Lords Sitting of 28 February 1955

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

  ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
  2.35 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, in moving that the House do now resolve itself into Committee, might I suggest that in considering the first Amendment, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, we should concentrate our attention on the question of Parliamentary control, without, of course, entirely excluding the possibility of referring to the four new clauses which follow and hang together. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD BLACKFORD in the Chair]
  Clause 10:
  Provision of parking places where charges made
  10.—(1) The Minister may by order made on the application of the local authority in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act designate parking places on highways in the Metropolitan Police District for vehicles or vehicles of any class or description specified in the order, and the local authority may make charges for vehicles left in the parking places of such amount as is hereinafter specified.
  (5) The power to make orders conferred by the last foregoing subsection shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (6) Nothing in this section or an order under subsection (4) of this section shall affect the operation of section ten of the London Traffic Act, 1924, section sixty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1925, or section one hundred and twenty of the Act of 1930 (which relate to the designation of parking places).
  LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in the Metropolitan Police District." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List and it may be convenient if, in doing so, I mention the next Amendment standing in my name. As now drawn, the clause seems to mean that a local authority within the metropolitan district (a later Amendment by the Government brings in the City of London) may initiate the procedure for providing parking places on highways where charges may be made; but outside the Metropolitan Police District—and, assuming the later Amendment is carried, the City of London—no action can be taken by any local authority unless and until the Minister decides to make an order extending the clause to that district. Then a local authority in that area must apply to the Minister for another order designating the parking places. That appears to be the intention of the clause.
  It is, of course, quite right that in the matter of parking places where payments are to be made the Minister should proceed cautiously. There are undoubtedly good reasons why experience with such parking places should be gained in some parts of London, for anyone who has tried to park a car in London on some evenings of the week will be aware of the real need for adequate parking places and for this experiment. On the other hand, influential bodies representing the motorists regard the provisions in this and the other clauses to which the noble Earl has made reference as yet another tax and handicap upon motorists generally. I assume that the Minister will quite rightly study the working of parking places selected for the experiment. The Minister doubtless does not desire to be overwhelmed with applications from local authorities all over the country, and that may be one of the reasons for the limitations imposed in this clause. I assume that the Minister, broadly speaking, would like to see the result in certain selected places of this experiment.
  Notwithstanding all these considerations, I suggest that it would be unfortunate to select a few metropolitan boroughs, such as Poplar, Hackney and Bermondsey, or that county boroughs, like East Ham and Croydon, should have authority to ask the Minister for the provision of parking places while cities such as Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester

  497
  and Sheffield—to name only a few—with their tradition of local patriotism, should be left to feel that they are placed in a subservient position and are powerless to move unless the Minister first of all decides to extend the order. Under this Bill, they are placed in an inferior position to the fairly wide range of local authorities in London and in the metropolitan police district, though they would not, of course, be in an inferior position to the City of London. I should be quite satisfied if the Minister had the power to select the places where this experiment of parking places was tried out so that he could retain control over the experiment.
  I hope, however, that the Minister will consider this suggestion. The clause could, I feel, be amended by omitting from subsection (1) "in the Metropolitan Police District" and from subsection (4) the words "in addition to the Metropolitan Police District." That would enable the Minister not to confine his selected places to London: he could try the experiment in one or other of the larger provincial cities. Parliament would still be able to control the experiment, because each one of these orders, as I understand the Bill, would have to be the subject of an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. I think that the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill will see the purpose, broadly speaking, of that suggestion. Local authorities to-day are quite rightly very jealous of their position, and for certain responsibilities or powers—call them what you will—to be given to metropolitan boroughs, even if only as an experiment, whereas Provincial authorities are excluded, must seem to the latter a reflection upon them as local authorities. In view of those considerations, I beg to move the Amendment. I would assure your Lordships, however, that if the Minister is prepared to consider the suggestions I have put before the Committee, with your consent I shall be happy later to withdraw the Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 9, leave out ("in the Metropolitan Police District").—(Lord Burden.)
  2.40 p.m.
  LORD TEYNHAM: In rising to speak on this Amendment, and in view of my Amendments, Nos. 72, 75, 77 and 80 on the Marshalled List, I ask your Lordships' permission to speak on parking meters
  498
  generally. It may help your Lordships if I briefly outline what appear to be the intentions of these clauses. They will enable the Minister, by order, to designate parking places on the highway where charges may be made for parking. They also provide for the regulation of charges, the use of parking meters for collecting fees, and the removal of vehicles in certain circumstances. Local authorities are required to keep accounts of income and expenditure in respect of parking places and to meet deficits from the general rate fund, and, in the case of a surplus, after reimbursing the general rate fund, to provide parking space off the highway. The proposed arrangements which I have mentioned may, by order of the Minister, apply to any part of the country.
  Your Lordships will recall that in 1953 a Working Party reported on car parking in the London area. The Report stressed that their recommendations consisted of three interdependent proposals. The first was the construction of garages below and above the ground. The second was the introduction of parking meters on an experimental basis in the vicinity of new garages. The third was a new and balanced system of waiting restrictions. I suggest that as these clauses are at present drawn they do not appear to conform to those recommendations, and I should be glad if Her Majesty's Government would give some explanation of the matter. I emphasise that the Working Party indicated clearly that their proposals must be treated as a whole, and that it would be fundamentally unsound merely to approve perhaps one or two of them without the others. I suggest that there is no sign yet that garages, either below ground or above ground, are to be constructed at the same time that parking meters are installed.
  The Report underlined the fact that meters on their own would not make any useful contribution towards solving the parking problem and relieving congestion. Can it be that Her Majesty's Government really think that parking meters will solve this problem? A parking meter does not magically transform a section of road, where previously parking has been prohibited, into a desirable parking space. We do not have wide, straight roads in the cities of this country as they have in America, where parking meters are being used. If parking meters are installed only

  499
  in authorised parking places, they will do nothing to reduce the number of vehicles parked on the streets. In fact, they would, in most cases, reduce the available accommodation because of the difference in size of cars, as each meter space must be large enough to contain a large car. I cannot help feeling that if parking meters are installed widely, they will perpetuate obstruction on the highway rather than relieve it. Again, parking meters, by themselves—by that I mean without supervision—are no more effective, I suggest, in preventing the time limit from being overrun than are the present regulations that apply to authorised parking spaces. It must mean a great addition to calls on police time for enforcement—time which, in my view, can be far better spent in other directions. According to the financial provisions in Clause 14, the income from meters is to be applied to the provision of off-the-street parking accommodation, but it might well happen that in the future it would become diverted to other purposes.
  Suppose we look at the problem in America for a few minutes. A recently published Report headed Parking Meters; Bulletin No. 81 of the Highway Research Board makes very interesting reading. What does this Report say about the use of meter revenues for purposes not related to parking provisions? It says that from 7 per cent. and up to as high as 68 per cent. of meter revenue in some cities was diverted to purposes not related to parking. I trust that this may not happen on such a scale in this country, but we must not forget the raids on the Road Fund which have an unfortunate similarity. May I give the Committee an extract from The American Journal Traffic Inquiry, of April, 1954, with reference to parking meters? It says:
  "Let's face the facts—a parking meter does not limit parking. It is only a means of collecting a fee. If the parking meter is to survive, it must be able to eliminate the fast growing number of 'nickel feeders.' These parking hogs are directly responsible for the increased average parking time at curb meters. It should be emphasised that sixteen average cars could be accommodated in the same space occupied by one all-day parking hog. To combat this menace, many large cities throughout the country have reverted at least partially to the old system, and the result in every case has been a substantial increase in car space turnover."
  500
  American experience hardly suggests that the parking meter is proving a success since it began to be installed in 1952. I suggest that in this country the meter is already stillborn and may well prove a waste of money. It may be worth while to carry out experiments, but, in the words of the Working Party committee on car parking, it must go hand in hand with the provision of off-the-street car parks, either above or below ground; otherwise the experiment will be valueless and merely another innovation to harass the motorist and vehicle operator. I cannot help feeling that at the present time, and as a result of this Bill, motorists are much more likely to get parking meters than new underground or multi-storey garages.
  May I suggest to Her Majesty's Government four alternatives to the installation of parking meters, which I still say are of very doubtful value? The first is to allow street parking whenever it is possible to do so without interrupting the flow of traffic. The second is to provide off-street parking facilities, underground or above ground, on a scale sufficient to absorb the vehicles which cannot be accommodated in the existing street parking places. The third is to require that all new buildings erected shall, as far as possible, provide off-street parking accommodation for the vehicles which they will normally attract. The fourth is to encourage local authorities to provide off-street parking accommodation by grants from Government funds in the same way as they are at present made for classified roads. Last, but not least, if mechanical car parking systems are employed to garage cars without any manhandling, I think it will be found that motorists will be only too glad to use them. At the present time there is undoubtedly a resistance to the use of garages owing to damage caused by attendants in handling, not to mention the greasy steering wheels often found by owners on collecting their cars. If, instead of the introduction of parking meters on a big scale, my suggestions are carried out, I feel that the ordinary motorist will be induced to leave the roads and seek garages for his car.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if I may take advantage of the invitation of the Minister who has charge of this Bill to address a few remarks

  501
  generally upon this Amendment, I think perhaps it may help us in time—I think that we have all to have one eye on the clock—and it may also facilitate the fullness of his reply. I can state my view plainly, and I think it is the view of the majority of noble Lords, if not all, who sit on this side of your Lordships' House. We are fundamentally opposed to the use of the Queen's highway for garaging motor cars. We are equally fundamentally opposed to charging for the Queen's highway to be let out for garaging motor cars. But, having said that, I must add that we are up against a very difficult problem. I am afraid that we shall have to sacrifice both those principles upon the altar of expediency. So I am in the position of trying very hard to find a way to help Her Majesty's Government solve what is getting to be an almost intractable problem, and one which, unless we do solve it, may have some dire consequences within the next two or three years.
  There is, however, one thing that we in your Lordships' House must lay down in this Bill: that however we sink our principles, and however much we acquiesce in street parking and charging for street parking, it is essential that the main highways in our towns and cities should be kept clear for the passage of vehicles using the roads for the purpose for which they were built—that is, the free flow of traffic. That is the sense of the Amendment I have down; I think it is the third one from the one we are now discussing. I find myself in the position of agreeing with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has said. I do not see how this experiment, as it is proposed to be tried under this Bill, will prove anything other than one thing, and that we know already: that when authorities start charging for parking on the highway they will collect a great deal of money. As Lord Teynham said, that is about the only thing this experiment will prove; it will not provide any more space. I believe the noble Lord is right, and that charging for parking may be a very great temptation not only for Chancellors of the Exchequer but for local authorities as well. I think there must be uniformity in charging. I believe that Parliament will have to retain control. I do not agree with the principle of allowing the control of the broad principles of how this Bill is to be operated in respect
  502
  of parking and charging to be at the mercy of sundry local authorities.
  We are dealing with a very serious problem, the free flow of our traffic right through this country—because what the Bill really seeks to solve is, in one word, congestion. I suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that he could do away with Lord Teynham's fears, and my fears as well, if he could put something in the Bill to say that any local authority who wished to designate streets for parking and to charge for them should provide off-street parking first—and I emphasise "first." It should be a condition that no local authority will be given permission by the Minister to set aside street space for parking until motorists have somewhere to drive their cars. Otherwise, where are you going to drive the motorists to? Into the river? Or into the sea? Because that is where you will eventually end up. It is like dropping a pebble in a pond; there will be an ever-growing circle.
  If the local authority are committed to providing, first, a reasonable amount of off-street parking—which it was their duty to do thirty years ago, and which they have neglected to do—with or without the aid of money borrowed from the Government, then the repayment can be made from the parking fees. I think that is the only inducement likely to produce off-street parking; because I believe that if the Government go about it the other way, the way set out in this Bill now, it will give every inducement to local authorities not to provide off-street parking. Why should they when they can let their streets out?
  I now come to my last real objection to this clause, having given way on the two principles that I hold dear; I cannot agree that parking meters are the right way to go about this matter. It is easy to compare this country with America, and comparisons have been made over a very wide field between the way we do things in this country and the way they do them in America. But the two countries are not analogous at all. Without saying anything against American architecture, I would ask: are your Lordships going to have a row of these hideous things standing on pedestals every seven feet round some of London's squares of great architectural beauty? Are noble Lords going to have them outside their own homes, if they happen to

  503
  live in London or some other city? Do they want to drive up to their own front doors to find that somebody has bought the space? Do they want to have to put money in a slot machine? Are your Lordships going to have these meters all down Bond Street, outside the shops? How will people get to the shops? What is the driver of a brewer's dray going to say when delivering barrels of beer at a local "pub," when he finds a parking meter outside and others every seven feet up the road, and the space occupied by motor cars? And if your Lordships agree to this as an experiment and it is found that the wrong places have been designated, are these meters going to be uprooted and taken somewhere else?
  That is one side of the story. The noble Earl who is going to reply may give some reasons to show that parking meters are good things. But on balance, is this the right way of doing it? Perhaps the noble Earl will tell us how they will operate. What happens if a motorist overstays his time? To whom does he give the money? He cannot put it in the parking meter, because the time has expired. Does he have to run around and find the park attendant to give him the money? Is it worth while for the attendant to stay there all day or not? Has the noble Earl thought of the possibility of the setting up of another industry, not for the gas meter thief, but for the parking slot machine thief? I should imagine that in London it will be necessary to have somewhere about 30,000 of these meters spread all over London and the suburbs. What a harvest for the thief!
  These are some of the questions in my mind. I think we should be well advised (I am speaking only for noble Lords who agree with me) to agree to street parking. I think we should be well advised to charge for parking. After all, the one person we want to get off the streets is the person who leaves his car there all day. If the money is going to influence such motorists off the streets, I do not mind how much the charge is, but I think we should have a little care for those who want to wait at a shop or park for two hours or so. I do not want to see the streets of our cities and towns filled with these hideous machines. My mind goes to York Minster. I think the largest parking place in York is round the
  504
  Minster. Are we going to have these hideous things every seven feet round York Minster? We cannot turn York into an American city. As the noble Lord said, too, in some places parking meters are not proving a success; and the Bill omits the one ingredient that makes the parking, meter a success in America—on the spot fining. Without that, the parking meter system was a failure in America. Are we going to have the motorist pay a fine to the policeman or the park attendant, instead of going to the police court? I am afraid that that would upset all the canons of British justice.
  Perhaps the noble Earl will answer some of these questions. I have put up a lot of Aunt Sallies for him to knock down, but that is my feeling. I hope he will agree to this. It will shorten our discussion a great deal. We shall have to have street parking, but it must not be upon the main arteries of traffic. We shall have to have charging, but it must be uniform throughout the country, and it must be kept under Parliamentary control, because we are dealing with a very serious problem. Can the noble Earl find some alternative to parking meters; and, if he cannot, will he try the experiment to prove the fallacy of them (as I am sure it will be proved to be) in some place other than the West End of London or the City of London, because their use here will not prove anything at all, and will only result in the collection of a lot of money? I should like to see him reverse the procedure in this Bill, in so far as off-street parking goes, so that off-street parking places must first be found by local authorities, as a precursor to charging for street parking. That will enable them to repay the cost on the hire purchase system out of the money they get for parking.
  3.8 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: We have heard much from the noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Teynham, with reference to parking meters. We also have the Report of the Working Party on Car Parking in the Inner Area of London. Practically all the important bodies operating in the City of London were represented on that Working Party, including the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police, the Standing Joint Committee of Motoring Organisations, the City of London Police, the Ministry of Transport, the Road Haulage

