whole, and I do not think much is gained thereby. But it seems to me that the enforcement of such an Amendment as the noble Lord has put forward is likely to lead to very great difficulties. The reason is this. There are countries overseas where cyclists carry number plates, but they do not do so in Great Britain. So how in the world would a policeman apprehend a cyclist who offended against this Amendment? There is no way of identifying a cyclist. If he passed a policeman, while committing an offence such as would be set up by the Amendment, the officer could not call or 'phone the next constable along the road telling him to "Pull up cyclist XYZ 123"—or whatever it might be. There would be no way of identifying the cyclist. That is why I cannot help wondering how this Amendment is going to work.
As we all know—at least, those of us who use the roads, and I think everyone in your Lordships' House does—a cyclist can be a nightmare. Nevertheless, I must say that, so far as my experience goes, only a very small percentage of cyclists do offend: the great majority of them try to handle their mounts reasonably. But if your Lordships could translate yourselves mentally, as it were, from the position of one riding in a nice, easily controlled vehicle, such as most of your Lordships probably use, into the position of a lorry driver in charge of a great big lorry, with a very heavy load, on the highway, you would probably take a very different view of the behaviour of the cyclist. In my humble judgment—and it is based on experience—while I agree largely with what Lord Lucas of Chilworth has said, unless it is possible to identify the cyclist offender this Amendment could not be operated. In any case, such a very small proportion of cyclists would be affected that I cannot see that this Amendment would get us much further. I hope I am wrong, but I think it would put the police in a position of great difficulty.
LORD HAMPTON: I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth (though it may well be that he has thought of it already), that there
140
are a great many people, such as window cleaners, for example, who possibly at the beginning of their careers cannot afford to buy one of those little sidecars on which we see many of them carrying their ladders. In such cases, the only way these window cleaners can get about with the equipment they need for their work is by carrying their ladders upon their cycles. I have also seen many people, who were evidently going to their allotments situated some distance away from their homes, riding bicycles and carrying a spade or shovel in their hands. I do not know whether the noble Lord would bar them from carrying a spade or a shovel, or if he would have the window cleaner stopped from carrying a ladder.
LORD WINSTER: I feel a little doubtful about this Amendment. To begin with, I have never liked creating new offences if it could possibly be avoided. What I should like to know is something about the number of accidents caused by cyclists carrying something in their hands or on their bicycles. In the course of my experience on the bench, I have never had such a case before me—a case in which an accident was attributed to a cyclist's carrying something. I feel that I should like to know a little more under that head before I could say that I would support the Amendment.
The other point very much in my mind is one which has been touched upon by the noble Lord who has just spoken. In the country, most certainly, rural workers of every description rely upon the bicycle for carrying the tools and the implements of their work from their homes, possibly long distances, to the places where they work. I think that considerable hardship might be inflicted on rural workers of that description if an Amendment such as this were carried. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that if this Amendment were carried it would throw an additional duty upon the police. My own opinion is that already far too much of the time and attention of the police is taken up by questions of motor traffic and motor accidents, and I should be very sorry to add to the work of the police in this respect unless it is clearly demonstrated that a great many accidents are in fact caused by cyclists carrying something on their bicycles.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): I should like to say, very humbly, that I am delighted to find that one clause at least of this Bill finds favour in the eyes of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I am glad that he approves of this one—at least, so far as it goes. He said that he wanted to direct attention, as indeed he has done, to an aspect of cycling. I think it is right that he should have done so. But I must confess that I should have thought that any cyclist riding in a way which was highly conducive to an accident, in that he was absolutely prevented from having proper control of his machine, would indubitably be open to prosecution for either careless or dangerous riding. I do not think there is any doubt about that at all.
I feel, though, it would be rather difficult to prove in court that the load which he had on his machine interfered with his view of the road. That, I think, would be rather difficult to establish. My feeling is that, in the steps which we have already taken in this matter, we have gone quite a long way, and I should hesitate to go any further. I find myself in full agreement with what Lord Winster said. It does not relieve the burden on the police to multiply unduly the different types of offence. I think that we have already covered the point with which Lord Lucas of Chilworth has dealt. I trust that I have relieved the noble Lord's mind, and that he realises that this type of case would be fully covered by the clause. In view of what I have said, I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Amendment has achieved precisely the object which I wanted it to achieve. The noble Earl has specifically stated into which category this offence would fall. That is what I wanted to establish. If I may give a piece of information for which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked, I would mention a figure which is given in Table XXXIX of the Ministry of Transport's statistics. If one can put these cyclists into the category of those described as "losing control," and I think one can do that in the case of a person carrying a load which prevents him from having proper control of a cycle, one finds that the number of cyclists involved in accidents which the
142
police attributed to that cause was 3,149. A strange thing about that figure is—I do not want to stress this aspect too much, as I have no desire to make a debating point—that it is something like 900 fewer than the number of accidents which led to the Government's proposal to set up hundreds of test stations to prevent accidents caused by defective vehicles. The number of accidents attributed to defective vehicles was, I think, 3,994, and the number of accidents due to cyclists losing control was 3,140.
Compared with my Amendment to Clause 1, this is a modest one, but I think I can claim that I have had regard to all relevant considerations. In this instance, I have taken into consideration the case of the window-cleaner. I do not mind if the window-cleaner has a little sidecar on his machine on which to carry his ladders. I hope that the same argument which has been used against the Amendment will not be used later when the question of people driving cars dangerously is being discussed. I hope it will not be said in mitigation that they are doing it in the course of their occupation as they have to earn their living by driving cars. My Amendment, as I have said, has served its purpose. It has clarified the position, and it is on the record as the Government's indication to the appropriate authorities that this kind of riding by cyclists will come under one or other of the subsections of this clause. With that, I ask for permission to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.10 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause:
"(4) Where by virtue of this section a person under the age of fifteen years is found guilty of an offence, the court shall order that any fine or other punishment imposed shall be paid or suffered by the parent or guardian of that person instead of by that person:
Provided that no order may be made under this subsection without giving the parent or guardian an opportunity of being heard."
The noble Lord said: I now come to what I consider to be a very serious matter. Again, I put down the Amendment because I wanted to pinpoint a matter for your Lordships' attention. As I said just new, there are 12 million cyclists in this country, and I am given to understand that 3 million of them are

143
juveniles. It is pointed out clearly by the Ministry of Transport, in the statistics I have just quoted, that in 1952 10,000 child cyclists between the ages of five and fifteen were killed or injured on the roads—twice as many as child pedestrians. As reasonable people, can we consider a Bill that purports to make a contribution to the elimination of accidents without giving serious attention to this matter, which is fraught with horror?
In a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who made on this subject one of the most impressive speeches I have heard in your Lordships' House, I drew your Lordships' attention to a booklet, The Child and the Road, the result of a survey initiated by the Economic Research Council and carried out under the guidance of Professor Jones, of Leeds University, who also carried out a survey on the economic consequences of accidents for the Ministry of Transport some years ago. The survey on children was published by the Child Safety Crusade Trust on behalf of the National Federation of Women's Institutes. In this comprehensive study, the statistics underline the fact that the accident risk rate of child cyclists between five and fifteen years of age rises to catastrophic proportions. In concert, with others, I have given this matter careful thought. There is a substantial body of people who say that children should be prohibited from riding cycles on the road. I cannot agree with that point of view, because the child cyclists of to-day are the vehicle drivers of tomorrow, and they must have an initiation at some stage. The Bill places the same penalties on cyclists as on motorists, but the fact is lost sight of that while a motorist does not start on his or her career until eighteen, and the motor cyclists until sixteen, a child cyclist starts at the age of three.
The Women's Institutes, to whom this report was submitted, recommended by a large majority that no child should be allowed on a highway on a bicycle or tricycle unless he had received a certificate of competence, much the same as a driving test. I have asked myself, who is going to make this test? The police? I hesitate to put that burden upon them. The school teachers? I hesitate to put the burden on them. I have been driven to the conclusion that in this aspect of
144
the accident problem there is a high degree of parental responsibility. It is the responsibility of the parent or guardian to see that children do not take cycles on the road until there is a reasonable chance in all circumstances of their being, I will not say accident immune, but to some degree competent.
What happens in the average case? Little Willie or little Emily is going to be given a bicycle for a present. Mother or father says that they must make sure to buy one a bit too big, because little Willie will grow out of it in twelve months "and we cannot afford to buy another bicycle in twelve months' time." So the cycle is bought, and after twice round the garden the child is launched upon the road. The "little toddler" becomes the "little wobbler." He cannot reach the pedals and cannot control the bicycle and is the easiest possible prey for an accident. That is why the accident rate for cyclists from five to fifteen years of age is absolutely catastrophic. I put this Amendment down to draw your Lordships' attention to this problem and to see whether the Government can think of some way of bringing it home to parents that they have a heavy responsibility. I suppose that a child could be brought before a juvenile court for a misdemeanour under this Bill, as he could be for a misdemeanour under any other Statute, and I have sought to bring home the parents' responsibility by proposing that, if the offence is proved, the parent or guardian should suffer the penalty. Of course, I should be foolish to divide the House on a question such as this. I brought it forward in order to receive expressions of your Lordships' opinion. I feel that we should be lacking in our responsibility if we did not discuss this matter, because, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said, we are exploring fresh ground in order to try to cut down this appalling toll. With a casualty rate of 10,000 child cyclists a year, it would lie on my conscience if I did not bring this question before your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said he moved the Amendment to give noble Lords an opportunity to express

145
their opinions of the merits of the Amendment. If I may say so without offence, I think it is a very silly Amendment, both in substance and in drafting. The noble Lord said he had given careful thought to it. I do not think he did justice to his mental capacity when he put this proposal forward. Of course, we all want to stop accidents to adults and children, and we are shocked by the figures which we have to face as regards child accidents at the present time. But to say that the child's misdemeanour should be automatically the responsibility of the parent or guardian, irrespective of the circumstances, would be to take up an absurd position.
I can well remember the passionate pleas of noble Lords opposite on the Television Bill, that there should be no commercial television between the hours of five and seven, or whatever the hours were, because the children would be going to bed; and that the State must look after that position and not allow the parents to be responsible. Here we have the completely opposite position taken up, and the noble Lord suggests that automatically the parent or guardian should be responsible. It might well be, however, that the parent or guardian had nothing to do with the particular circumstances and was far away from any individual accident. The noble Lord then suggests that such "other punishment imposed shall be paid or suffered by the parent or guardian." He told us that the child might be arraigned in front of the juvenile court for misdemeanour. I am not conversant with the range of punishments allowed within the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts, but I believe that corporal punishment is one. Is the noble Lord saying here that the punishment, if it is corporal punishment, should be suffered by the parent or guardian? I feel that, both as regards the proposal of the Amendment and its drafting, the noble Lord should think again.
LORD MOYNE: if I might intervene for a moment, I suggest that the parent or guardian is liable for the fine, anyway. I think we are barking up the wrong tree.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Perhaps I might state the law as it stands at the moment—and I am sure it will greatly relieve the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, because it is not substantially different from what he seeks to make it.
146
The position is that under Section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, in the case of a child under fourteen the courts shall fine the parent or guardian. In the case of a young person between the ages of fourteen and seventeen, the court may, at its discretion, order the parent or guardian to pay a fine. In all cases, of course, the parent or guardian must be given the opportunity of being heard. The only effect of this Amendment would be to say that in the cases of children under fifteen, as opposed to under fourteen, the court should have no option but to impose a fine on the parent or guardian.
The only point I would make to the noble Lord is this. It would be a little anomalous, in regard to these offences, to make them quite different from the rest of the criminal law as it stands. Therefore I suggest that it would be wrong to change the law in this case. In any event, it does leave the court open to decide, with a boy of fourteen or fifteen, whether they should impose a fine personally and make him pay from his pocket money, or put it on to the parents. If the boy fails to pay the fine, the court may commit him to a remand home or require him to attend an Attendance Centre. I do not think there is any advantage in making a change in the law as it stands at the moment, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would withdraw the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Again, this Amendment has served the precise purpose that I wanted it to serve. I wanted a statement from the Government in the terms in which the noble Earl has made it. So my mental processes are not quite so foolish as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, wanted to make out. What I have put in this Amendment was already the law, and therefore, if my mental processes are wrong, then the law has been wrong all these years. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, would rather have waited until the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, had spoken. However, this Amendment has served the purpose I wanted it to serve, and it will, I hope, receive the widest publicity—which is what I want it to have—that we have a new form of juvenile offence. That is what it means: that for the first time a small child can be brought before the appropriate court, which I take it will be the juvenile court—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: —for riding a bicycle dangerously, recklessly or without due care and attention; and the parent, if a fine is imposed, will, I expect, have to pay, although the noble Earl says that the magistrates may impose a fine on the juvenile—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Over fourteen.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: But with children under fourteen the parent has got to pay. Therefore, the law, with that one slight alteration, is precisely what I have put down here. I hope that this will receive the widest publicity, and I am grateful to the noble Earl for making such a categorical statement. I think it will pinpoint what I wanted to pinpoint; that is, the parental responsibility in these cases. On that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
EARL JOWITT: I want to raise only one point with the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. Here we are setting out a number of offences, and, quite rightly, in this case, we are doing it by reference. Some of the sections of the Act of 1930 are very short, and we are amending them and imposing new penalties. In due course, when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, there will obviously be the question of whether there ought to be consolidation. I feel that these offences ought to be set out so that "he who runs may read" without the slightest difficulty what the law is, without having to refer back to two or three earlier Acts of Parliament. All I should like the noble and learned Viscount to say—and here I am sure he will be in agreement with me—is that it is desirable, subject, of course, to the exigencies of the Committee, that as soon as may be, when this Bill does become an Act of Parliament, he should consider whether the two Acts should not be consolidated, so that everybody may know plainly on looking at the one Act exactly what their obligations and liabilities are.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): May I say at once that I shall be very ready to consider that point. The noble and learned Earl
148
would not like me to go into prospective forms at the moment, and I shall content myself by saying this: that I share his views on the desirability of consolidation whenever possible. I am grateful for what he has said, and shall continue to be grateful if he will take every opportunity to remind your Lordships' House of the desirability of that course.
EARL HOWE: I was rather sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, when replying, did not say something with regard to the question of the numbering of cycles. How are the police going to operate this clause? There will be all these offences. How is the policeman going to take steps to enforce the law unless the machines carry numbers, as they do in certain other countries?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I said on Second Reading that there was no intention of registering bicycles. I think it is possible, with the present mobile police, to pick up cases which cannot be picked up by pedestrian police. I do not think it would be fair to regard the offences which we are putting into this clause as a dead letter. I believe it will have a real effect, and that in the great majority of cases the police will be in a position to see that the law is carried out.
EARL HOWE: It sounds to me very much like wishful thinking.
LORD WINSTER: May I ask the noble Earl whether any representations have been received from police authorities to the effect that the work of the police would be facilitated if bicyclists were compelled to carry numbers?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think I should have notice of that question, but I am not aware that any representations have been made.
EARL WINTERTON: If I may say so without any offence to the Minister who is dealing so admirably with this Bill, the real answer to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who, like me, has had real experience of this thing, is that the cyclists are the most powerful lobby in this country, even more powerful than the National Farmers' Union. Successive Governments, when they have been asked to deal with this and analogous questions, have invariably given the same reply as my noble friend. I am not blaming him, but that is the situation.
LORD GISBOROUGH: Is it not a fact that bicycles are numbered with the manufacturers' numbers, and that these could be used in many cases to trace owners?
Clause 3 agreed to.
5.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER VISCOUNT ESHER moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:
Cycle Tracks
". Where a cycle-track is provided, it shall be compulsory for cyclists to use it."
The noble Viscount said: I have been waiting for a great many years for an opportunity to move this Amendment, although it requires some courage to suggest putting this particular spoke into the cyclist's wheel. I know that the main claim of the cyclist is his right to use the Queen's highway and that I run some risk of being hit over the head with a bicycle pump for daring to controvert that idea. I hope I shall not be accused in this House of an attack upon liberty. Since I put down this Amendment I have received many letters about the rights of cyclists, but only a few about the duties of cyclists to the rest of the community. One man went so far as to say that the perambulators which stray on to the cycle-track are far more dangerous than the motors on the road. But, surely, in these days no mediaeval right can stand against the modern necessities of traffic control, and it is the business of every citizen to assist, at any sacrifice of ancient rights, in reducing the mortality on the roads.
What is the position? At great cost cycle-tracks have been made in various places, in order to remove pedal cyclists from the stream of fast cars. The money of the community has been spent, and a large number of cyclists refuse to use the tracks provided. This is so well known that in many places these expensive tracks are falling into disrepair. Surely that is an intolerable situation. In every direction we have to legislate about traffic and ignore ancient rights. Pedestrians are ordered about and told how to behave, and only the well-organised cyclist is immune. Why are we so afraid to grasp this nettle of injustice? In Holland, the value of cycle-tracks is established. Every road has a cycle-track and every cyclist uses it. No one will pretend that the Dutch are less free
150
or less sensible than we are. I am told that the secret lies in the voting power of the cyclists' union, and that no Government dares to offend them. If this is true, it adds another proof of the value of your Lordships' House which, having no votes to consider, can do what is best for the community without fear or favour.
I hope the Government will take their courage in both hands and agree to this Amendment. If they do, on the Report stage, with their co-operation, I propose to move an addition of penalties to this clause. If, on the other hand, the Government find specious reasons for refusing to accept the unassailable and logical justice of this clause—if they, like the cyclists, do not believe in the value of cycle-tracks—I propose to move on the Report stage the abolition of all cycle-tracks and the throwing of the space gained by that process into the road. The Government, surely, cannot want to have the worst of both worlds. Along Western Avenue a large length of road which should have four tracks has only two tracks, while on each side are largely unused cycle-tracks. Surely, your Lordships will agree that if the use of these cycle-tracks cannot, or should not, be made compulsory, we should have a proper four-track road instead. The present situation is obviously indefensible. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Esher.)
LORD ELTON: I should like to say a word in support of this admirable Amendment. I have never understood why cyclists do not flock gratefully and unanimously to these cycle-tracks, very much as citizens would flock into the air raid shelters on the outbreak of an air raid. But they do not. They continue to pedal unconcernedly along in the stream of high-speed traffic, even in the dangerous hour of dusk and with ice on the road. I think the noble Viscount who has moved this Amendment is right when he says that this insistence of cyclists on risking their own lives and inconveniencing other people derives from an understandable resentment at being deprived of freedom on the Queen's highway, on which they believe they have prior rights to motor traffic.