  505
  Organisation, the London County Council and the Ministry or Works. That Committee was set up in 1933. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, referred to their Report, and perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I mention it again. The Report concludes:
  "Our plan consists of three interdependent elements—
  (a) the construction of garages below and above ground"—
  it is fifteen years since a garage was constructed in the central part of London and there are no plans that I know of for the construction of another garage at the present moment—
  "(b) the introduction of parking meters, and
  (c) a new and balanced system of waiting regulations."
  I will not weary your Lordships by reading the whole of this part of the Report, but in paragraph (f) on page 3, there is this further conclusion:
  "We emphasise that our plan consists of several interdependent proposals which must be treated as a whole and that it would be fundamentally unsound merely to approve one or two of them."
  The proposal before us to-day is one of them. How comes it that the Government have brought it before us to-day when representatives of the Home Office, the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Transport all say that this was an interdependent plan which stands or falls as a whole? I should like an answer to that question, because I wish to know why these representatives changed their minds.
  I do not know—and there is no clue in the Bill—what sort of experiment it is desired to carry out in relation to parking meters. I submit to your Lordships that longitudinal parking—that is to say, parking up and down the street parallel with the pavement—is a completely impractical proposition and will do nothing to benefit the parking position in London or in any other city where it is adopted; in fact, as has already been said by other noble Lords, it may well make it worse. This experiment has been carried out in America, where I believe they allowed a length of 15 ft.—I speak subject to correction on that point. However, since they drew up the regulations, the length of motor cars in the United States has been growing. If regulations are made in this country, the length of motors will
  506
  probably grow here, too, and a longer space will have to be allowed between the meters for the cars to stand opposite their meters. These meters will have to be erected along the pavement, and then they will have to be dug up and re-sited, which will involve considerable expense. That is only one of the drawbacks.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said just now that we were going to start up a new industry of slot machines. I thought that perhaps he was going to say something quite different. This system has given rise to a new industry in America, where in June 180 of these parking meters were broken into and emptied, and in July the figure was 305—and that was in the city of New York alone. I thought that that was what the noble Lord was going to refer to, but it turned out to be something else. It seems to me that parking meters are arranged so that the car can be parked at right angles to, or diagonally to, the pavement, then there will not be the absurd difficulty of providing for the largest make of car and perhaps for a motor cycle.
  As to the inspection of these meters, I wonder whether your Lordships have studied this Report. Appendix J of the Report of the Working Party gives some most interesting figures about the annual cost of a parking meter. Loan charges on capital cost of 659 meters at £30, on an annuity basis over ten years at 3¾ per cent., comes to £2,408, and with 5 per cent. added for spare meters, amounting to £120, the total is £2,528. Mechanical supervision (possibly requiring one indoor and one outdoor mechanic, with allowance for equipment) comes to £1,000; one collector £400; marking of bays £165; painting of meters £165; establishment or agency charge of local authority, say 10 per cent., £426. That makes the total annual cost £4,684. Then we come to the revenue from 659 meters, at 63 per cent. efficiency—that is a curious phase. The revenue to be expected from 659 meters is £48,000. The motoring world is already paying £400 million a year in taxation, and yet you are going to try and collect on that scale from them. The excess of income over expenditure envisaged is £43,316, which is equivalent to a profit of £66 per meter. Is that the reason why the Government went back on the Report of the Working Party, in

  507
  order to be able to set up these meters and collect £66 per meter from the registered motorist? Is this a solution of the parking problem? I can hardly believe it.
  I should like to put to your Lordships a completely different proposition, merely to be shot down—everybody will shoot it down and everybody will go for me, but I do not care a bit. If you want to solve the parking problem in London, just consider of what it consists. There are estimated to be 77,600 cars that rush up to London in the morning and go away again in the evening—that is the all-day parking population. I do not believe that the system of having a parking meter here and another there will deal with that problem. That is the problem at present, but with new motor cars coming on the road at the rate of 400,000 a year, and possibly at an even higher rate, the problem will not decrease, but will get worse. I believe that some sort of proposition like the one I am going to put to your Lordships (as I say, I am sure it will be most unpopular) will have to be undertaken, because I can think of no other way out.
  I suggest that London and other big cities will have to be zoned and a system of various colours adopted. There will, for the sake of argument, be a red zone in the middle. In order to get into a zoned city, a motorist will have to get a police pass from the police in that city; and in order to get into the red zone he will have to prove that he has a parking place, a garage, or somewhere where he can put his car off the highway. He will then be given a coloured card which he will put on his windscreen and he will then be allowed in. An outer area will, let us say, be a blue zone. If the motorist cannot show that he has a parking place, garage, or somewhere to go in the central area, he will be given a blue pass to put on his windscreen, which will entitle him to park his car in a zone further afield from the central area. In order to cater for the people who must come up for the day, there will be another colour, say green, and those motorists will be given a green pass, which will again be obtained from the police and will entitle them to come up to the big city for the day and go away again. It will signify that they are not necessarily going to stop there all day; and, of course, there will be a limitation
  508
  on the number of times that the green pass can be used. I feel that something of that sort will have to be done.
  You cannot fill up the whole of the central area of any big city, yet alone London. We are very close to stagnation point, as we all know, and it seems to me that that is the sort of practical way in which the problem should be tackled—perhaps not exactly that scheme, but something of that sort. The Working Party do not recommend parking meters, because their recommendations are interdependent, and the other things, such as underground garages, are not there. Unless the underground garages are required for shelters in the event of an atomic war, or something of that sort, then I cannot believe they will be much good. There will be considerable congestion near the entrances; the construction will, surely, be most expensive; and I personally do not think much of them. I would much rather have the above-ground garage. There is a fine one at Olympia, where one drives up to the top of the building, and one does also in America. Moreover, Such garages are probably less expensive to erect. We have allowed fifteen years to go by without making an effort to construct a garage on modern lines in the central area of London. That is incredible when we have known all the time that this problem has been growing. I have probably said too much already, and I am certain that I shall be hotly attacked for the suggestion I have made, but I only wish I could think of a better one. I am afraid that I must support what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Teynham and Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in their criticism of parking meters, for which I have no sort of use and which I am certain the motoring community will dislike intensely.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Earl sits down, could he help noble Lords to appraise his suggestion? Does he propose that the motorist shall pay for the red, blue and green permits to enter the zones?
  EARL HOWE: No, I make no proposal of that sort at all. My idea is that one merely goes to the police and proves the necessity for going into a particular zone. I do not suppose one should be charged anything for that.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: How long does the noble Earl anticipate it would be before the Government found this a wonderful way to raise new and fresh revenue?
  EARL HOWE: I think the noble Lord's guess would be better than mine.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This clause is the Government's main contribution towards the solution of the traffic problem in the London area.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: A statutory contribution.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I accept the noble Earl's correction. When the noble Earl replies, I hope he will be able to answer the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, at the beginning of his remarks, when he wanted to know whether this is regarded by the Government as an alternative solution to the recommendations in the Report of the Working Party on Car Parking in Inner London, or whether the Government still believe that the recommendations in this Report are the broad lines of a solution and ought to be carried out. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out that the recommendations of the Working Party were interdependent. It seems to me that either the Government accept the interdependence of these recommendations or the Report is worthless, in which case we have nothing to look to but the provisions of this clause of the Bill. I must confess, with other noble Lords who have spoken, that I regard this clause as futile if, together with administrative action of different kinds, it is intended to provide a solution to the traffic problem in London.
  The three main proposals of the Working Party were, first, more restrictions on traffic in the London area—these have been done by administrative action—secondly, a power for local authorities to make charges for parking in the streets, as is proposed in this clause, and, thirdly, the construction of garages, whether above ground or underground, which would drain cars standing in the streets. It is that third feature in the recommendations of the Working Party which has been completely left out. We have heard nothing about it, and if the Government still attach importance to that recommendation we should hear what
  510
  encouragement they mean to give to the construction of these garages. After all, as, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, pointed out, the essential problem is the car parking "hog," as the Americans call him, the person who leaves his car in the street all day long. A large proportion of these cars belong to people who are working in shops and offices and leave their cars in the streets all day. Those people will not be deterred by a small charge made by the local authority for parking. They are going to leave their cars in the street and, therefore, the garage idea is the only one that is likely to cater for people of that kind. I believe we ought to know whether the Government are going to give any encouragement to local authorities by way of grant—because, of course, such garages would not be an economic proposition—to go ahead with the building of garages (or to private enterprise if they think that private enterprise could do the job), or whether they think that this clause, together with administrative action, will solve the traffic problem in the London area.
  3.25 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD: I was walking down Whitehall a short time ago when a man stopped me and, in a very Australian voice, said, "Can you direct me to the shopping centre?" Your Lordships may wonder what that remark has to do with this Amendment, but I think it has a lot to do with it. The reason is that, in most cities built in the last fifty or a hundred years, whether in America, Australia, Canada or anywhere else, a city or town is built round a main street. It is a very wide street, and the bulk of the important shops are located up and down it. In that very wide street there is room to park a large number of cars at angle parking without obstructing the traffic, and it is possible to let every shopper have a fair share of the parking places on each side of that main street. There, possibly, the parking meter has some value. But, with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I do not believe that the system would work in this country where we have no shopping centres.
  The question my Australian friend asked was an impossible one to answer, because there are no shopping centres. The shops and places of business are dotted about in narrow streets over a

  511
  large area. Therefore, it seems to me that in the old cities of this country the parking meter is a hopeless proposition. It has some value in the modern American or Colonial city with the wide main street, where people can do their shopping in twenty minutes or half an hour and then go out. They are prevented from "hogging" so that the next shopper can go in. I personally feel that, with possibly few exceptions, the parking meter is not the answer in this country, and it is much less the answer than in other countries where it has been tried and, in some cases, failed. I am also afraid that I cannot support the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. After all, we had coloured windscreen badges at the time of the Coronation to enable us to go into certain areas; and what difficulty there was in allocating those to the right people! I do not think a system of badges could be run fairly, because it would put far too great a burden on the police and the local authorities. Therefore, speaking for myself, in view of the conformation and design of the city of London and most of our other cities in this country, I do not feel that the answer is in the parking meter.
  LORD REA: The discussion on this particular Amendment has ranged over rather a wide field, but I do not think I am out of order in asking the Government to give attention to one point not fully touched upon, and that is parking where parking is legitimate—in front of one's own house or places of call. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, spoke about the main usage of the road being for the free flow of traffic, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The noble Lord said last week that Governments may come and Governments may go but he and the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, apparently, go on for ever. Some of us, however, want to stop occasionally. There are instances of this, of which no doubt your Lordships have experience yourselves. I was trying the other day to pick up an invalid from a nursing home and take her to my own house. I had to wait twenty-five seconds in a narrow street with vehicles parked on both sides. Welbeck Street was filled with hooting vehicles, and on getting back to my own house I was unable to deliver the invalid until the person who had parked outside
  512
  my own front door could be found. This is merely an individual case; but I hope the Government will remember that these parking meters must be placed so that the individual house owner, shop owner or business owner has liberty of access to his own entrance and exit.
  LORD STRABOLGI: May I say a word about underground parking? It is one of the suggestions of the Working Party that underground parks should be built under some of the London squares. Anybody who cares at all for our Georgian architecture in London must view this suggestion with great concern. These London squares are absolutely unique, and foreigners are always saying to me how very impressed they are with their beauty. If garages are built underneath them it will mean that all the fine old trees will have to come down, and instead of having a little oasis of greenery we shall have merely an arid waste. Furthermore, I do not think that these underground garages will really do much good, because they will encourage the car owner to bring his car into London if he thinks he will get easy parking space. In fact, they will have the effect of bringing more and more cars into the city, as I think was pointed out in The Times in their interesting series of articles on this problem last year.
  The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has pointed out that there are 77,000 car "commuters" (if I may use such a term) coming into the city every day, and furthermore that there are going to be 400,000 new cars every year. So that, whatever facilities are given, in a few years' time there will be equally great problems. I have listened with great interest to the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but, if I may say so with great respect, I think it is a little too complicated to work properly. Somehow, I cannot see that it would really work fairly, because motorists who already have parking space would in some way have precedence over others. I should like to make another suggestion which I fear will be even more unpopular, but it is one which I think is the only realistic solution to this problem. We are rapidly approaching the state when, as the standard of living increases, almost every other person in the country will have a car. I think that is an excellent thing. But we must also realise that a car is a luxury which none of us can afford to use

  513
  the whole time. Therefore, I believe the use of cars will have to be limited. There are perhaps ways of stopping them from coming into London, but it will then be necessary to construct enormous parks in the suburbs and almost the same problem will arise, especially as business is moving further and further west, so that places like Kensington and Hammersmith are now quite important business areas. The neatest way of approaching this problem, I am afraid, is to have some form of petrol rationing—although I hasten to add that I do not speak for my noble friends on these Benches.
  3.33 p.m.
  LORD HAMPTON: Some time ago we had a debate, as your Lordships will remember, on the Working Party Report. During that debate I ventured to suggest one way in which the room available for parking in many of our squares could be improved. That was by putting up a notice to say that it was obligatory to park cars diagonally. There are, of course, many squares where that cannot be done because there is no room for the circulation of traffic. On the other hand, there are a great many where it could be done to great and obvious advantage. For one thing, if you park alongside a kerb, it is quite possible that you may be entirely prevented from moving your car when you want to do so by somebody who is in front of you. Nothing has been done about that. I feel that it will help in a small way if diagonal parking is made obligatory where it is possible. In some squares we know it is obligatory. The parking is well looked after by an attendant who sees that people back into the right places, and so on. It is a small suggestion.
  With regard to the amenities of these squares if the Government thought fit to go in for the construction of underground parks, I do not know whether the noble Lord who has just spoken has studied the Report, but it contained two interesting drawings showing the architect's original plan for two or three of these squares which included no trees at all: he wanted to have an open space made up in the form of a garden, so that one could see the architecture—no doubt slightly more attractive in those days than now—round the square. There were no trees in the plans for the squares in those days, except perhaps very small ones. Many of the trees now there are ancient and, in course of
  514
  time, will have to be severely lopped or even taken down. They cannot go on for ever. Some replanning of the trees will have to take place. Though I am not entirely in favour of them, I think it would be possible to construct underground car parks without upsetting the amenities of the squares to a very great extent. However, that is by the way. I do not suppose we shall come to them for some time.
  3.36 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: There is one point upon which we are agreed, and that is the extreme irritation that is caused by the parking facilities in central London. I want to emphasise that what we are putting forward here is nothing more than to ask your Lordships' authority to try this experiment. If we can do it, we are quite prepared to hedge it round in any way that your Lordships may think desirable. I say quite frankly to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that we do not think that this is a solution, but we think that it may help; that is all. In any case, if any Government in the future did build underground parks, or anything of that character, this would be necessary as a previous step.
  I should like to deal with one question which is essentially linked with off-street parking facilities of some character. I am prepared to go further than we have gone at present, and to put into the Bill a provision enjoining the Minister, before he confirms an order submitted by a local authority, to have regard to the facilities for parking vehicles off the highway which already exist or are likely to be provided in the future in the area covered by the scheme: in particular, the improved facilities which may be expected to flow from the exercise by the local authority of their powers under Clause 14. You can look at this question as the egg and the chicken, if you like: whether you get the money first or the car park first does not matter. The question is, does it lead to better off-street parking in the end? That is what you need to have in mind.
  LORD TEYNHAM: Do I understand that that is an Amendment that Her Majesty's Government propose to put down on Report stage?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am prepared to put down words of that character if it meets with the approval of the Committee—not those precise

  515
  words, but those are the usual lines on which it could be done. There are two points around which this debate seems to have centred: first, what are our objectives, and, secondly, how we mean to control them. It links up very much with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, earlier. I think we are all agreed that we have already tried authorised parking, we have tried unilateral parking, we have tried one-way streets, we have tried roundabouts, and we are still not by any means satisfied with the situation. The word "stagnation" was used by one noble Lord. If I may say this to the noble Earl, Lord Howe—and he speaks with very great authority; no one has greater authority in this House on the question of motoring—we do not like his scheme. We consider it would take an enormous body of police to enforce it, if there were no other objection, and there would be a great measure of inconvenience to many people concerned. But if we cannot go further in this direction, something of that character may in the future become necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, put forward a certain number of ideas, but they amount substantially to the expenditure of large sums of Government money. I know there are many things that we have to consider in that respect, but they do not fall into this Bill. I think the noble Lord agrees that some step of this character involving the use, or experiment with the use, of parking meters or the charging for parking will be necessary.
  EARL HOWE: I hesitate to interrupt and I hope the noble Earl will forgive me, but from the Report of the Working Party I gave a figure of £66 per meter. If meters are installed, who is going to get the £66? Will it go into the construction of underground garages? That is what the Working Party said should happen.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The Bill as drafted makes it quite clear, but I should be glad to make it even clearer. This money goes to the local authority for the use of off-street parking. Whether they use it for building off-street parks, and whether they will be above ground or below ground, will be a matter within the discretion of the local authority. If they want to do so, they may even assist garages to proceed by private enterprise.
  516
  That, I think, is all contained in Clause 14. As I said, we are here seeking limited authority to conduct this experiment.
  The noble Lord, Lord Burden, raised a question as to why we did not make the scheme wider. Before doing that, however, we want to have some assurance that it is likely to work. I should like to point out the objective that we have in mind. I submit to noble Lords, in the first place, that it is fairer to motorists that four cars should park in one place for two hours each, rather than that one car should stay there for eight hours. I think everyone would agree with that proposition. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, gave a more exaggerated figure: he said that sixteen cars could use a place which was used by one parking "hog." Whilst that may well be possible in some circumstances, I think parking meters can be considered fairer to the motorist. The system permits of a freer circulation: more people are able to use a given place.
  I should like to take the case of New Zealand as one illustration. We in this country have a somewhat similar speed of living. Not long ago I was speaking to a distinguished representative of New Zealand, and he said that motorists there liked these parking meters, because they could get into the towns, park, do their shopping and get out again. But he said that they had one complaint there—namely, that they do not get the money. The point I am making is that here all the money will be expended for the benefit of motorists. That is of cardinal importance. As I say, I am quite prepared, if necessary, to make the matter clearer on the Report stage.
  LORD GIFFORD: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. That is exactly what I said. But in New Zealand nearly all the towns have a very wide main street, where angle parking can take place outside the shops. That would not be possible in this city.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not say that the circumstances are exactly the same, but the principle would be the same, whether there is angle parking and whether or not the streets are wide. Here, the difficulty is that a motorist who wants to put his car in a place for a short time, and do his shopping, is unable to get anywhere near the shops he wishes to visit. Take, for example, one of the big

  517
  squares—either St. James's Square or Berkeley Square. The rule there is that a car may be left for two hours, though it is fairly common knowledge that that rule is not always observed. I think it is fair to say, without casting any reflection upon the police, that it is almost impossible to enforce the law. No-one can walk round the square and take the time at which every car arrives and the time at which it leaves: I think your Lordships will agree that that is almost a physical impossibility. It may be labour-saving, and more effective, to have an automatic limitation showing when the period of two hours has expired. That is an example. Fat from putting extra work on the police, it would in some measure relieve the police of their duties of supervision, so that they are free to concentrate on other things.
  I have already mentioned the importance of my third point, the provision of off-street parking. I think it is fair to say that we shall never drive cars off the road and into these parking places unless there is some incentive for them to go there. I am given to understand that at the present time there is a large car park at Portman House which is practically never full. There is no incentive for a motorist to go there because he can park freely elsewhere.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I apologise for again interrupting, but I would emphasise that the reason why a number of garages remain empty is that owners object to their cars being bundled about in garages, having their mudguards dented, and so on, because there is no proper system. If there could be some guarantee that the cars will not be manhandled, this would induce people to take their cars off the highway and put them into garages. That is one of the main reasons why in London to-day as much as 33 per cent. of garage space is unused.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has raised a point that I am not familiar with, but it is a somewhat technical one. It does not apply to a big open space like Portman House, where there is no one to manhandle the cars and which is open to entry by a person with his car. I must emphasise that we are not confining, this scheme too much to the centre of London; there may be other areas in the metropolitan area where it could be ap-
  518
  plied much more satisfactorily and which would supply a much better illustration.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised a question of charges. My right honourable friend accepts broadly the proposals in the Report of the Working Party. The general basis of charges is 6d. for an hour, and 1s. for two hours. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that uniformity throughout the country is necessary. I do not want to give an assurance that that will always be the rate—there may be some places where a quicker turn round is in the public interest. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is always very good at looking after the financial interests of motorists, and I am sure he is right in what he says. But is it not worth 6d. occasionally if one can get a freer circulation—if your car can come in more easily and quickly; if you can stop your car, park it, and get out and do what you want to do? Is not that worth sixpence? I put that to the noble Earl as a not unreasonable proposition.
  EARL HOWE: I could understand that suggestion of the noble Earl a little better if he would say whether he had in mind longitudinal, right-angular or diagonal parking.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am not clear what difference that makes to the charges.
  EARL HOWE: The noble Earl asked whether it would not be worth sixpence for a motorist to get freer circulation. In the course of my remarks I put to my noble friend the point that merely to have parking meters on a longitudinal system would restrict, instead of increase the available parking space.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The case the noble Earl has in mind is unilateral parking—
  EARL HOWE: Not at all.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Perhaps I have not entirely understood the point the noble Earl made, but in any case it is for the local authorities, in consultation with the police, to examine this point and to decide which is the best way of doing this.
  EARL JOWITT: May I ask a question? The noble Earl has been very good in regard to all these interruptions. I want

  519
  to understand these charges. Suppose you have a commuter who occupies a place all day long. He is charged Is. for two hours. Can he have another two hours? What happens if he stays all day?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am glad to have been interrupted by the noble and learned Earl. I was passing away from that matter, I am afraid—I was pulled off my course. I wanted to deal with the excess charge. In the United States it is the normal practice for the police to fine on the spot. We have never accepted that here, and we do not propose to accept it now. What is the alternative? To haul a man off to the court after two hours is rather severe treatment, and what we suggest, instead, is an excess charge; that is to say, after two hours the charge is stepped up rather steeply.
  EARL JOWITT: How?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The amount is a charge, not a fine; but it would be sharply increased to the order of, perhaps, 5s. for two or three hours, so that the cost would compare very unfavourably with that of going to a garage. The noble Earl asks how the charge will be imposed. There is provision in the Bill that a motorist may not stay after a period of two hours but must find some other place. He cannot just stay there or drive round and then return. Without going into detail I can say that the motorist will be confined to two hours, and if he finds it necessary to go beyond that time, then the charge will be a fairly substantial one, rather in excess of the normal garage charge.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: How is the motorist to pay this charge? He cannot put it into the meter.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This again is a matter for the organisation of local authorities. The normal procedure we have in mind is that where the attendant finds a car with its parking time expired he will put a notice on the car stating the excess charge that has become due and will enter it in his notebook. Arrangements would have to be made locally for the money to be paid either into a box or to the attendant, or the payment could be sent on. It is integral to this scheme that parking meters should not be put up in isolated places, individually, but as part of a scheme to cover a whole area.
  520
  I will take a point which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has rightly emphasised, the main thoroughfare or "No waiting" area. It is important that in these vicinities parking restrictions should be fairly strict so that there is not a gap between a "No waiting" area and the beginning of an area of parking restrictions, otherwise the result will be to block the entrances to main thoroughfares. Those parking restrictions should go back to the off-street parking facilities—assuming these exist at a reasonable distance from the main street—so that no one can remain between that area and the main thoroughfare. When you get back to residential areas the parking arrangements tail off until indiscriminate parking is not prevented. Obviously that outline differs greatly in various circumstances and that simple picture would not always be possible of execution.
  May I say a word or two about the operation which is very important? I emphasise that this is an experiment, and we want to ensure that it is carefully observed. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, unlike the noble Lords, Lord Derwent, Lord Howe and Lord Somers, wants a great deal of power for the local authority, and immediate action; the other noble Lords want the whole matter to be completely regulated by Parliament, from beginning to end. Both those requirements go too far. I believe the Bill is much more practicable as a common-sense approach. I do not for one moment suggest that we might not put control more on the one side or the other. I am quite willing to do so if noble Lords wish it. The proposals start with the local authority making proposals to the Minister. It is not for the Minister to select sites; he may be able to encourage local authorities, but it is for them, after consultation with the police, to put forward proposals. Thereafter the proposals are published, with full opportunity for public objection; and then the Minister makes the decision.
  We have taken this course because it seems desirable that the first proposals should be made in detail by the people having knowledge and responsibility—that is to say, the police and the local authority. Then the proposals are made public, with every individual having an opportunity to defend his right. Finally, there is the decision of the Minister on

  521
  the broader issues involved. I will mention these, for it is important that they should be kept in mind. First, the scheme must be one directed towards the provision of off-street parking, so it is directly linked with that before it is approved. It must be fair to motorists all over the country, and for that reason the question of uniformity is important. Further, it should ensure that free circulation of traffic is in no way impeded. That is of great importance, economically, to the country in general.
  The point I am anxious to learn from noble Lords is how we can keep a right balance between the local authority, the Minister and the private individual. I think I can meet the noble Lord, Lord Burden, to some extent, because I agree that local authorities may need to have certain wider authority within the terms of the Bill, though I believe the Minister must retain a good deal of control here. Noble Lords have emphasised that the Working Party made three recommendations. I believe it is important to remember that these proposals are not confined to the area of inner London, with which the Working Party were concerned; it is also important not to emphasise that as the only area where this particular scheme might be of value. The metropolitan scheme goes much beyond that. I believe that in 100 years' time we shall still have a parking space problem in inner London. We are not seeking a solution, we are seeking only a more workable arrangement.
  There are three different types of order that can be made, and it is upon this matter that I want the opinion of your Lordships. What sort of control do noble Lords want exercised under these orders? First there is the extension beyond the metropolitan area. At present, that is subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in both Houses. We do not want to extend the scheme, however, until we have had some experience and are satisfied that it is worth while—though that is not intended as any reflection upon other authorities. Secondly, there is the designation order which will designate a place and the general way in which this particular organisation will work. We do not know whether the noble Lord would like that to be under the control of Parliament. These are detailed matters, surely, not particularly suitable for Parliament, but rather matters which are
  522
  the concern of a local authority. If the noble Lord wants that, perhaps he will let me know. Thirdly, there are general things which will apply all over the country, type of parking meter, testing of meter, and so, on; which, again, have to be referred to Parliament. Those are the three types of orders, and I should welcome any suggestions from noble Lords if it is felt that we have not got these things entirely in the right place. To the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I would say that he has no other right on the ground outside his house than a right of access. He has no more right to park his car there than has any other noble Lord. I would repeat that Her Majesty's Government are asking for an experiment. I have no doubt that sixty years ago some noble Lord sat where the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, is now sitting and expressed his view about the motor-car in words of much greater anxiety than those of the noble Lord now. Omnia ignota per terrible, so we regard anything new as being rather dangerous. But I believe this is a matter in which we must experiment, and that we should be wrong not to do so.
  3.59 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: I came here to listen to this debate, thinking that we ought to agree that Her Majesty's Government should have the right to try an experiment, always provided it was tried, at the beginning, in a very small way, in order that they might learn from experience and go on from there. I still think so, although I must confess that I have been rather shaken by what I have heard in this debate. I agree with what the noble Earl says; of course he cannot solve the parking problem. No one can, or will, within the next fifty years—if ever. But he must look to see whether this is going to make things better and lead to the more free circulation of traffic. It is just there that I become rather doubtful. Is it going to lead to freer circulation of traffic or will it point the other way? So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to consent to the making of this experiment by the Government, but certain considerations occur to me.
  I find myself largely in sympathy with Lord Rea. I have a flat in a small residential neighbourhood, and there is a street outside. We, certainly, and most of the other residents, use the street for