151
In that attitude, there are, I think, some analogies to the attitude, in the early days of the highway controversy, of many pedestrians who were very reluctant to give up privileges or to be ordered about in the interests of common safety. For a few years before the war I was chairman of a rather short-lived organisation, the Road Accidents Emergency Council, the whole object of which was to get the highway controversy out of this bedevilment by conflicting special interests. We wanted to represent the citizens, as distinct from the cyclist, the pedestrian or the motorist. As one who has frequently pleaded in your Lordships' House for further restrictions on motorists, I feel bound to say this evening that I believe that we shall never begin to solve the traffic problem as long as we think primarily of one class of road user. We have to think of the greatest safety of the greatest number. The greatest safety of the greatest number certainly requires that cyclists should use cycle-tracks. They persistently refuse to do so and I, for my part, wish the noble Viscount's Amendment a very favourable wind.
LORD STRATHCARRON: One of the reasons why cyclists do not like to use tracks may be because there are no vehicles to hang on to to get towed along the road. Seriously, however, I believe the reason why the cycle-tracks are not used more frequently is that cyclists feel that there is a danger, when crossing the road that intercepts the main road, or at a traffic light, in that the cycle track has to cross the other road and cannot remain a cycle-track entirely on, say, a by-pass.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising what he knows, and we all know, to be one of the most difficult questions which has perplexed Ministers of Transport ever since that Ministry was brought into being. I should like, if your Lordships will allow me, to sketch for a moment the background of this position, because I think it throws light on the problem which we have to face. In the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, subsection (1) of Section 29 empowered the Minister by order to prohibit the driving of vehicles of any class or description on any class of roads. That provision has always been interpreted as being limited to roads, and not to parts of roads. At any rate,
152
it commends itself as an interpretation of the law and the position is similar under Section 46 of the Act of 1930, which again deals with roads. In contradistinction to that, however, it is interesting to observe that Section 2 of the Special Roads Act, 1949, taken with the Third Schedule, contains provisions which would enable the use of cycle-tracks alongside special roads to be made compulsory; but, of course, the fact is that no special roads have been made. I have inflicted that statutory history upon your Lordships because I think it does pinpoint that important aspect of the matter as to whether the roads that are in existence to-day are really sufficient for your Lordships to put this direct restriction and compulsory order on cyclists.
The other point which I think the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment has well in his memory, because a smile of both knowledge and humour crossed his face as he dealt with a certain portion of his speech, if he will allow me to say so, is the fact that there was intense hostility from the cyclist community when these tracks were first made. They made the point which the noble mover made and which has been emphasised by my noble friend Lord Elton: that they had a claim to the Queen's highway as a whole. I think it is fair to say, and I am trying to express absolutely accurately the views that the Ministry of Transport have formed, that that hostility has been decreasing, although the use made of these tracks is not as great as one would have hoped. As a matter of interest, I have gone through the statements which various Ministers of Transport have made in various Governments over a long period of years, and it is fair to put it in this way: when these tracks were first put into operation, Ministers said that they would not make them compulsory; but as time went on they expressed the view that they hoped the use of the tracks could be made compulsory when better tracks came into operation.
It is with that background that one has to consider the practical problem today. I take the noble Viscount's own road—he mentioned Western Avenue—along which I have often driven. I agree with him, that the tracks are not used very much, though they are used; but I think the noble Viscount will agree with me that they are beaten by these bridges