  523
  parking cars, and we all rather resent it if a person whom we call "a foreigner" comes in—that is to say, someone who is not one of us. It is rather hard luck: someone who lives down in the country comes up to London and commutes, and leaves his car there all day long. It is the fact, as the noble Earl has just said in answer to Lord Rea, that we have no more right, because we live there, to park our cars in the street than has anyone else. But, as I say, it seems very hard luck, and I should have thought that this matter might be looked into from that point of view.
  I very much hope that the roads which are to be used in this experiment are not going to be trunk roads or main roads; I hope that Lord Lucas of Chilworth's Amendment will be accepted; I think that should be an absolute condition of the experiment. But this much, at least, is plain. If you are going to have some streets where parking will be allowed and people charged (and I am glad to see a heavy excess price is to be charged for anyone overstaying his welcome) I am afraid that this result will follow. Parkers will fight rather shy of these streets—certainly the people I have called "commuters" will. They will go into other streets to leave their cars, and the state of those other streets will be worse than ever. Take the neighbourhood where I live, or any residential street. You will, no doubt, find there parked cars belonging to all sorts of people including those whom we call "foreigners." They will avoid those places where they have to pay, and will come to our streets. I should like the noble Earl at the next stage of the Bill to consider whether that is not a serious thing, and whether, so far from improving circulation of traffic it will not make it still worse. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe; I do not want a lot of extra money to be raised from the unfortunate motorists. I think the object of the Bill in this connection ought to be not to raise money but to try to make things better from the point of view of the circulation of traffic. And that, I am sure, is the Government's intention. The raising of money is completely incidental; the real aim is to prevent obstruction. That, I am sure, is the Government's point of view. As I have said, I am doubtful about this proposal. I believe that as a
  524
  result of it circulation may become more difficult instead of less. I hope the noble Earl will bear that possibility in mind.
  We have had a considerable discussion on this Amendment of Lord Burden—I apologise for his absence at the moment; he has been called away. It occurs to me that in the Bill there is a rather odd bit of drafting which might be looked at again. Clause 10 (1) starts off by proclaiming that it applies to the Metropolitan Police District. From Clause 10 (4), however, one learns that it applies not only to the Metropolitan Police District but to any other area to which the Minister may extend it by order. It is a most peculiar piece of drafting and I suggest that it should be put right. The order can be annulled by Negative Resolution—that is the procedure indicated in the Bill. I suggest that the matter should be looked at.
  The noble Lord, Lord Burden, did not want to press the Amendment to a Division, and the noble Earl will, I am sure, say that he will look at this matter. We certainly want to see an Amendment such as that of Lord Lucas of Chilworth, which is next but one on the Marshalled List, accepted. Subject to that, on this occasion we shall agree to allowing the Government the right to carry out this experiment. I hope it will be a very small experiment. I think it is their intention to have only a small one; and I trust that we shall learn something of value from it. I hope that the noble Earl at the next stage of the Bill will be able to deal with some of the points I have mentioned and to indicate plainly that the scheme which he has described is going to make the situation better and not worse. I am frightened that the situation may become worse as a result of the use of parking meters.
  4.6 p.m.
  LORD WOLVERTON: I have not spoken earlier on this Amendment because I wanted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, had to say, and what the Minister would say in reply. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said he is prepared to consider hedging this clause round with some restrictions. While I agree that we should have the experiment, as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has said, Parliament is here asked to give the

  525
  Minister extremely wide powers. First, the Government ask for the metropolitan area, and then the Minister is to be able to extend the experiment throughout the whole country, subject only to the control of Parliament by the Negative Resolution procedure. Some of us on this side of the Chamber feel that it may be necessary to extend this experiment beyond London to one or two big provincial cities. Until Parliament know more about it, I do not think that carte blanche should be given in a matter of this kind. I think that Parliament, as well as the Minister, wants to know more about it. As I say, the Minister, in my view, is asking for very wide powers, and I should like to see the experiment extended to other areas—to at least two other areas—because the great provincial cities of this country have their problems just as London has; but until we know more about the problem we ought not to go further in this matter.
  I am not happy, however, because I do not feel sure that we have yet hit upon the right solution to this problem. I agree heartily with Lord Howe and Lord Teynham, that this scheme ought to be linked up with the provision of more parking spaces. I had the honour of serving the other day on a Committee considering a Bill promoted by Birmingham Corporation. They were seeking very large Parliamentary powers to rebuild a hilltop site at Birmingham. Their buildings have got to go down two floors. There is going to be a ring right round the buildings, and traffic will have to approach them by certain tunnels, using the basement and the second basement down as parking places. That, I think, is a system which we have copied from America. I think it is a very fine scheme, because it will keep people from parking on the roads. Without this scheme, the buildings would have to be erected in such a position that they would be well back off the roads.
  As I say, however, we need to know more about this problem. I should like to see it put to local authorities that, if they introduce these parking meters, they must provide some alternative parking places, either overhead or underground. I have heard that there are proposals for parking under some of the London squares. It is thought possible to preserve trees by putting, things like concrete gaiters around them below ground level.
  526
  If that is so, it would be a good thing to adopt that system, because it will be a thousand pities if, in some of these lovely squares of ours, we have to cut down trees. That is an engineering problem that will have to be studied, but I understand that some engineers believe they can preserve some of the trees. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has said that he will consider hedging this experiment round with some restrictions, and I am very glad to hear it. I am not against the experiment, but I think it should be extended to other places besides London.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I say how grateful I feel—and, in-deed how grateful we all ought to be—to the noble Earl for the method and manner adopted by him in replying to this discussion. He has been most helpful, and what he has said has, I think, cleared away from my mind 75 per cent. of my fears and objections. He has made (I do not think I am misinterpreting him in saying this) two valuable statements. First of all, he has said that no through highway that carries the traffic through any town or city can be designated as a parking place. That is very valuable.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I must intervene so that there shall not be any misunderstanding. If I gave that impression I must modify it because there are some places where main roads go through market squares, and I do not include those.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Shall I say "carriage way," which is perhaps a better word? That assurance is valuable. The next thing is: would the noble Lord tighten up the terms of the clause that he contemplates putting down about off-street parking? If he will treat that (whether it is the hen or the egg, I do not mind) as the thing which must come first, then again he will have made a valuable contribution. What did he say? He said that parking near the through highway must be very strict; and that the strictness must be maintained up to the place where off-street parking is permitted. The whole scheme will break down, however, unless there is the off-street parking place at the end of the line. If he gives us an assurance that such a parking place will be available, it will go a long way to clear people's minds on the value of the experiment.

  527
  because he has put something there into which to drive the parker.
  I then come to my noble and learned Leader's point, and that is what puzzles me. Is it proposed by this Bill to take away the right which the noble Earl has just mentioned—the right of access? If an occupier of premises has a right of access to his house or flat or shop, where is the parking meter to be placed? The only places where parking meters can be erected, it seems to me, are in streets having no shops and no houses. Am I not right? If a parking meter is erected outside anyone's door, his right of access goes. I do not know where these meters are going to be placed. In the Royal Parks? Is it proposed to have parking meters in the Royal Parks as part of the experiment? I notice that the Ministry of Works have just issued an announcement that Birdcage Walk is in future to be a parking place, and also the road running by the Horse Guards Parade. Are parking meters to be placed down Birdcage Walk and the Mall?
  Then it is proposed to have some places in London with parking meters, and some places without parking meters. Are you going to charge for the places without parking meters? If you are not going to charge for parking in the Mall or Birdcage Walk, why charge for Whitehall where you can put parking meters? This matter wants a lot of thinking about. My noble Leader put his finger right on the point: the Government really have to alter the law on the right of access. If there are to be parking meters in any street in London or any provincial town or city where there are shops or houses, it means doing away with the tenants' or the owners' right of access. That is a problem which I had better leave with the noble Earl, who is a lawyer, and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. But I confess that I do not see where these meters are to be put.
  There is one other point in the noble Earl's explanation on which I think we shall run into trouble. We have sixpence an hour, one shilling for two hours, and very likely, five shillings or six shillings for additional time, with an envelope on the windscreen to say that the man is now ripe to incur a heavy charge. But suppose the man goes off and does not come back. What happens? If he does not put the money in the box and does not
  528
  get a receipt, then proceedings are taken. But suppose he does not put the money in the slot to start with. What happens then? I think that in trying to adopt an American system to this country we are falling between two stools. If somebody sees a car on an American car park, and the meter is not ticking and the dial is not going round, the policeman, the arm of the law, exacts a fine. We have only a car park attendant; he has got to look after a large number of cars. Just imagine St. James's Square with parking meters all the way round; and one car park attendant who is over at the other side. I leave my car against the meter and do not put any money in the slot. How long is taken to detect whether I have put any money in the slot and what happens to me if I have not? The car park attendant may notice it after half an hour, and he then starts charging me from then. Is there any power for the policeman to impose a fine?
  These are some of the difficulties. But again, in conclusion, let me thank the noble Earl for the concessions he makes. I think we have now reduced our disagreement to a very narrow point, although it may be a most important one—that is, is the parking meter, with all its difficulties, the right method to adopt? Is there a right of access in America? Is American law such that they can do away with the right of access? That is a very important point. I think that has got to be solved before we can determine whether the parking meter is the right instrument. Other than that, the noble Earl has satisfied noble Lords on this side of your Lordships' House, because I think he has made very valuable concessions. The most important one, if I may say so, to the noble Earl, is the statement that, before he gives authority for the streets of a city or town to be let out, the Minister must be satisfied that there is off-street parking. That is the thing that will make this scheme work. Without that, I agree with the other noble Lords, it never would have worked.
  EARL HOWE: May I ask the noble Lord two small questions before he replies? Would he, at the next stage of the Bill, give us a more expanded statement on the subject of the finance of the parking meters; that is to say, embodying what he has said with regard to charges,

  529
  what is going to happen to the charges, who is going to supervise them, and to what purposes they can be devoted? The other question is, would he, at the next stage of the Bill, be prepared to meet an Amendment with reference to zoning?
  VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: May I ask the Minister before he replies whether I am right in thinking that right of access may be considered to be something like the width of the door and not necessarily the whole frontage of the building? If that is so, will he not fall into the difficulty of the bus conductor who advised a large lady who was trying to get into the bus to "try it sideways"? She replied, "Young man, I have got no sideways."
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lords opposite for the comparatively warm welcome they have given to this proposal. The point the noble Earl raises is within the general scope of the scheme which I endeavoured to describe. I think it would cover most cases in point. He is perfectly right: it cannot be a case of paying in one place and not another; otherwise there will be unbalance. I agree that in a sense this may seem odd drafting, but the noble Lord will appreciate that there is a great deal of anxiety about the scheme. We have therefore carefully circumscribed it to the Metropolitan area; if he likes to put in another area we will consider it. But that seemed a good place to start in a limited way. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about charges. I should be glad to look at that matter when we come to Clause 14. So far as the question of earmarking the money received in charges is concerned, it should be perfectly clear that this money cannot be diverted to any other purpose, and that is provided for in the Bill. If the noble Earl thinks otherwise, I shall be glad to consider any suggestion he has to make.
  EARL HOWE: Could the noble Earl say something about Appendix J, and whether the figures given there are likely ones?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg the noble Earl's pardon; I thought he was talking about the Bill, but it seems that he is referring to the Working Party's Report. I shall be glad to go into that point presently. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas
  530
  of Chilworth, mentioned a number of things which I think had better be taken later when the Amendments come before the Committee—questions such as the accessibility and working of parking meters. I do not think that this scheme is difficult, and it will come easy with a little practice. I do not think there is anything important I need mention. I will endeavour to meet the noble Lord, but I should be grateful if he could withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD BURDEN: I hope the noble Earl will accept my sincere apologies because I was unavoidably compelled to leave the Chamber and did not have the advantage of hearing this interesting debate or the reply of the noble Earl, which I shall read with great interest tomorrow. I like, however, to say that I am not proposing to give more authority to the local authorities; I am only complaining that the experiment should be limited to the Metropolitan area and the City of London. I do not think that the success or otherwise of this experiment can be proved by trying it out in the Metropolitan Police area. I believe that the large Provincial cities could make their contribution towards a solution of the difficulty. Secondly, I think I made it clear that authority would still remain with the Minister and with Parliament to agree; that is covered by another subsection in the clause. I shall be interested to read what the noble Earl has said. Again asking him to accept my apologies, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a formal Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 9, after ("District") insert ("or the City of London").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.23 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I ask the noble Earl how he proposes to proceed? In view of what he has said about the acceptance of the principle, does he accept the next Amendment or would he prefer to draft something more acceptable? If the noble Earl will tell me, I shall know how to proceed, but, in the meantime, I beg to move the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 12, at end insert ("but no such order shall be made which would designate as a parking place any part of the carriage way of a trunk or class I road.").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: What I had in mind was the necessity to make it clear that the importance of maintaining through traffic must be before the Minister's mind when he is making a scheme. I think that that can be adequately written into the Bill without the rigidity which this Amendment imports into it. I do not know whether the noble Lord really has in mind that as soon as this Bill is passed into law all the waiting notices in Piccadilly will be pulled down and replaced with parking meters. This is going to be a scheme proposed by the police and the local authority and supported by the Minister of Transport. I should have thought that all of them would be extremely interested in maintaining the circulation of traffic.
  I want to put to the noble Lord the difficulties we find here. First, the Amendment suggests by implication that second-class and third-class streets are suitable for parking meters. I agree with the noble Lord that in certain cases they are no more suitable than first-class streets. Bond Street is a case in point. It would be ludicrous to put parking meters in Bond Street, which is a second-class street, or to put them in St. James's Street or Jermyn Street, which are also technically second-class streets. What I think is wrong, and what clouds the issue, is that the selection of streets in which cars can be parked does not depend on whether they are first-class streets, second-class streets or unclassified; it depends on the configuration of the street. The noble Lord was talking about Oxford, and St. Giles's Street is another case in point. Where streets broaden out into market places or where there is a backwash where the main traffic does not flow, these places may be suitable for parking. If a place is suitable for parking, then parking restrictions become necessary and it is essential that those restrictions should be fairly rigidly imposed and a scheme put forward. I do not say that that must be done under this Bill. There may be different restrictions—for instance, by waiting periods; but one way of doing it is by parking meters. If that is not done, the whole scheme for an area might
  532
  be invalidated. Therefore, I think it would cloud the issue. The noble Lord can think of places in London which today are designated parking places and which are suitable for parking meters, and their suitability depends entirely on the configuration of the ground or the way in which streets meet.
  Another difficulty is that first-class roads are not a statutory definition. The Minister must classify roads, but he can classify them in any way he likes. I suggest to the noble Lord that if we put into the list of purposes which the Minister has to keep in mind when making a scheme that he has to ensure proper provision for through traffic, that would meet his point. I should be glad to put in words of that sort, so that if the Minister is not satisfied with a scheme, it need not be approved.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thought the noble Lord was more helpful on the previous Amendment than he is now. I put in the words "carriage way" and not "highway" because these are two different things. What clouds this issue, if clouded it is, is the fact that we are apt to think of London. I am thinking of some of our main arteries in the Provinces. I suggest to the noble Earl—and I think I am correct—that a market square is not a carriage way. The noble Earl mentioned St. Giles's Street in Oxford. I do not think that where there is parking under the trees there, it is the carriage way—it is the verge of the highway. I was particularly careful to word my Amendment so that the carriage way will be kept clear on trunk roads and first-class roads. I do not think that implies that third-class roads shall not be kept clear. I beg the noble Earl to consider this point. Some of our trunk roads are in urban areas and they must certainly be kept clear. I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment, to let the noble Earl have another attempt at finding suitable words, but I would ask him not to cloud the issue with London.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I agree there.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We have through-traffic roads in many towns where there are no good by-pass roads, and we do not want the main highways to be let out for parking and closed to through traffic. I accept the noble Earl's