153
for pedestrians on which one does not see a pedestrian from one year's end to the other—but that, as Mr. Kipling would say, is another story. I come back to the question of the use of the cycle-tracks. The noble Viscount will remember that there the cycles are used largely by those who are working in various factories near the road. I think that makes a difficult point. If one tries to be absolutely fair, and tries to envisage a factory emptying, one has to realise that there may be hundreds, certainly dozens, of men and girls coming out at one time. To put them all by compulsion on to the bicycle tracks of the size and shape that exist in Western Avenue would not, I think, be either useful or fair. A great advance in the construction of the tracks would be necessary before we could do that.
I also agree, respectfully, with the point which my noble friend made a short time ago, that the position at intersections presents a difficulty. The tracks do not maintain their special position: they have to cross the other roads, and that again is a difficulty of which cyclists can legitimately complain. There is another point (though the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment may think it more relevant to one of his alternative threatened actions on the Report stage), and that is that the state of cycle-tracks varies very greatly in different parts of the country and on different roads. It has to be admitted to-day that many cycle-tracks are not in first-class condition, or, as I indicated in the point I made a short time ago, they are not wide enough to take all the cycle traffic, especially at times such as the one I mentioned in regard to Western Avenue when the factories open and close.
I invite your Lordships to ask yourselves: is it right to make the use of these tracks compulsory, or is it not better to leave it as it is at the moment? After all, Rule 48 of the new Highway Code says:
"If there is an adequate cycle-track, use it."
I will not repeat to-day the interesting remarks that were made in the debate on the Highway Code which your Lordships had a short time ago. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will remember it well because he introduced it, in, if I may say so, a most interesting speech. But, in these circumstances, I ask your Lordships to consider it. The Highway
154
Code, which is directory and not mandatory, correctly expresses the emphasis that we ought to put on this matter at the present time. I will repeat the way in which the matter is put:
"If there is an adequate cycle-track, use it."
I think that is what we ought to indicate to cyclists at the present time.
I do not want to leave the matter there, however, because the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, has raised an interesting point, and your Lordships ought to look for a moment to the future. I believe that more cycle-tracks will be provided in the course of the development of the new and expanded roads programme. As your Lordships appreciate, their provision and maintenance are the responsibility of the highway authority, who will no doubt have regard to the volume of the cycle traffic in their area and the needs which there exist. As I indicated to your Lordships when I referred to the Special Roads Act, in contradistinction to the other Acts to which we have been referring more frequently in this debate, the principle of a separate use for tracks for cyclists can be said to have been laid down in the terms of the Special Roads Act and can be applied as soon as the special roads are constructed. Until then I do not think it would be desirable to have a "blanket" provision, such as is contained in the Amendment, making the use of cycle-tracks compulsory wherever they are, without regard to the traffic or the condition of the track.
I would ask your Lordships, therefore, while sharing the sympathy which has been expressed for the Amendment, on this occasion to take the view that at present this is a matter where compulsion should not be applied, and that the Highway Code direction to use "adequate" tracks is the right one. But, of course, as this expanding road programme comes into being, we must have this problem ever before us. When we see that there are tracks which will adequately deal with the traffic, then we should, if necessary, anticipate the Special Roads Act and give the Minister the necessary powers; but not at the moment with the tracks in the present state. Therefore I would ask my noble friend not to press this Amendment at this stage and, if he will do me the honour, to consider at more leisure what I have said. If he thinks there is any value in it, I hope he

155
will adjust his action on the Report stage to it. If he takes the other view, as he is perfectly entitled to do, he will no doubt act according to the lines he has indicated to the Committee.
VISCOUNT ESHER: I find the Lord Chancellor's speech very convincing, and no Liberal ever refused to adopt the idea of waiting to see what is going to happen. If, on the other hand, the Highway Code is disregarded by the almost political feeling of the cyclist against using these tracks, and if they fall into further disrepair because the authorities feel that they are not popular with the cyclists, and if their number is not increased on the new roads, then during the innumerable traffic Bills which will no doubt come before this House during the next ten years I shall move my Amendment again. Meanwhile, I have great pleasure in withdrawing it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4:
Duty of pedestrians to comply with traffic directions given by constables
4.—(1) Where a police constable in uniform is for the time being engaged in the regulation of vehicular traffic in a road, any person on foot who proceeds across or along the road in contravention of a direction to stop given by the constable, in the execution of his duty, either to persons on foot or to traffic generally shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
5.54 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved in subsection (1) to delete the word "constable" and insert the word "officer." The noble Lord said: May I have your Lordships' permission to speak on Amendments 25 to 30, because they are all in the same category and they are all tied up together? In short, what all those Amendments seek to do is to make the first half-dozen lines of Clause 4, subsection (1), read in this way:
"Where a police officer in uniform is engaged on police duty any person on foot who proceeds across or along the road in contravention of a direction to stop given by the officer in the execution of his duty shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding 20 or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding £50."
156
Here again in this clause we are breaking new ground. Again for the first time in this country we are bringing pedestrians under the direction of the police in an effort—and again I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, a laudable effort—to prevent accidents. What I want to do is to make this subsection more effective than it is, because as it is printed in the Bill at the present time it says that the only police officer having jurisdiction and authority to give an order to any pedestrian is:
"a police constable in uniform … for the time being engaged in the regulation of vehicular traffic in a road."
I want to direct your Lordships' attention to the problem we are trying to solve. It is a very big one, because according to the official statistics for 1952 there were somewhere in the region of 40,000-odd accidents in which pedestrians were regarded by the police as contributing to the accident. Practically the whole, within about 2,000, were caused by pedestrians acting in a manner which the clause as at present drafted will not, prevent. These are the headings, the contributory factors, whereby these pedestrians caused the accidents: Heedless of traffic, crossing road masked by stationary vehicles 8,997; heedless of traffic, crossing road not masked by stationary vehicles 12,260; heedless of traffic, walking or standing in road 2,507; heedless of traffic, playing in road 1,460—that, of course, relates to juveniles; heedless of traffic, stepping, walking or running off footpath or verge into road 16,479.
Probably not one of those accidents, I would suggest to your Lordships, occurred where a policeman was on point duty engaged in the regulation of traffic. As I know from personal experience when I was in the Ministry and the Chairman of the National Safety First Committee, one of the greatest factors in accidents is people who step into a road behind a vehicle which masks their view in a stretch of road where police are not controlling the traffic. I want to help, and I suggest to the Government that it will be far better to give every policeman engaged on police duty this power. I have used the words "police officer" because I thought there might be some legal point involved in using such descriptions as "constable" or "inspector." If there is not, call him what

157
you will. But let every police officer, whether constable, inspector or anything else, be able to say to a pedestrian whom he sees walking across the road, "Wait." Your Lordships all know the half-witted individuals who will not wait but must dash across the road, heedless of accidents to themselves.
As this clause is drafted at present, a pedestrian may say to a police officer, "You cannot interfere," because the policeman may not be engaged in directing traffic, but is standing on the footpath. I direct your Lordships' attention to Whitehall and to the crossing at Bridge Street. According to this clause, the only police officer who has any jurisdiction over the pedestrian is the police officer controlling the traffic; the police officer walking up Whitehall on his ordinary beat has no authority at all. My simple purpose is to give every police officer this authority. I am sure that he will exercise it only in accordance with the instructions given him by his chief constable.
I think I can carry the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, with me in this. Is it not far better for a police officer on duty on a crowded thoroughfare to have authority to say to a person, "Please stop and wait a moment until the road is clear"? I do not say that every policeman is going to take the name and address of every offending pedestrian, but he will have authority to coax people to use pedestrian crossings and not go across the road and, as I have pointed out, cause nearly 40,000 accidents. I would again stress that in these official statistics an accident is registered as an accident only where personal injury is suffered. If no personal injury is suffered, the accidents do not appear in the statistics. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. I am not at all tied to the wording. I thought perhaps there was a differentiation between a police constable and any other rank of officer. If the noble Lord will accept this Amendment, I think it will help: I think it will be a great persuasive force for the prevention of a huge number of accidents. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 12, leave out ("constable") and insert ("officer")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD WALERAN: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I have done this; I have been "the chap on the point." It is no
158
fun at all when you, see something happening. You just cannot leave your point. I was on point duty once near Shore-ditch Town Hall, at the corner of Kings-land Road and Hackney Road. There the traffic is quite substantial, and you cannot leave your point—or, if you do, there is an awful mess, as the traffic becomes blocked. If you leave your point you get into trouble with the desk sergeant on returning from duty. I think the Government ought at least to reconsider the wording of this clause. It should be extended to police officers on duty, in uniform, if you like; then they can co-operate in doing the job.
I will tell your Lordships of another case: it occurred many years ago, and I am rather ashamed to admit this. In Glasgow, we have a students', or hospitals', day. I was at the Royal Technical College and taking part on this day. We were allowed to do anything we liked, in order to collect for the hospitals, except interfere with the mounted policemen. So we took the policeman off the point at the corner of Sauchiehall Street and Renfrew Street; one of the chaps got the trams beautifully muddled up, we collected from everybody, and then put the poor fellow back again. It is a very difficult job to sort out the traffic once a constable has left his point. I think that is a fair simile. A constable cannot leave his point to deal with some-body who is committing an offence. The traffic gets "snarled up." The man is there to deal with the traffic; a colleague walking down the street should be able to deal with this sort of thing. It should be done by anyone on duty—if you like, in uniform. I think it would be well if the Government were to think over this matter.
LORD SALTOUN: I think the officer should certainly be in uniform, otherwise the pedestrian will not recognise him.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): I think we are all at one on the purpose of this clause and the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Let me, therefore, set his mind at rest on one or two points on which we can all agree. First of all, on the question of uniform: uniform is actually mentioned in the clause, so there is no difficulty about that. Second, on

159
the question of the word "constable" for which the noble Lord wishes to substitute "officer": let me put his mind at rest about that. It may have slipped the noble Lord's attention that every member of the police force is sworn in as a constable. There are few exceptions to this except in most senior ranks of the force. The Commissioner, his Deputy and Assistant Commissioners are not sworn in as constables; they are actually sworn in as Justices of the Peace. But as Sir John Nott-Bower is seldom nowadays on point duty the point is somewhat academic. The words "police officer" are popular ones; the word "constable" is both statutory and has authority at Common Law. I have inquired of the police what the difference is and they assure me that the words "police officer" are used only by people who have good manners or a guilty conscience. The words "police constable" are the correct term in this case—they include all the officers to whom the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, refers, I would remind him that Gilbert said, that the policeman's life was not a happy one when "constabulary duty," not "police officer duty," had to be done. So much for that.
I now turn to a rather more delicate question. I must say that I was impressed with the personal experiences of my noble friend Lord Waleran, and he would be a rash man who contradicted personal experience. What we are trying to do, however, is to give the police constable on duty, in the middle of the crossroads or in any position in which he is actually directing traffic, a power at law which quite a few of our citizens would be surprised to learn he does not already possess. We have, however, tried to limit these powers to what are essential. I could not help smiling to myself to hear noble Lords, who were yesterday reproving us for conferring too much power upon the police in regard to the question of obstruction to vehicles, now asking us to take more powers for the police.
If I understand noble Lords correctly, they are concerned at the position of a policeman who is not on point duty but who is walking on his beat. Even if he sees a mass of traffic and his colleague on point duty attempting to wrestle with it in the middle of the road, he has none of the powers of direction conferred by
160
this clause. Moreover, if I understand Lord Lucas of Chilworth's argument correctly, he even doubts whether the constable on the beat, not on vehicular point duty, can step up to the pedestrian and reprove him. I must confess that at the moment I am not clear about that point myself. I would therefore ask the noble Lord's permission to look at this question a little more carefully. One thing I must tell him at once is that I cannot accept his Amendment because it goes too far. In effect, it would give a policeman walking down a country lane, with no traffic for miles, power to give orders to pedestrians. I doubt whether that was in his mind at all. But I think I can carry the noble Lord with me when I say that it is undesirable to give the police any more powers than they really need, or, indeed, powers which they do not seek—that is the last thing we want to do. On the other hand, we must assure ourselves that the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, is dealt with by this clause; and at the moment I am not quite satisfied about that. I should like to look at the matter again more carefully. If I can assure the noble Lord that the point is met, I hope that he will be content to accept the clause. Perhaps on that understanding he will be good enough to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I would impress upon him that if he will study Table 40 of the Ministry of Transport statistics for 1950 he will see that 40,000 accidents which are contributed to by pedestrians occur right away from the policeman on point duty controlling the traffic. I want to stop that situation, and if the noble Lord will look at the point and meet me, I shall be grateful. Naturally, on that undertaking, I will ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.10 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1), after "foot," where that word first occurs, to insert "within forty-five feet of the police officer." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend, Lord Milner of Leeds. It has been put down in an effort to obtain

161
some information, and I am in no way committed to the distance indicated. I do, however, suggest that difficulties will arise as to the range within which the signal of a police officer is to operate unless there is some clear guidance. I believe that it would be quite wrong that a person who happened to be on the crossing should be prosecuted for disregarding a signal while another person, just off the crossing but within a foot or two of it, who had equally disregarded the warning, should escape. What, then, is the scope of the authority of the police officer under this clause? I do not for a moment suggest that any police officer could go off to a distance of 45 feet for people who disregarded his warning, but I do suggest that unless there is clear guidance as to what this clause actually means, and what is the scope of the authority of the officer, there will be varying practices from one police area to another and contradictory decisions in the courts of summary jurisdiction. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some guidance on this point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 14, after ("foot") insert the said words.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD MANCROFT: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, for raising this point, but, with respect, I do not think his solution is quite practicable. To suggest that the exercise of the powers in this clause should be limited to a distance of 45 feet means that somebody who is within the 44 feet area will be affected while somebody 46 feet distant will escape. Presumably the noble Lord has taken 45 feet because it is the zebra-crossing distance. I feel that we must rely in this case on common sense, and on the ability of the policeman to give intelligible directions; and these directions will have to be interpreted with common sense. We shall only cause confusion if we start laying down any precise boundary beyond which the powers shall not extend.
I will give one good reason why some mathematical boundary is impossible. How can the limitation in this Amendment be reconciled with the common practice of the police to direct traffic with a loud-hailer? That is a form of traffic direction which is becoming increasingly popular with the police, and it is well
162
understood by pedestrians. One suddenly finds oneself being addressed by a loud voice from a great distance away, in personal but friendly terms, and told to "get a move on." The direction may be given from a distance outside the range of the noble Lord's 45 feet. I would suggest, therefore, that no fixed boundary is possible in these circumstances, and that in the future, as in the past, we shall have to rely on the mutual good sense of the policeman directing the traffic and sensible pedestrians being directed. If we go beyond that, we shall merely create anomalies.
LORD BURDEN: In view of the explanation of the noble Lord, I am prepared, by leave of the Committee, to withdraw my Amendment. My only comment on the noble Lord's suggestion that we should trust to common sense is that common sense is so uncommon. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.17 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved to add to the clause:
"(3) It shall be an offence under this section for any person proceeding across a road at any point controlled by traffic light signals to do so otherwise than when a "Cross Now" period is in operation."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. Under this clause penalties are provided for people who disregard a verbal or similar signal, and this Amendment seeks to provide a penalty for, or to make an offence of, any disregard of "Cross Now" signals. I suggest that it would be a good thing if the law were extended to cover such cases. It may be argued that one difficulty would be that a police officer might not be on duty at all times at that point; but, from one's own observation, one knows that a police officer is occasionally on duty at some "Cross Now" points, and I believe one or two prosecutions, duly publicised, would deal with that lunatic fringe of our population which consistently disregards such signals. We must remember that the risk and danger, unfortunately, is not only to offenders. They may, in crossing, cause an accident which brings other people into difficulties.
I am sure all noble Lords from time to time receive letters from various people