  533
  offer with great pleasure, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.30 p.m.
  EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to add to subsection (1):
  "Provided that no order shall be made under this subsection with respect to any highway which would have the effect of preventing such access as may be reasonably required for vehicles of any class of description to any premises situated on or adjacent to such highway."
  The noble Earl said: I think this Amendment is self-explanatory, and certainly much of the discussion that we have had this afternoon has revolved around it. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything further. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Howe.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a difficult and delicate point and, frankly, I am not entirely happy with the way the Bill is drafted in this respect at the present time. The effect of adopting the Amendment, however, would be that if at any time anyone was able to establish that he had not reasonable access, then the whole order, not only in respect of that case but for the whole area, might be invalidated; and not only at the time at which the order is made, but, as I am given to understand, at any time in the future and by any single person in that area. That is the difficulty here. I must put it to the noble Earl that that seems to be a heavy and impossible burden to put on the local authority who are doing it. I recognise that there is here a theoretical invasion of individual right, but it is more theoretical than real, because in the sort of places where this happens there is already a continuous row of parked cars in the particular street.
  Perhaps I might start in this way. I think the noble Earl will recognise that this problem does not arise in the square. I do not want to mislead your Lordships. It may seem desirable to some local authorities to extend this sort of thing to places now used for unilateral parking. In some cases that may be necessary, and I think it is essential that there should be reasonable assurance to the people living there that their interests are well studied. As I have said, the difficulty arises only
  534
  in cases where the congestion of traffic is considerable. It is a commonplace that where you get intensely congested areas you inevitably get some modification of individual right. I think it is obvious that that should be the case, provided always that it is in the common interest.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, brought out a good point which is implicit in all this. There are various ways in which the individual can protect himself. First of all, under the First Schedule he can raise objections to the scheme and explain exactly what is important in that respect. Secondly, if the noble Lord will look at Clause 12 (6) he will see that any order may be suspended, either temporarily or regularly, as the case may be. That gives the man who perhaps wants to take in stores once a week at a certain time the opportunity of having the arrangements suspended while he is doing so. But I think the important thing is that it is quite possible to have gaps in the order, either in space or in time. By that I mean that, supposing parking meters were placed in a street, they need not be put tail to tail: you might have three in a row and then a gap to permit access; or it may be possible to close them for certain periods of the day and they would be open only, say, between the hours of eleven thirty to five or five-thirty, or at some time reasonably convenient.
  What I think is important here is that if there is a common advantage we should be able to make use of it, provided always that we do not do a positive injury to any individual concerned. I should like the noble Earl to consider this. In cases where any meter is to be put in front of a man's premises, or where he is the frontager, it would be necessary, not simply to publish the fact but to furnish details of the scheme to all occupiers of the premises which adjoin or abut on to the street or the area to be covered by the scheme. That means that an individual concerned cannot lose the opportunity of objecting by omitting to do so, or by not knowing that the scheme is going forward. I feel that, to some extent, meets the point which the noble Earl has in mind. I have also suggested that when the scheme is complete it should be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, which means that in the event of anyone feeling aggrieved the matter can be raised by a Member in

  535
  either House. I do not know whether that entirely covers the point of the noble Earl, but I think, as drafted at the present time, the Amendment would put a burden on the local authorities which would almost make this scheme unworkable.
  EARL HOWE: In connection with this scheme, does the noble Earl mean that anybody objecting to an order made to put a parking meter outside his house has to go through the formality of having a Resolution moved in either House?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: With respect, I said that was the ultimate remedy which he would have if adequate notice was not taken of his objection and he felt that he had a real grievance. After all, that is what Parliament is for, to remedy grievances. He would also have plenty of opportunity to object while the scheme was being formulated.
  EARL HOWE: Who is going to be the one to whom he should object? Is there to be an independent person to whom he can appeal? It seems to me that we should know a little more about that. There is another point. The noble Earl mentioned the extension of this idea to streets where there is now unilateral parking. How can you pick up all parking meters and take them from one side of the street to the other? Surely, you are not going to have unilateral parking down one side of the street permanently; I am sure that everybody would object to that.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is quite possible to have parking meters down both sides of the street and to use them on alternate days. However, that is only a small detail of practice. The noble Earl has raised the question of the procedure to be followed. It is all laid out fairly fully in the First Schedule. The procedure there shows that these schemes have to be carefully examined by the local authority and by the police, with an allowance for objections, and in London, after reference to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, with, possibly, a public inquiry. It is only after all that has taken place that the Minister may make a decision authorising the order. I think the noble Earl can rest assured that the preliminary examination is as thorough as it can be by competent people.
  EARL HOWE: But does it include an appeal?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The appeal is, first of all, to the Minister; and if the objector does not like that, then he can appeal to Parliament.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I ask a question that might clarify the point? The procedure is that the Minister has to post an order in the local newspaper and in some other way. Then objections are invited, and if there are sufficient objections, or the Minister feels they are serious enough, a public inquiry is held. Let me take the noble Earl through the procedure. Suppose that the Minister designates Laburnham Grove, somewhere, as a parking place, and that Laburnham Grove has fifty houses. Twenty-five of the local residents in this road notice this publication and protest. The Minister then considers it. Now supposing the Minister has a public inquiry and the twenty-five residents are exempt from having parking meters outside their houses, does that mean that those who have not objected will have parking meters outside their houses, or does the whole scheme go by the board? I know that the individual has a right to object, but what happens to those individuals who do not object—perhaps because they are away or do not see the notice?
  With regard to the procedure, I agree that it looks democratic, but it can be very costly. I am not at all certain that the cost of providing for the rights of the individual (which would cover the point I made previously about right of access) will not be so costly that it will be far cheaper in the end to buy large areas of land and have off-street parking. I want to clear up the point the noble Lord has made about the process of objection open to the person who does not object in the first place. Is he subject to different treatment from the man who does?
  4.42 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): It might help your Lordships if I said a word on the procedure, because it is important that people should know how their rights will be carried out. If I might trouble your Lordships to look at the First Schedule, I think the position is most clearly

  537
  demonstrated from that. Paragraph 1 says:
  "Before applying for an order under Section ten … a local authority shall consult with the chief officer of police."
  That, of course, implies that the matter has been discussed on the appropriate committee of the local authority. It usually happens (I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will agree) that it gets round inside the district if a change of any startling or comprehensive character is to be carried out. So there is, first of all, the right to make representations to a member of the local authority itself. That would apply a fortiori to paragraph 2, which says:
  "On applying for such an order the local authority shall publish in the London Gazette and at least one newspaper circulating locally an advertisement giving all the particulars."
  So, if the news has not got round by that time, there is the second chance of them knowing under paragraph 2. Under paragraph 3, the Minister has to allow the period for objecting to the making of the order, and that paragraph operates only if the period for making objection to the order has expired. He may then refer the application, together with any objection duly made, to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, and the Advisory Committee have to consider the application and any objections. I think I am right—I do not want to put it too high—in saying that that gives my noble friend Lord Howe the independent reference he desires, because that Committee is there to provide what may be called the consumer interests' viewpoint in the matter. On that, the Minister may either require the Advisory Committee for those purposes to cause an inquiry to be held under Section 3 of the London Traffic Act, 1924, or, if the Advisory Committee do not hold an inquiry, he may hold it. There again, one gets the further provision of an inquiry at which the frontagers may be represented.
  That brings me to the point as to whether frontagers are to get a chance of expressing their opinion before an independent body. There are really two chances. First, with the Advisory Committee, and secondly at the inquiry, apart altogether from the way they can react on their elected representatives of the local authority. Then let us come to the position of the inquiry. I do not think
  538
  it would generally work by means of specific inclusions. I should have thought from experience that the first point would be: Is the scheme generally desirable? Secondly, do any of the houses or business premises in the street place the individual into a category which is a special category? Then, of course, there might be—though I think it is not likely—individual circumstances affecting a particular house. That sometimes happens with regard to business and so on. In that way, the people who have not taken the trouble to make objections would still find that at the three stages, either by the local authority, the Advisory Committee, or at the inquiry, their case would be considered. I am always willing to look into any point which will make for the greater ease and comfort of the subject who may have that ease and comfort invaded by the powers of the State, but I cannot at the moment think of a better method of protecting it, and if any noble Lord can, I shall be pleased to consider it before the Report Stage.
  EARL HOWE: Having heard what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has just said, I will not press my Amendment at the present stage of the Bill, but I should like to reserve all rights for the future. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had down an Amendment to omit subsection (3). The noble Lord said: As this Amendment was put down only to enable the noble Earl to make the statement he has already made, I do not move this Amendment.
  EARL HOWE: I think the same applies to my next Amendment. I should like to see what happens between now and the Report stage.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS had given notice of an Amendment to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: Having had to come up from the country, I have not had the advantage of hearing the debate on the matter covered by this Amendment, but I gather that it has been covered. In these circumstances, I do not propose to move my Amendment.
  LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM had given notice of an Amendment to leave out subsections (4) and (5). The noble Lord said: In

  539
  view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government are not going to put parking meters on trunk and classified roads, and that only limited experiments will be carried out at other points, I do not propose to move this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is formal. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 42, after ("District") insert ("and the City of London").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either" and insert:
  "which shall be of no effect unless approved by resolution of each."
  The noble Lord said: The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was kind enough to ask your Lordships to give him your opinion as to whether or not the Negative or Affirmative Resolution procedure was the correct one in a number of cases that he cited. I feel sure that the noble Earl will appreciate our difficulty, because he is going to alter the substance of much of this clause, and if the safeguards which, may I say, I have pressed for, are adequately made, I am quite content with the Negative Resolution procedure. But I must reserve the right to put the Amendment down again when I see what the noble Earl proposes to do, because, first of all, I am quite certain that this must be centrally administered. I do not mind minor things being delegated such as odd pieces of supervision of parking places after they have been so designated; but it depends upon the rest of the noble Earl's implementation whether we want the Negative or the Affirmative Resolution procedure. If your Lordships will permit me to do so, I shall be happy to withdraw this Amendment to-day, with the proviso that I may put it down again after I have seen the noble Earl's suggestions. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 2, leave out ("subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. It would be a great mistake in this if we set out on the same course as under the Sunday Entertainments Act. I am
  540
  willing to consider an Affirmative Resolution here if the noble Lord thinks it is necessary. He is only extending it to another area and I think that he really would not see much in the Resolution. It would only read: "For 'Metropolitan Area,' read 'Sheffield'." I do not think it will be necessary here but I shall be glad to hear his arguments later on.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am prepared to leave myself in the hands of the noble Earl. I do not want to clutter up the administrative machinery, but I feel there is so much at stake here over the whole country. If the noble Earl thinks that there is no necessity for an Affirmative Resolution and that there is a necessity for Parliament to debate it first, I am prepared to leave it to the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment now.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes; I will withdraw my Amendment, on that understanding.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11:
  Amount of charges for parking and method of payment
  (4) The measurement of the time for which a vehicle is left in a parking place up to the expiration of the period for which payment was made by the initial charge may, if it is so provided in the order designating the parking place, be made by an apparatus (hereinafter referred to as a "parking meter") of such description as may be prescribed; and where parking meters are in use payment of initial charges (including such further payments as are mentioned in the proviso to subsection (2) of this section) shall be made by the insertion of coins in the parking meters.
  4.53 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit subsection (4). The noble Lord said: The noble Earl has given me a full explanation of this matter, which is what my Amendment was put down for. I hope that at the next stage of the Bill he will give us more information or will put down some more precise Amendment. All noble Lords would like to know is what these charges are to be. Would it be convenient to the noble Earl to put into the Bill the maximum charge? Uniformity is essential—the noble Earl admits that. I do not want