163
when particular matters are under discussion in your Lordships' House. Some of the letters are helpful and some are not; but I have received one in connection with this Amendment which may be helpful in our consideration of it. This letter is from a gentleman who is a member of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, a civil engineer, a surveyor and a consultant in road accidents. I have never heard of that type of person before. He writes:
"It is with so much interest that I have read of your excellent proposal to control the use of pedestrian crossings that I must respectfully congratulate your Lordship. I am eighty-five years of age and motored until a few years ago. My first car was preceded by a red flag. For 32 years I was divisional county surveyor, have given evidence in all the courts, including coroners', on numerous occasions, so I claim considerable experience. When the zebra crossings were instituted, I wrote the Minister of Transport that in my opinion it was essential that these crossing should display illuminated signs showing 'Cross Now' or 'Don't Cross' synchronising with the traffic signals. The Minister replied that whilst he agreed in principle he had to be very careful not to interfere with the liberty of the subject. … I have inspected several of these signs in operation, and find that they are a great success. …"
That is a very interesting letter from a very knowledgeable gentleman. With those words, I would commend the Amendment to the Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Burden, one question on this Amendment? Before doing so, let me say that I think he makes out a good case, and I hope that the Government will show some sympathy. But the words in the Amendment:
"any person proceeding across a road at any point controlled by traffic light signals"
seem to me to require alteration. I suggest that instead of "any person proceeding across" the wording should be "any person commencing to cross." If the present wording were accepted, it would mean that if any person, such as the noble Lord, or myself, or any other noble Lord, started to cross at one of these crossings and was caught by the amber light and finally had to scurry across to the other pavement to avoid the oncoming traffic, he would be committing an offence. If the wording were
164
"commencing to cross" I think it would better achieve the noble Lord's object.
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to make one point with regard to this Amendment. I do not think it will stand as it is. There are many traffic light crossings in this country which have no "Cross Now" and "Don't Cross" signals. There are also police signals which are traffic light signals although they do not have these "Cross Now" and "Don't Cross" signals. Therefore, if the Amendment which the noble Lord wishes is to be carried into effect, I think he must alter the wording.
LORD WINSTER: I feel a great deal of sympathy with the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend, Lord Burden. In part, of course, it deals with our old friend the "jay-walker." I remember that in a debate on this subject in another place I observed that every time I drove to London from my house I saved a life. I really believe that that is somewhere near the truth. It also, to my mind, raises the question of the comfort and convenience of the pedestrian. In many American cities I have found this system in operation—traffic lights, accompanied by the flashing signals "Cross Now" or "Don't Cross." I must say that I found the pedestrians were completely conditioned to the arrangement, and that they adhered to it as a matter of course. As a pedestrian myself, I am bound to say that I found it a great comfort and convenience which entirely eliminated any feeling of uncertainty as to whether it was wise to cross at a given moment or not. For those two reasons, in the interest of the "jaywalker" and for the comfort and convenience of pedestrians who use these crossings at busy times when the roads are crowded, I feel that the Amendment deserves great sympathy.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should like to say a word on this Amendment. I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend, Lord Burden. I can see difficulties with regard to his Amendment, but, in my view and speaking from my own experience of busy crossings, this is the only possible solution of the problem of providing for the safety of the pedestrian. This system should supplant that of the ordinary pedestrian crossing. It would not be

165
sufficient—and this I think was the interpretation which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, put on the purpose of the Amendment—to have the coloured lights govern the movements of pedestrians. Specified traffic lights at suitable crossing places should have the "Cross Now" and "Don't Cross" signals as well, so that while the "Cross Now" signal is illuminated there is an "all red" period for the vehicular traffic.
LORD BURDEN: That is the intention.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is what my noble friend means. It has always been the argument I used when arguing in favour of this method as opposed to the ordinary pedestrian crossing. Of course, it would slow up the stream of traffic, but I am afraid that if you are going to consider pedestrians on a crossing you have to slow up the traffic—that is, if you are going to give the pedestrian a sporting chance, which some pedestrians do not think the ordinary pedestrian crossing gives them. In other words, you cannot have the best of both worlds. May I point to the answer which the Government gave me when I wanted an extra pedestrian crossing in Parliament Square to link up, so that one would be able to go right across the square and not be obliged to go all the way round. The answer of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, on behalf of the Minister of Transport was, in effect, "Well, if you do that you are going to slow up traffic in Parliament Square." If you want to give the pedestrian a perfectly safe passage there is only one thing to do—that is, to stop the traffic. You must have an "all red" period for vehicular traffic while the pedestrian is crossing the road.
I admit that if this system were installed all the way down Oxford Street the speed of traffic there would be brought down to an average of about two miles an hour. In that thoroughfare there are traffic lights at very close intervals, and to have an "all red" period every 100 yards would indeed bring the pace of traffic down. But when there is a specified crossing at a point where there is a huge volume of pedestrian traffic, it is not sufficient to say that they must honour the direction given by the traffic signals. That, as Lord Balfour of Inchrye said, would be likely to involve them in accidents because they might be half-way
166
across the road when the lights changed. I repeat that the only way to accomplish what is required here is to have an "all red" period for vehicular traffic, with a signal showing to the pedestrians and directing them to "Cross Now." This light, of course, would go out after a specified period and the signal "Don't Cross" would appear. I know this proposal, if generally adopted, would involve a revolution and it would take a lot of thinking about. But my noble friend Lord Burden has put his finger on the only possible safe way of allowing pedestrians to cross to-day at traffic intersections.
LORD WOLVERTON: I should like to support the Amendment. I think it is very important that in years to come we should get many more of these automatically controlled crossings with the "Cross Now" and "Don't Cross" signals. Like many of your Lordships, I have been to America and have seen the system working there very well. One important difference in the system there is that if you proceed over a crossing when the signal says "Don't Cross," a police officer, if he sees you, can fine you a dollar on the spot. If you do not wish to pay you can go before a court. We do not like that system here, and I do not suppose that we should ever adopt it. It might perhaps result in cluttering up the courts too much. At the same time I think that if we are going to give a police officer the power to regulate pedestrian traffic and to bring people up to court if they do not do as he tells them, it will be right to do what the Amendment suggests.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: The "Cross Now" signal is designed to prevent the argument as to who has the filtering right—the pedestrian or the driver of the car. Therefore I support the Amendment as finally answering that question.
LORD SALTOUN: I still want to point out that this Amendment does not deal with the situation at crossings where there are no "Cross Now" and "Don't Cross" signals. It deals only with any point where the crossing of pedestrians is controlled by "Cross Now" or "Don't Cross" signals. I go out every week and use crossings which are not equipped with

167
such signals. I should like to ask Lord Burden whether I am expected to wait before crossing at one of these crossings until the local authority has changed the present system to the system of traffic lights plus these "Cross Now" and "Don't Cross" signals.
LORD BURDEN: May I try to allay the anxiety of the noble Lord who has just spoken. The Amendment may be capable of improvement in the matter of its drafting. We are not all highly-skilled Parliamentary draftsmen. But it is designed to deal with the position where "Cross Now" and "Don't Cross" visible signs are in operation. I hope that that will allay the anxiety of the noble Lord.
6.30 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has made that point, because he has saved me the task of pointing out to Lord Burden that if we were to accept his Amendment as drafted he would succeed in bringing practically the whole of the pedestrian traffic of London to a stop within twenty-four hours of passing the Amendment into law. Perhaps that may not be such a bad thing after all, as noble Lords appear to be of the opinion that the general run of pedestrians is not yet fast enough. There is another objection, a technical one. What the noble Lord desires could be done under the present law. If the principle were acceptable, it could be put into effect under existing statutory provisions. Under Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, regulations could be made forbidding pedestrians to cross except when the signal, "Cross Now" was exhibited. The noble Lord's object could perfectly well be achieved under the law as it stands now.
LORD BURDEN: Will it be?
LORD MANCROFT: Now we come to the question—will it be?
The object the noble Lord seeks to achieve has met with approval in principle throughout the committee. The difficulties I have in mind are practical ones. When I saw the noble Lord's Amendment, I took the precaution of going down Trafalgar Square and standing for about a quarter of an hour by the "Cross now" signal just where the Strand joins Trafalgar Square. If the noble Lord does that,
168
I think he will find that there is a practical difficulty straight away. The difficulty is the enforcement of the provision: when the policeman, who is to enforce these provisions, arrives on the scene, he will be able to exercise the powers conferred by the existing Clause 4. The Amendment moved, therefore, merely creates an unnecesary offence; the noble Lord's wishes could be carried out through the provisions of the existing clause.
There is another difficulty; I admit that it is not a logical argument and I am almost ashamed to put it forward. At night, when there is little traffic, nobody pays attention to the signal, "Cross now." I do not think that we should encourage, without a good deal of further investigation, the passing of legislation which any practical man standing on the spot can see is going to be disregarded in nine cases out of ten—at night or when a policeman is not on duty, or when the traffic is slight. That is my difficulty. I echo the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Wolverton, about the additional burden on the police and the courts. These are practical arguments which must be taken into account at the same time as the powerful arguments for safety put forward by the noble Lord. I hope that the Committee will be good enough to consider both aspects. I will look carefully at what has been said and bring the knowledge of the experts to bear on it. I cannot perhaps ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment on that condition, but I promise to look at the arguments put forward to see whether anything further can be done. I fear, however, that the practical difficulties will outweigh the advantages which the noble Lord has put forward.
LORD TEYNHAM: Would it not be possible to accept this Amendment in another form? We might consider having "Cross now" signals switched off at certain times—for instance, in the middle of the night. That would meet the point the noble Lord has just explained.
LORD MANCROFT: I shall be glad to consider that.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sorry that the noble Lord raised the last argument. He saved himself by saying that he was ashamed to put it

169
forward. The only reason why the pedestrian disregards the "Cross now" signal in the middle of the night is that there is no traffic. We are in a dreadful state of flux on this whole question of pedestrian crossings. They were a great factor in the safety of pedestrians when they were a novelty. Now they are treated with contempt because they are not enforced. This is a difficult problem and I am grateful to the noble Lord for the undertaking that he will look at this question. We shall have to do something if the number of vehicles in London increases and the number of pedestrians increases. I am sorry to say that the pedestrian crossing is not proving nearly so effective now that it has become so commonplace. We have to get something more positive, and I would ask the noble Lord to consider this point earnestly. I agree that he already has power to do this. In thickly populated areas we must have crossings not only with a "red" period but also with a "Cross now" period, and with sanctions to see that they are properly used.
6.35 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should like to raise one additional point that has not been mentioned: it is the difficulty found at T-crossings, where there is a main road and a single road running into it. A pedestrian wanting to cross waits until the traffic lights stop the traffic crossing up and down the main road, but the traffic coming up on his right is also turning round his corner and he cannot cross. In that way the pedestrian is sometimes prevented from crossing altogether. In Amsterdam, where I was a year ago, there was this short interval of "Cross now" between the right of vehicular traffic to go one way and to go the cross way, when the foot passenger was able to cross. So far as I am aware, there are T-crossings in London where there is no "Cross now" signal, and there may be times when there is no opportunity for pedestrians to cross at all.
LORD GLYN: May I ask a question of the noble Lord who moved this Amendment? As the Amendment is drafted, I can see no restriction applying it to built-up areas only. There are a large number of crossings in rural areas where, surely, there is no question of putting a
170
limit on the "Stop" lights. I assume that this Amendment applies only in built-up areas.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: Has the Minister any information of how many "Cross now" signals operate by pressing a button and how many operate automatically?
LORD MANCROFT: I assume that the noble Marquess has in mind one like that in Knightsbridge. I have not the figures at my fingertips, but I can get the information.
LORD WINSTER: As we know, the noble Lord is always most thorough in his inquiries. I wonder whether it would be possible for him to find out something about the way the American system works. They are a practical people and I have seen the system working with the greatest efficiency and success. If the noble Lord is not already in possession of this information, could he make some inquiries?
LORD MANCROFT: With regard to the American method, my technical advisers have gone into it carefully and have examined it in great detail; but having done so, they are opposed to the Amendment, and I can only assume that they are not so favourably impressed by American practice as the noble Lord is.
EARL JOWITT: As regards the question of pedestrians not being allowed to cross the road when there is no traffic, that is the case under the American system. I got into trouble with a policeman in New York for doing that very thing. There was no traffic at all and I disregarded the lights and proceeded to cross the road. The policeman dealt very roughly with me. I think it is rather a good thing to have these signals enforced at night time, so that people realise that they must use them.
LORD BURDEN: May I say how grateful I am to all noble Lords who have supported the principle behind this Amendment, faultily worded as it probably is? May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that it is rather exist under some regulation? That cold comfort to know that power does power may exist until any time one likes to state, but it may not be used. As to the observation about what is done at the Trafalgar Square crossing at night, I am