  541
  complete rigidity, but would he consider the advisability of putting into the Bill that the standard rate per hour shall not be more than so much, that the standard rate for the second hour shall not be more than so much and that the excess charge that he was talking about of 5s. or 6s. shall be a maximum of so much? I think perhaps that would meet the case. There is nothing in the Bill. It is "as may be prescribed." If the noble Earl is sincere—and I am not saying that in a derogatory sense—if this is really what he thinks, that the excess charge is in the nature of a fine, as a substitute—
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: A deterrent.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes; it is a substitute for the American equivalent of a fine. I think it should be stated in the Bill that the maximum is so much. If the noble Earl will consider between now and the next stage of the Bill those three suggestions—the standard charge per hour, the standard charge per second hour and the excess charge—I will willingly withdraw this Amendment. In the meantime, I will move the Amendment so that the noble Earl can say something on it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 38, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I can say this. I will gladly consider that point because it is important. There is, of course, a practical limitation and that is our currency. The only really practical coins that can be used are the sixpence and the shilling. Noble Lords can see a parking meter outside which is for coins of those denominations. The only question which may arise is how long it will be before this can be done, and whether we can put that into the Bill. I will gladly examine that. The noble Earl asked one question earlier which I can answer at once, and that is what happens if a motorist goes to a parking meter, leaves his car and does not put anything into the slot? If the noble Lord looks at Clause 13, subsection (3), he will see that it is assumed that on any car the initial charge has been paid and accordingly that the excess charge is due. So that, if you do not put in your original 6d. or 1s., you will have to pay not that but the excess charge. I think that answers the point. It is an incentive to people to see
  542
  that they put in the excess charge in the beginning.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is not, because the excess charge cannot start until the little red disc comes up "Time expired."
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: But it would be up.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No; it might be down. What happens? A car leaves a meter and no other car comes on. The "Time expired" flag is up. Does the "Time expired" flag remain up until the next car comes on—which may not be for a long time—and a man puts some money in the slot? Does the meter then come down and go back to zero? I thought the attendant had to go along and put all the meters to zero. Some are like that. If the meter goes back to zero, I cannot be charged on a hypothetical case, because if, when I put the money into the slot, the "Time expired" flag comes down, I am free. If the "Time expired" flag stayed up before I left my car, I should certainly see that the thing came down, even if I had to put it down with a hammer.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord means: is it working properly?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That, of course, is also provided for in the clause. It is provided that it is assumed to be working unless the contrary is proved. I think it is quite simple. The noble Lord is a clever operator in all these things. I think it is a game to get an unexpired meter. I do not think we can provide it.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In view of what the noble Earl has said, that he will look into this question of uniform charges, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  LORD WINSTER: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, I have one question. Is it intended that these charges shall be uniform throughout the country? As the Bill stands at present, it seems to me that the amount of the charges is to be left in the hands of the local authorities. Is there any suggestion that the charges will, in fact, be uniform throughout the country; that the local

  543
  authorities will not have the power to fix the charges they think right but must fix the charge laid down in the Bill?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am glad the noble Lord raised that point. If he will look at the First Schedule—it is an important point and it is important that we should be clear on this issue—he will see the procedure which is laid down. Amongst other things, when the local authority make their proposals to the Minister, they have to advertise the charges being made for the use of parking places.
  LORD WINSTER: Yes, I noticed that.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That means to say they state what they think is a reasonable figure, and the Minister has to approve it. The general idea is that these parking charges should be uniform, but I know that my right honourable friend has at the back of his mind the idea that there may be some places where cars should be moved much more quickly. I can even conceive a place, not in a main street but in a busy shopping centre, where it might be reasonable to stay half an hour but no longer; and there might be certain circumstances where an adjustment to the charge would be necessary. It is for that reason that stereotyped charges have not been put into the Bill. I have undertaken to look at this point, but I think it would be desirable to give at least some broad indication, if not to put in a precise charge. I hope that meets the noble Lord's point.
  LORD WINSTER: That is exactly the point I had in mind: that uniformity might be difficult and not even desirable in all cases, and that some discretion should be exercised.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.2 p.m.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "the prescribed steps" and to insert "such steps as may be required by the Minister." The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Burden, it seems to me that, subject to the agreement of the Chair, it might be for the convenience of the Committee if some seven Amendments were taken together as they all deal with the same subject matter—I refer to Amendments
  544
  No. 71A, the one which I am now moving, and Nos. 71B, 71C, 71D, 72A, 73A, and 75A.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: What about Amendment 77A?
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: That is on a slightly different point, I think. The point behind these Amendments is that the Bill as at present drawn leaves the Minister to prescribe a great number of matters which, in the opinion of the Association of Municipal Corporations, can, and should be, left to the good sense of individual local authorities. Clauses 11 and 12 place an enormous number of detailed matters, most of which local authorities are quite competent to deal with, under the jurisdiction of the Minister. It is notable, for instance, that Clause 11 alone refers in no fewer than thirteen places to matters which are to be prescribed, which, by reason of the definition in subsection (8), means prescribed by an order of the Minister. The Association of Municipal Corporations and I, myself, can see no reason why the Minister and not a local authority should decide how to test a parking meter, how often to test it, how to record that it has been tested, and how much to pay to have it tested. Therefore, the first four Amendments which are all together on the Marshalled List, Nos. 71A to 71D inclusive, are designed to leave these matters to the local authority.
  Similarly, the Association feel that local authorities can be safely left to decide how vehicles shall stand in or be driven into or out of a parking place, and for how long they may remain there. All these matters could reasonably be provided for by rules or conditions or by-laws laid down by the local authorities. The Amendments to Clause 12 (that is to say, Nos. 71A, 73A and 75A) are designed to leave these matters to the local authority. Of course it would be necessary, should the Committee approve these Amendments, to make an Amendment to Part II of the First Schedule. I think the position is perfectly clear. I do not need to deal with each Amendment separately, and accordingly I beg to move the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 9, leave out ("the prescribed steps") and insert ("such steps as may be required by the Minister").—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is, shall I say, the other side of the coin. Most of the arguments have been on the side of closer Parliamentary control and the uniform authority of the Minister. The noble Lord opposite is putting forward this Amendment with the object of increasing the responsibility of the local authorities. I think most of us have considerable sympathy with his point of view, but there are two sides to this particular problem which I should like to put to the Committee.
  As I understand it, these Amendments would mean that the charges for parking, both standard and excess, would be entirely at the discretion of the local authority; that the type of parking meter would be entirely at the discretion of the local authority; that the manner in which cars enter a parking place (which is not simply a local matter but one which affects the flow of traffic) would be entirely a local authority matter; and that the total time a car remained in the park would also be a local authority matter. That would mean that the Minister would be left simply to designate the place; he would say how parking meters were to be tested; he would say what time of the day or week or month parking meters were to operate; he would deal with one or two subsidiary matters under Clause 12 (5); and he would have rather less financial control. I think that in this matter the local authority has a fairly wide responsibility, but I think equally the Minister must keep before him, first, the fact that motorists come from all over the country and are entitled to expect fair play everywhere. The point of uniformity is important here. Secondly, I think the Minister is entitled to ensure that the scheme produces results for the whole district; and thirdly, that it ensures a free flow of traffic.
  Subject to those points I would agree that the local authority should have as wide a scope for initiative as is possible. I do not see why, under a designated order, discretion should not be accorded to local authorities in appropriate cases, depending on the circumstances of the particular matters which the noble Lord has in mind. But in certain circumstances the Minister should be able to make clear in the order what he thinks to be important. The sort of thing I have in mind here, for instance, is the manner in which cars stand in a car park. As the noble
  546
  Lord knows, in some cases that may mean the way in which they stand on a main street. The noble Lord knows the North Bridge at Edinburgh. That is quite a suitable place for parking on the main street, and it is so used now. It is of great consequence to the Minister of Transport how cars stand. I give this only as an example of how a comparatively small thing may be quite important. Then the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned occasions when parking meters should be suspended—I think under Clause 12 (6)—and there are various other matters under Clause 12 (7), such as the use by merchants of the car parks and things of that sort which, in a great many cases, can be most reasonably dealt with by the local authority; it could be left entirely to their discretion.
  But there is a broader issue, and one has to remember that in any breach of these regulations there is a criminal charge with a sanction of five pounds. It is only fair to motorists that that sanction should be fairly uniform over the country. It would be rather a nuisance if it were not standardised. I think it important that the Minister should prescribe the types of parking meters to be used. I do not say that they should be identical, but that the general specifications of parking meters should be approved by the Minister. It would be a pity to have too wide a variety. I think, too, that the standard and excess charges are matters which should be dealt with centrally. It would be a pity to put them entirely into the hands of the local authority. There is a fairly wide sphere in which the local authorities have responsibility. They have the initiative and the responsibility of operating the scheme, and there is no reason why they should not have considerable scope to ensure that the scheme results in the free flow of traffic and greater convenience to motorists. I feel that the noble Lord is asking for too much, but I can assure him that, within the limits of this scheme, the Minister will consider giving discretionary powers, where appropriate, to local authorities.
  LORD WINSTER:I entirely agree that the Minister must have a broad overriding authority, but I am sure that the noble Earl will agree that, wherever it is possible not to do so, it is most undesirable to relieve a local authority of matters for which they should be responsible, and

  547
  of a responsibility which they are quite capable of discharging. On broad grounds, I am opposed to too much centralisation of matters of regulation such as these, not only because I believe that that procedure puts a local authority it a rather poor position, in that it has to be told about every little detail which it has to do, but also because centralisation has the effect of overloading the Minister and his Department with far too many small matters of detail. As a result, really broad issues of policy sometimes fail to get the study and attention they deserve. I feel sure the noble Earl will bear those points in mind, because I feel that he is largely in agreement with them. There is already too much overcentralisation in these matters.
  EARL HOWE: With much that has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Winster, I agree; but one wants to have a right of appeal at every stage. I do not want the wretched motorist to be "bulldozed." He must be given a right of appeal. If the noble Earl can satisfy me on that, I shall be quite happy. The noble Lord mentioned a criminal charge with a sanction of £5. Am I right in thinking that that is a second new offence which is being created under this Bill?
  LORD WINSTER: To some extent, the noble Earl's point is covered by my statement that the Minister must have broad overriding right of authority. I entirely agree about the right of an appeal.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I have already dealt with the question of appeal. I believe the right of appeal of those who are interested in these schemes lies right through the Bill. It is true there is a criminal angle in these provisions, otherwise an offender might take no notice of them. I will bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has said on over-centralisation; but of course the initiative is entirely with the local authority, and the Minister has only to approve certain things. After that, it is for the local authority to operate the scheme.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am not at all satisfied with the reply of the noble Earl. It is not good enough to take in all these comparatively small matters which are much more within the knowledge of the local authority than of the Minister. The noble Earl says the local
  548
  authority have the responsibility of initiation. That is quite right, and very sensible. The local authority have the responsibility of operating, but they get no grant and no help from the Minister; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has said, the Minister is likely to be burdened with applications from all parts of the country. How can the Minister designate certain specified streets and certain specified times, and rule as to the method of testing meters? There may be a general method of testing, so that some general indication may be given; but it seems absurd that a local authority should have these powers taken from it.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is putting things round the wrong way. The local authority proposes its scheme and advertises it. Only when there are objections to the scheme is the Minister likely to come in. If the local authority put forward a scheme which is reasonably within the uniform standard set by the Minister, and there are no objections, I believe (I should like to get full authority but I think my interpretation is correct) that there is no question of his changing one iota of the scheme. Nothing is taken away from the local authority: in fact, power and actual responsibility are being given to them. The right is reserved only to require that, in certain respects, the scheme conforms to the general requirement of the broader issues which extend beyond the power of the local authority. I do not think, therefore, that it is right to say that anything has been taken away from the local authorities, or that their scheme would not go through straight away if they can get it through without objection.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Do I not understand that it would be within the province or power of the Minister to approve or disapprove the particular streets put forward by the local authority? Would that not be for the Minister to decide? The noble Earl talks about the North Bridge at Edinburgh, which is a very wide one. If the Corporation of the City of Edinburgh decide that that is a suitable place for parking, and that parking there would not interfere with the free flow of traffic, will it be competent for the Minister to say that that site shall not be designated, and to put forward some other streets? And if the Doncaster Corporation, at the time of the St. Leger

  549
  meeting, decide that the operation of parking meters and parking places should be suspended on certain days, will the Minister have any say as to whether or not that shall be done?
  On behalf of local authorities, I take the strongest objection to the Minister's having any such powers. Such matters should be within the power of the local authority, the city or borough. The noble Earl is laying up a great burden for the Minister in assuming for him these wide powers, and I would ask him to reconsider whether some powers cannot be delegated in the Bill to local authorities. It is, of course, much easier for people in a city, borough or county to make representations to their local authority than to do so to the Minister, and I believe it would be to the general convenience, and would give much greater satisfaction to local authorities and to their people, were these detailed matters left to the local authority. That course would avoid delay, and would avoid burdening the Minister unduly. It would also be in accordance with our general procedure in these matters, that a local authority has authority within its area for comparatively small matters of this kind which may need variation from day to day or week to week, matters which would, if submitted to the Minister, result in still greater delay. I hope the noble Earl can give me an assurance that he will look at this clause again to see whether there are not some powers here, in addition to those they have at present, which can be delegated to local authorities.
  EARL HOWE: I hope the Minister will not give way too far here. I agree with the importance of what the noble Lord, Lord Winster, urged, but at the same time I believe there are many outside this House who are extremely nervous of the use which local authorities may make of their powers under this Bill. Many of us think there will be an immediate rush by all seaside resorts to try to use these parking machines still further to fleece the overtaxed motorist. I put it in that way because, when motorists are paying up to £400 million a year, one does not like to see extra charges put upon them. In this respect, I hope the Minister will retain such very modest powers as he still possesses in the Bill to say "Yes" or "No" to any scheme.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord, Lord Winster, was at a disadvantage in not having had an opportunity of listening to the full debate which noble Lords had at the opening at half past two this afternoon, when the noble Earl invited noble Lords to express their opinion upon the principle of all these four clauses. I agree with my noble friend that the Minister should hive off the trivialities, but we are embarking upon something new in the history of this country, the hiring out of our highways for parking, and it does not merely go to the length of putting in parking meters. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just said, any local authority at any seaside place can attempt to let out the whole of their promenade without putting up parking meters—the erection of parking meters is entirely permissive. They can obtain powers to charge for parking on the highway—they do not, ipso facto, have to put up parking meters—and that is a very serious thing. I hope that the noble Earl, whatever he tries—and I agree that trivialities should be hived off—will see to it that the broad main principle is adhered to. I have had bitter experience of this. If the Minister of Transport had delegated his authority on one-way streets, unilateral parking and similar matters, this country would have been in a state of chaos. We must have, on the broad principle, a central authority. I sincerely hope that upon this the noble Earl will not give way.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I appreciate the point which the noble Lord has made; but as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, many of these things (he instanced one-way streets and unilateral parking) are already referred to the Minister. I am not aware that there is any real difficulty about this. As I see it, and as I tried to explain before when the noble Lord was not here, there will be detailed consideration upon the spot by the people who know and who are responsible—the local authority and the police. They put forward their schemes, and those schemes are checked by objections raised by private individuals, because people may be affected personally. Then, that stage having been got through, the Minister looks to see whether any broader matters which have general application have to be dealt with—there may be something connected with the general scheme, the question of general fairness