171
afraid that, as I am much older than the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, my knowledge of what goes on in that vicinity is somewhat limited. In view of what has been said, and the general support the Amendment has received, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding, of course, that another opportunity may arise for the point to be considered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
6.41 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
".In paragraph (a) of section forty-nine of the Act of 1930 as amended by section forty of the Act of 1934 and the Third Schedule thereto (which section among other things empowers a police officer regulating traffic to make a vehicle proceed in or keep to a particular line of traffic) after the words 'particular line of traffic' there shall be added the words 'or follow such alternative route as may be indicated to him'."
The noble Lord said: This is rather an important Amendment, but as I know your Lordships are anxious to rise at seven o'clock, I will be as brief as I can. I am constrained to put this new clause down for your Lordships' consideration because of the vast programme of road construction that Her Majesty's Government have embarked upon, a programme that we all rejoice in. I know that noble Lords who have given this matter consideration will appreciate that it is no good building new roads, at prodigious costs, by-passing congested areas and thickly populated towns, and seeing them practically unused. That is the problem. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, raised the same point when I had the honour to introduce the debate on the Oxford ring road a week ago.
I have searched the Statutes, as far as I can, and I can find no clear indication of who is responsible, or who can accept the responsibility, for seeing that some indication is given to through traffic to use a by-pass and not to attempt to go through a thickly populated area. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is to reply, and I should like him to follow me carefully as the point is rather intricate. My Amendment says:
172
"In paragraph (a) of Section forty-nine of the Act of 1930 as amended by Section forty of the Act of 1934"—
and here I would break off to say that Section 49 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, reads as follows:
"Where a police constable is for the time being engaged in the regulation of traffic in a road,"—
that sentence has a somewhat familiar sound—
"or where any traffic sign being a sign for regulating the movement of traffic or indicating the route to be followed by traffic, has been lawfully placed "—
I do not know whether it means the constable has been lawfully placed, the sign has been lawfully placed, or both—
"on or near any road in accordance with the provisions of the last preceding section, any person driving or propelling any vehicle who—
(a) neglects or refuses to stop the vehicle or to make it proceed in or keep to a particular line of traffic when directed so to do by the police constable in the execution of his duty … shall be guilty of an offence."
The preceding section, so far as I can ascertain, lays down definitely that the only authority in the Statutes which can direct traffic over a certain route is a highway authority: that is my reading of it. The highway authority can close a road or divert traffic, and I can only suppose that the police constable mentioned here is carrying out his statutory duty as directed by the highway authority.
When we turn to Section 40 of the Act of 1934, we are referred to the Third Schedule, and the Third Schedule, which deals with "Consequential and minor Amendments," says:
"Section forty-nine—After the words 'to be followed by traffic'"—
that means the direction—
"there shall be inserted the words 'and being of the prescribed size, colour, and type, or of another character authorised by the Minister …'"
Those words must refer to the sign and not to the constable, and it is the only piece of daylight I could find. So I have sought to put in paragraph (a) of the old Section 49, after the words "particular line of traffic," the words
"or follow such alternative route as may be indicated to him."
The reason I put it like that is that I did not think it right that any police constable, at any whim, should be able to say at the beginning of a by-pass that

173
the traffic must go along the by-pass and not through the town. I understand that he can do that only if the appropriate highway authority—it may be the county borough or the county council—decides that it is appropriate that all traffic or certain sections of the traffic should not proceed through the town but along the by-pass. I know that it is difficult to segregate through traffic from town traffic, but I thought there should be some authority to do it, where it was appropriate.
If the noble Lord does not like my drafting, I hope he will at least accept the principle, because I can find no authority. I think I am right in saying—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that the only authority under which police signs diverting traffic are erected in London, at times such as Coronations, is a local Act. Throughout the country the police have no authority to do this unless they are acting in accordance with the instruction of a highway authority. I hope the noble Lord will see the sense of what I am trying to do here, and if he can help me, I shall be grateful. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD DERWENT: If the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has put down this Amendment for knowledge, to find out what is happening and what the position is, I am entirely on his side. The only thing I am a little frightened about is that, if he gets an answer that is more or less satisfactory, he may be putting ideas into the heads of the highway authorities. I know he fears that when more by-passes are built lorries and commercial traffic will still go through the middle of the towns. He is hoping eventually for powers to make them use the by-pass. I agree with him up to a point, but it has been found abroad that you cannot really divert the bulk of your heavy through traffic until you have a complete ring road. Most of the bypasses we have now are either North and South or East and West, and to try and divert the heavy traffic in other directions in those circumstances is really an impossible business, even by signs. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, however, that the day may yet come when we shall have proper ring
174
roads and when the highway authority will have seriously to consider compelling through traffic to go round the town. But I hope the Amendment which the noble Lord has put down will not make any highway authority rush into action just yet.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said he hoped that if I did not like his draft I would accept the principle of his Amendment. At this hour hope should not be deferred, and I can tell the noble Lord at once that I do not like his draft, but I will accept the principle of his Amendment. I think the noble Lord has put his finger on a definite flaw here and has a very good point. I did not follow the rather complicated reasoning about the ring roads, but I do follow the arguments he put forward about the limitation and diversion of traffic in certain circumstances by the highway authority. That is perfectly true. I think it will come as a surprise to many people to know that, although the police have the power, say in London on certain occasions and in certain streets, to divert traffic without signs or with signs by the hand, that power is not at all universal. I think it is one of the examples which we were discussing a few Amendments back, of an occasion when many people would automatically obey the police because they believed the police had certain powers. I think it is right to tidy this matter up, and I can give the undertaking to the noble Lord that if he will withdraw the Amendment I will look at the whole question again. At the same time, there are other kindred matters which we must consider: for example, in some ways his wording is not quite accurate. We will certainly do something and put into the Bill at some stage some different form of words which I think will meet the noble Lord's point completely, and other points which will no doubt arise as a result of this Amendment. I thank the noble Lord very much for putting the Amendment down, and I congratulate him for spotting this flaw in the existing law.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I had a job to wade through the Statutes and, as I have said on many occasions—and it is so obvious that it does not need repetition—I am no Parliamentary draftsman. I believe there is a short Amendment

175
following this one which it may be convenient for the noble Lord to take now, but before I move my next Amendment, which I think will be controversial, may I ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether it would then be convenient for us to adjourn? With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
6.55 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved after Clause 5 to insert the following new clause—
".It shall be an offence where pedestrian barriers are provided on the edge of a footway for preventing pedestrians from crossing the road for any person to proceed over or through the barriers other than at the crossing place provided by the barriers."
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships are aware that, in a number of rather busy places in cities and towns there are pedestrian barriers for the protection of the public because of the pressure of traffic passing, both vehicles on the road and frequently the number of people who are at certain times pressing along the footpath. Usually those barriers are placed on a corner and there is an opening left in them so that people may cross from one side of the road to the other. Your Lordships will also be aware that frequently people either climb over these barriers or under them and "nip across" the road, to the great disorganisation of the traffic on the road and the dissatisfaction of the people on the footpath. It does not seem to me, therefore, to be unreasonable to ask that that particular action on the part of a very few people should be an offence.
My noble friend Lord Winster, who has had to leave, asked me whether I would remind your Lordships that outside schools, where there are similar pedestrian crossings, some form of wire mesh is frequently put at the top and bottom of the pedestrian barrier. But that does not deal with the question of the youth who climbs over the barrier into the road and crosses the road. It seems to me that it should be an offence to ignore a pedestrian barrier placed there for the protection of all concerned, and I hope the Government will find it possible to accept an Amendment in that sense. No doubt the present Amendment is not in
176
the proper form and, indeed, I am extremely doubtful whether it is in the proper place. That could be adjusted if the Government feel disposed to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 5, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord is quite right: this Amendment is not in the proper form or, indeed, in the proper place. The Amendment is quite unnecessary, because the power already exists to do what the noble Lord wants. Where barriers are used they are usually erected in conjunction with pedestrian crossings. In such cases, the Minister already has the power under Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, to make regulations forbidding pedestrians to cross the road except at the crossings, and the amendment of Section 18 which is proposed in Clause 5 (1) will enable him to carry out experiments on these lines in relation to particular sites. Those experiments will be carried out. What the noble Lord has said will be borne in mind, but he will appreciate, I am certain, that the difficulty is the same as the difficulty of the "Cross Now" crossings. We run the risk of making regulations which are unenforceable. Because boys will be boys, it is natural for a boy to jump over a fence rather than walk round and go through the legitimate way. He will do that even with meshed wire underneath.
Bearing that proviso in mind, we will certainly look again at this under the provisions of the Act I have mentioned and see whether some progress can be made. Again on the general principle I think I carry the noble Lord with me when I say that it is undesirable to make a large number of regulations admirable in object, admirable in concept but quite unenforceable in law. With that I would ask the noble Lord whether he would be good enough to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I entirely agree with the last remarks of the noble Lord, and I fully appreciate the difficulty there is and would be in enforcing the law. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two minutes before seven o'clock.