  551
  to motorists and so on. All these are factors with which we have to deal. The noble Lord must recognise that there are a lot of people, in this House and outside, who are doubtful about this scheme. We do not want to plunge headlong into it: we say merely that we want to try this scheme on a limited scale. If it should appear that we are over-centralising, we certainly do not want that. We do not want to frighten the people by casting these powers widely without keeping them under proper control. I hope the noble Lord will not think that we are trying to take these things out of the hands of local authorities. That is not our intention at all.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I ask one question? The fact that these powers remain with the Minister does not, I assume, necessarily involve a uniform system. May I take it that, though the Minister will control the larger issues, he may decide that in one town a certain price shall be charged, certain hours laid down, and certain things done, while in another town different conditions in such matters may be arranged? If this were done by the local authorities, no doubt there would be any number of different arrangements made by them. I should like to be assured that the fact that it is to be in the hands of the Minister will not involve absolute uniformity.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is quite correct that there will not be absolute uniformity. I have been pressed this afternoon in the direction of uniformity, but the Minister, as at present advised, does not want to tie his hands to complete uniformity. I think his idea is that there may be a fairly general charge, but that there may be circumstances in which a different charge should be made.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: The noble Earl has given me a most courteous reply, and, whilst reserving all my rights, I now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12:
  General provisions for regulation of parking places
  (7) The Minister may by order make such incidental or consequential provision as appears to him requisite for the purposes of the
  552
  satisfactory operation of parking places designated under this Act, including in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection) provision—
  (a) for prohibiting or restricting the carrying on of trades or other activities, or the doing of any other thing, by persons using or resorting to the parking places,
  5.24 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: This Amendment is really put forward in the interest of road hauliers, who feel that in taking the power to prohibit or restrict any carrying on of trade or other activities in connection with the regulation of parking places the Government have once again left no loophole for providing access to premises by commercial vehicles. Shortly, that is the case that is put forward. I shall be interested to know what the Minister in charge will say, and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 26, at end insert—
  ("Provided that for the purposes of this section and of any order made thereunder the delivery or collection of goods to or from any premises abutting on or adjacent to any parking place shall not be deemed to be carrying on of any trade,").—(Earl Howe.)
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): I have great sympathy, as I think we all have, with the sentiments which lie behind this Amendment, but I do not think that I need do more than say "Ditto" to what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor have already said on the very similar problem which has been previously discussed on, I think, Amendment No. 62, which the noble Earl also had in his name. We have great sympathy with the trader whose business may possibly be prejudiced by the placing of a parking meter too near his place of business; as indeed we have with the trader who is at present prejudiced by indiscriminate parking, although there are no meters, in front of his place of business. In this connection, public houses, which have already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, are particularly affected. At such establishments, it is essential that the unloading of beer should be done outside the premises. We shall, obviously, have to consider each of these cases on its merits.

  553
  The same answer, I think should be given to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as was given on the previous question, and I would echo the words of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that there is ample opportunity for representations to be made before any scheme has advanced very far. Anyone who has served on a local authority knows that the local traders are somewhat vocal about any scheme which is likely to prejudice their interests. I am certain that the point which the noble Earl has in mind will be threshed out very carefully before a scheme which is proposed by a local authority will get very far. As I have said, I think each case has to be taken on its merits. Of course, reasonable access must be left for legitimate traders to carry on their businesses. It would be unrealistic if such provision were not made. That does not alter the fact that some sacrifices may have to be demanded. This scheme, we hope, will result in the end in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Motorists may have to suffer a little, traders may have to suffer a little and shopkeepers may have to suffer a little. The ideal scheme will be the one which is worked out in order to provide the maximum of convenience and the minimum of inconvenience for everyone concerned. I cannot be more specific. I can assure the noble Earl that I have great sympathy with the idea underlying the Amendment. I am certain that this sentiment will equally be echoed by the local authority; it is, after all, in their interest to remain in sympathy with those who vote for them and make certain that whatever hardship may be caused is as little as it can possibly be.
  EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Lord very much for the courtesy of his reply, and in view of what he has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13:
  Offences relating to parking places
  (5) In England or Wales the local authority may institute proceedings for any offence under this section in connection with a parking place for which they are the local authority.
  5.29 p.m.
  LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: I have put down this Amendment in order to elicit from Her Majesty's Government a statement as to what is to be the extent of the powers of the local authority to initiate proceedings under this clause. This subsection (5) appears to be a very wide one indeed. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 1, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Teynham.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I view this particular clause as very serious. The noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill, when speaking on a previous Amendment, said that we did not wish to follow the American system of having "on the spot" fines, but what we are doing here, I suggest, is setting up a plain clothes police force. Perhaps the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong, but I suggest that this clause will mean that the local authority will employ, at these car parks, attendants, plain clothes men, and they are going to be responsible for the collecting of evidence of any infringement of the law relating to car parks. For instance, if you overstay your time, as the noble Lord has said previously, you can either put six shillings for the excess time in the box, or you can pay it. Suppose you refuse to pay it. Suppose an argument arises and you attempt to drive your car away. What right has the car park attendant to demand any particulars of you—your name, your address, or to see your licence? Can he ask to see your driving licence? He can take the number of your car.
  Suppose he is the other side of the car park and you drive your car away owing an excess charge. What happens? The local authority can institute proceedings. The local authority then have to collect the evidence. In other words, they will now do the job of the police. Suppose the offence is committed in London and you happen to live in Yorkshire. At the present time if you commit an offence the police must prove the ownership of the car; your number is taken and the local police are communicated with, and the local police find out evidence of ownership. I take it that now the local authority will do that. I take it that the local authority will now send, or ask another local authority representative to go, to your house and ask you whether you are

  555
  the owner of car XYZ123, ask to see your licence, obtain any other particulars and collect all the evidence for a prosecution. I do not know whether I am right, but that is how I read this clause. I understand that the police will not be troubled.
  Suppose that one of these local authority representatives—I do not know whether they have the trained staff; the police have to be trained—knocked at my door at night and said. "Are you the owner of car XYZ123?" I think I should be prompted to say, "What is that to do with you?" If he asked, "Did you leave this car on a car park in London at such and such a time and not pay the excess charge?" I should again say. "What is that to do with you?" And if he then said, "Can I see your licence, your insurance certificate, and this, that and the other?" I should refuse to produce it. A police officer in uniform, yes; I naturally recognise his right to ask me those questions.
  I cannot think that that is the intention of this clause, and yet that is what I read. Because what does it say? It says "the local authority may institute proceedings." Why the local authority and not the police? We recognise that the law of this country regarding road offences is enforced by the police—at least, I think that is the procedure in this country. Are we now going to have a plain clothes police force? Is this an effort, as I take it it is an effort, not to put additional burdens on the police? I wonder whether the police have been consulted about this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has told me in regard to some of my Amendments that the police have been consulted and they say they cannot enforce this, that and the other. Have the police been consulted about this matter? Because if they were consulted I suggest they would be right against it. It is a dangerous principle to introduce in this country, that when a man is parking a car on the Queen's highway a plain clothes individual—he may be armed with a warrant somewhere about his person—can act on behalf of the local authority in the same way as the police. I do not know whether I have overstated this matter or not, but that is how I read this subsection.
  Suppose one local authority has all the impedimenta, including personnel, for
  556
  operating this parking system. They would need to have specially trained people, because car park attendants, if, in the future, they are going to do all this work, cannot be of the class we see on the car parks today; they will need to be specially trained in this job, with the tact of the police and perhaps the same authority; they will have to be armed with the same authority as the police to take these particulars from a private citizen. Suppose a person has committed a crime or is alleged to have committed a crime in an area where there is this highly trained force, but lives in an area where there is not; how is that difficulty overcome? Are the police asked to come in? Would it not be better to have the ordinary course of law, or the implications of the ordinary course of law that we recognise in this country: that the only person who has a right to carry on any job of this description is a police officer in uniform? I suggest it would. I suggest that the method proposed in this subsection is bad in principle. I suggest it will not work. The police have the organisation to do this work; they have done it for years. I hope the noble Lord will take this Amendment back and see whether it would not be better, in all the circumstances, to allow the police to carry on. I understand they want to carry on, and they do not want local authority or civilians to come in and do their job for them.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I should like to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on a constructive speech, but unfortunately on this occasion he has not given me the opportunity. I do not think he has read the Amendment or the clause quite so carefully on this particular subject as he has the rest of the Bill. There is no question whatever of setting up a secret police force.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Civilian.
  LORD MANCROFT: Civilian, secret or otherwise. The attendants will be the normal car park attendants, wearing, I should imagine, badges or some insignia to designate who they are. They will have no more powers than the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, or I have, or the other existing car park attendants

  557
  at the moment. They will have no power to demand licences or names and addresses. All they will have the power to do is write down the number of the car. The purpose of this part of the Bill is solely to relieve the police of as much extra work as possible. It will not take away from the police their rights arid duties as they at present exist.
  After all, the local authorities are empowered, in Statute after Statute, to initiate proceedings, and there is no talk about "civilian police." If your dog commits an offence on the highway, the local sanitary inspector, a uniformed officer of the local authority, will initiate proceedings against you under the Public Health Acts. So could the police. And this is exactly parallel. We have not gone so far as they have in France, and introduced fining on the spot. We have not done it in this Bill, and I should be very surprised if, with a view to alleviating the work falling upon the shoulders of the police, it were recommended in any way by the Sharpe Committee which is at present examining the whole of this question. We are trying here to alleviate the duties which fall on the shoulders of the police; but they and they alone have the authority to conduct the investigations which the noble Lord suggested may be necessary if the purposes of the clause are not to be defeated.
  I imagine, however, that in many cases there will be no need whatsoever to call in the police. I can equally well see that occasions will arise when the services of the police will be required. But let me reiterate: the local authority will have no more power than under existing Statutes. On these occasions, therefore, the police will take the normal steps, and the law will pursue its normal course. That is merely the exceptional case. At first nearly all prosecutions—which I hope will be extremely few—will be initiated by the local authority, which possesses no more power than I have just outlined to your Lordships. If those powers fail, if the problem is complicated, if it crosses the border of a county or there is a difference of opinion about evidence, the police may have to be called in, and they will exercise their normal powers. I am sure, however, that your Lordships will agree that it is only right that we should relieve the police of as much of the burden as we possibly can in these cases and
  558
  leave proceedings in the hands of the local authorities who, in case after case under present Statutes, have used the powers given them by Parliament to initiate proceedings with little or no trouble at all.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am glad to have the noble Lord's assurance. It seems so clear when he says it, but I can assure him that there is a wide misunderstanding about this matter. I believe I am right in saying that the Chief Constables' Association made serious representations to the Government about this subsection, so I was not alone in misunderstanding it. In view of what the noble Lord says, I am willing to accept the subsection as it is. I hope it turns out precisely as he has said, because at the present time the police, not the local authority, take action against illegal parking. If a motorist leaves his car for too long or outside a designated parking place, the police take action.
  LORD MANCROFT: There is nobody else to initiate proceedings in that case.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If he leaves it in a parking place and commits precisely the same offence, the local authority are empowered to take action.
  LORD MANCROFT: Because their representative is there.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Their representative has the same functions on a parking place as a policeman has on a street, where there is no parking place. I accept what the noble Lord says, but if it turns out that my interpretation is correct, I think the noble Lord will be very sorry. I hope it is going to turn out as he interprets it. In view of the assurance of the Government that that is their intention, I will not support the noble Lord's Amendment as I had intended to do.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I think the country will be grateful for the assurances and explanations given by the noble Lord who is replying for the Government. As I understand it, parking attendants will have power only to write down the numbers of cars. The whole system is really to be geared to help the police and save their time when possible. I also understand that the local authorities will have no

  559
  more power than they have at the present time. With those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14 [Parking places: financial provisions]:
  5.46 p.m.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, in subsection (2) (a), to omit "with the consent of the Minister." The noble Lord said: Clause 14 provides that local authorities must keep accounts of income and expenditure from parking places, that any deficit in the account shall be made good out of the general rate fund and that any surplus shall be applied to certain specific purposes set out in subsection (3). The clause also provides that local authorities may apply any surplus towards other purposes, provided that they obtain the Minister's consent. The Association of Municipal Corporations strongly object to the proposal that local authorities must not apply any surplus which may arise from parking places for such purposes as they think fit without getting the Minister's consent. Local authorities cannot see what concern it is of the Minister what happens to parking fees. There is no grant made by the Minister towards the provision of parking places or parking machines. The whole of the apparatus and the expense is to be "footed" by the local authorities. Indeed, the entire financing of the scheme is to be done by the local authorities out of the general rate fund. Therefore, it does not seem right, if any surplus arises, that the local authorities should not be able to dispose of it as they think fit, having regard to the proposals made in the earlier part of the clause.
  It may be that a local authority wish to use a surplus for some other purpose. The specified purposes for which they may apply money are, first, to make good to the general rate fund any deficit incurred during the past four years; secondly, to provide parking accommodation otherwise than on the highway, and thirdly to make contributions towards other local authorities for parking accommodation. It may be that a local authority will wish to apply this surplus to some other purpose—for example, to provide parking places on the highway
  560
  and not off the highway. It does not seem right that the Minister's consent should have to be obtained by the local authority before they can use surpluses arising from their own efforts as they think fit. Surely the use of this money is essentially a matter for the local authorities themselves, and I hope the Government and the Committee will agree. I beg to move the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 11, leave out ("with the consent of the Minister").—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
  LORD WOLVERTON: I hope the Committee will not pass this Amendment, because the whole object of this proposal is to control finances in a certain way. For the first time this Bill authorises a charge for parking on Her Majesty's highway, and the only excuse for making this charge is that the money should go to certain specific purposes. I hope that it will go towards making extra parking places, but if the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, is accepted, a local authority may use the money for anything. I think that would be most unfair to the motorist, because in a way it is an extra tax on him to provide, we hope, for extra parking facilities.
  LORD WINSTER: I should like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend. The purposes for which a local authority may apply a surplus are laid down in this clause. They seem to me to be excellent purposes, and whichever of them a local authority chooses I do not think they could do very much harm. I should think that a local authority could be trusted to use the money for one of those three purposes to the benefit of the locality for which they are responsible. That being so, and as the Minister has laid down the choice of three, I do not see why the consent of the Minister need be obtained for applying a surplus to one of those three purposes which he has already specified.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, realises that this clause is fundamental to the whole conception of these three clauses. I am sorry he said that the local authorities strongly object, because I am sure they must appreciate that there would be violent objections elsewhere if the purposes for which this money could be expended were not fairly clearly laid down.

  561
  I do not know whether the noble Lord really wanted to go outside the purposes laid down in Clause 14, but he certainly gave me the impression that he felt the local authority should be able to spend the money for almost any purpose. Perhaps he did not mean to go so far as that. I hope the noble Lord will recognise that it is fundamental to this scheme, and that there would be the most violent objection, if I interpret the situation rightly, if this money were not spent for these purposes. So far as the Government are concerned, they stand firm on that.
  I am bound to say, however, that I think there is a point in what the noble Lord, Lord Winster, said. We have laid it down that before varying the sequence in which money has to be expended—that is to say, whether they spend it on their own car park, or on somebody else's car parks, or carry it forward—they must get the consent of the Minister. On the other hand, I am given to understand that, as the Bill is drafted, the local authority could carry forward the money indefinitely into the future. I think that goes too far and, if the noble Lord agrees, what I will try to do is this. I will meet him so far as to say that, before they carry the money forward, they have got to get the consent of the Minister, but that for any of the purposes laid down they will be able to do it without the consent of the Minister. I feel that that is a reasonable suggestion, and I hope it meets the point the noble Lord has in mind.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Not in the least; on the contrary, it is imposing a greater restriction on the local authority than exists at present.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Yes, it is. At present, under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) the local authority are to apply the money received from the car parking to the purposes set out, and paragraph (b) goes on to say that any surplus:
  "in so far as not applied as aforesaid, shall be carried forward in the account…"
  The noble Earl now says that the local authority can carry the amount forward to the accounts of the next financial year only provided that the Minister agrees. That is imposing a restriction on the local authority. It would appear, therefore, that the Minister may instruct the local authority to use the money for some other
  562
  purposes—it may be one of the three purposes set out in the clause. It seems to me to be quite wrong to impose on the local authority a restriction of that sort, whereby, if they carry out the purposes of the clause and apply the funds primarily to one of the three purposes set out in the clause, they are not allowed from year to year to carry the amount of the surplus forward, except with the consent of the Minister. Undoubtedly, a further restriction is imposed, rather than the opposite, as the noble Earl suggests.
  EARL HOWE: I ant sure we all recognise that the noble Lord who has just spoken speaks with great authority, but at the same time it is exasperating from the point of view of the motor world, which is being "soaked" with taxes at the moment. Many of us are fearful that some of these local authorities will use this Bill in order further to "milk" the motorist; and that would be intensely resented by the motor world.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: As a motorist myself, I could not agree more with the noble Earl on that; but it does not seem to me that there is any safeguard here against that. The question here is whether the money shall be spent by the local authority in one year or another, or spent on the instruction of the Minister—that is what really matters. There is no question of "soaking" the motorist here. I recognise the knowledge of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on these matters—and I have more than once seen him go "round the houses" at Monte Carlo and greatly admired him—and I am fully in sympathy with his general point of view. However, I feel that here there is a case where the local authority should have some discretion.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I think possibly the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, was not present earlier when I pointed out that in a number of cities in the United States of America money raised from parking meters has been used for all kinds of purposes which have nothing whatever to do with the facilities for parking cars. I had hoped that nothing of that nature would creep into this Bill.
  LORD WINSTER: If I am right in thinking that the offer of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is that a local authority applying the surplus for one of the three purposes laid down in the clause will not

  563
  have to seek the approval of the Minister, but will have to seek his approval only if they wish to apply that money to some other purpose, then that meets my point.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is what I had in mind; but my proposal has been so badly received by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, that I wonder whether it will serve any useful purpose. On my interpretation of Clause 14 (2) (a) and (b) I am not quite certain that, as at present drafted, they could carry the money forward without the consent of the Minister. I am influenced by what my noble friend Lord Teynham has said, and I do not think the local authorities should be free indefinitely to carry the money forward. It seems to me that Parliament must insist that it should be spent for this purpose. I agree with the noble Lord that how it is spent might be reasonably left to the local authority. I do not think this is an unreasonable suggestion, with respect to the noble Lord. If he can see his way to indicating that it will help him, then I will try to redraft something on those lines.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: If the noble Earl can do that, then we can look at it again on the Report stage. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to add to the Clause:
  "(5) This section and the preceding four sections shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and sixty, and no longer unless Parliament otherwise determines."
  The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is merely to limit the operation of the Bill. The Government have said on several occasions that this is an experiment. If the experiment were limited to three years, many of us feel that that would be an adequate time in which to form a judgment as to the success or otherwise of the experiment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Howe.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is somewhat difficult to meet this point and at the same time meet the point on which
  564
  I was pressed earlier to-day, that the whole of this scheme should be closely linked with the proper provision of off-street parking. That is the difficulty about this Amendment. We cannot expect a local authority to go ahead with any reasonable scheme unless they have some assurance of the continuance in the vicinity of the source of revenue for which the scheme is built up. We have already circumscribed the scheme in area, and we have already circumscribed it by a close method of examination. If the noble Earl likes, I would rather make its extension in the metropolitan area more difficult. But I think this Amendment would cut at the root of what I believe people like my noble friend Lord Teynham have particularly in mind—that is, the building up of off-street garages to be connected with the scheme—and would make the scheme impossible to operate. I think the analogy that the noble Earl has in mind of the 30 m.p.h. speed limit which was put into the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill is not the same. This was imposed on the whole country, in all built-up areas at one and the same time. None of these schemes will come into operation until the whole of the procedure laid down in the First Schedule has been gone through. There is nothing hurried about it: it will be a careful procedure open to a great many objections at different stages. In fact, I think it would be quite difficult to get a scheme through at all under this limitation. If the scheme is to come to an end in three years' time it would not encourage any local authority to put forward a worthwhile scheme of off-street operations. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will not press the Amendment.
  EARL HOWE: I recognise the force of what the noble Earl has said, and I will not press my Amendment. At the same time, I am much more nervous about the operation of this Bill and these clauses in the provinces than I am in London. I can see fairly well how it may work in London, but I cannot see the end of it in areas outside, and I am very nervous with regard to the use which may be made of the Act in the watering places throughout the country. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  6.2 p.m.
  LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON moved, after Clause 14 to insert the following new clause:
  Extension of powers to make advances for certain purposes
  ".The powers of the Minister under section seventeen of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, to make advances for certain purposes shall include a power to make advances for the provision of parking places by a local authority under section sixty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1925, as extended by section sixteen of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, and for the purposes of this section the expression 'local authority' shall include county councils."
  The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gisborough, who regrets that he is unable to be here today. It has, I believe, a considerable measure of support in the country. The proposal is that the central Government should make grants to the authorities to help in the provision of off-street parking. At the present time, the Minister has no power to make these grants. Although car parks are a necessary and natural adjunct to the highway system of the country, the provision of car parks is entirely divorced from those who deal with the construction of highways. It seems somewhat illogical that the authority which has power to construct roads should not also be responsible for the provision of parking places for the traffic which uses the roads. The suggestion—and it is only a suggestion—so far as the Amendment is concerned, is that grants for car parks should be on a similar basis to those for roads and regarded as equally important. It has been said that the whole road system is analogous to a railway system which possesses no sidings. The desirability of introducing legislation to enable grants to be made from central funds was stressed in the Report on London Traffic Congestion, 1951, when grants were considered essential to avoid an excessive burden on the rates of local authorities.
  Parking meters may, after all, have to be regarded in these areas as an experiment. If successful, they will, I believe, help in meeting the need which has been mentioned to-day for off-street car parks. It is somewhat severe on motorists if they are to be called upon to bear the whole burden of expense in providing off-street parking facilities. Obviously, it is difficult to decide how the burden should be
  566
  apportioned. There is obviously some case to be made out for a contribution from the ratepayers, because the provision of a car park will bring business to their locality. This Amendment may be of considerable use in dealing with particular cases which do not appear capable of solution in other ways. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 14, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord is moving from the position which we have had up to now, since the Public Health Act, 1925, by which parking was the responsibility of the local authority, and he is suggesting that it should now be undertaken on a national basis. To some extent we recognise that fact in the five clauses with which we have just dealt. We are there providing revenue for local authorities, expressly with the object of their obtaining a certain amount of finance for this purpose. How far is the noble Lord justified in saying that this is a matter which should be thrown on the Exchequer? It is an argument which is, I know, widely used for all sorts of purposes—"Let the Exchequer pay for it. It does not matter; they have plenty of money and they can find it." I think that is a very dangerous argument to use for a matter like parking, which, I would say, is primarily a local concern, and I think it is quite right and proper that it should be dealt with on that basis. If at any time the Government feel that they should make a contribution to local authorities for this purpose, they will not hesitate to come to Parliament and ask for powers. At the present moment, however, to accept this Amendment would, I am afraid, be tantamount to accepting the principle that they want to go in for this form of public expenditure. I cannot say anything of that sort now; therefore I must ask the noble Lord whether he will withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD MONK BRETTON: I am certainly prepared not to press the Amendment. It was prompted by the great need to get matters started, and also by the doubt whether the revenue from parking meters will be sufficient in all cases. In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.8 p.m.
  LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON moved, after Clause 14 to insert the following new clause:
  Power for County Councils to provide parking places for vehicles
  ". Section sixty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1925, which relates to the provision of parking places for the purpose of relieving or preventing congestion of traffic as extended by section sixteen of the Restriction of Development Act, 1935, shall have effect as if the expression 'local authority' included county councils and as if in the application of that section to county councils the word 'county' had been inserted therein in lieu of the word 'district'."
  The noble Lord said: The object of this new clause is to extend to county councils the right now possessed by other authorities to provide parking places off the highway. The authorities that now have this power are town councils, urban district councils and rural district councils. The power is given to them under the Public Health Act, 1925, Section 68. They are the local authority within the meaning of that section. The power was subsequently extended by the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, to enable the London County Council, the Corporation of the City of London and the metropolitan boroughs to provide parking places, if authorised so to do by order of the Minister of Health. This new clause is designed, as I have mentioned, to provide county councils with the power to construct off-street parking places. I feel that the time may come when this is necessary and that there will be places where it particularly applies. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 14, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am bound to confess that I thought this Amendment was consequential on the previous Amendment which the noble Lord moved, because it did not occur to me that county councils would be anxious to make grants to other local authorities unless they had previously received a grant from the Treasury. I may be wrong in that assumption, but I have no evidence that I am. If the county councils say that they want this power, then we should be only too pleased to give it to them. I would hesitate to incorporate it in this Bill, however, until we have carried out experiments and found out what they
  568
  really want to do. If they say they want the power, we will give it. But I must confess that up to the present time we have had no indications of that character at all. In these circumstances, if the noble Lord would be good enough to withdraw the Amendment, I should be glad.
  LORD MONK BRETTON: Possibly the time is rather premature for this Amendment. In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 15:
  Penalties and disqualifications
  15.—(1) The following provisions shall have effect as respects penalties and disqualifications which a person is liable to incur on a conviction for an offence under section ten (speeding), section eleven (reckless or dangerous driving), section twelve (careless driving) or section fifteen (driving under the influence of drink or a drug) of the Act of 1930 in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle, that is to say:—
  (a) a fine imposed on a first conviction for an offence under the said section ten (not being a conviction to which subsection (5) of that section applies) may be of an amount not exceeding thirty pounds, and subsection (2) of that section (which prevents the court from disqualifying an offender on a first or second conviction) shall not apply to a second conviction;
  (c) the disqualification required to be imposed by subsection (3) of the said section eleven (which requires the court, except in special circumstances, to impose a disqualification on a second or subsequent conviction for an offence under that section) shall be for a period of not less than nine months unless more than three years have elapsed since the offender's last conviction under that section;
  (2) Subsection (3) of section six of the Act of 1934 (which empowers a court, on the conviction of a person for an offence of reckless, dangerous or careless driving, to order that he be disqualified from driving until he has passed a driving test) shall apply to offences under section fifteen of the Act of 1930 (which relates to driving under the influence of drink or a drug), and the court shall make an order under the said subsection (3) in any case where it makes an order under section six of the Act of 1930 disqualifying for any period a person convicted of any such offence as aforesaid, or where a person so convicted is so disqualified by virtue of the conviction.
  6.10 p.m.
  EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to add to paragraph (b): "within three years of a first conviction;". The noble

  569
  Earl said: This Amendment is important. The proposals under this Bill greatly stiffen the penalties with regard to various offences to do with exceeding the speed limit. As the law stands at present, a defendant who is convicted of exceeding the speed limit cannot have a sentence of disqualification imposed upon him on a first or second conviction. Clause 15 (1) (a), besides increasing the maximum penalty to £30, also removes the protection in regard to a sentence of disqualification in respect of a second conviction. This Amendment is intended to limit the power to disqualify on a second conviction to cases where such conviction occurs within three years, or thirty-six months, of the date of the first conviction. As the Bill stands, if a motorist exceeded the speed limit in the old days of the 20 m.p.h. limit there is nothing to prevent that conviction from being brought up against him. Of course, that law bears no relation to the present day and I cannot believe that that is really the intention of the Bill. At any rate, it is only common justice that, if a motorist has a clean licence at the end of three years, he should not have previous convictions brought up against him. If they are, there are a number of Members of this House and also of another place who will be likely sufferers in the future. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 4, at end insert ("within three years of a first conviction;").—(Earl Howe.)
  LORD TEYNHAM: I should like to add my support to this Amendment. During the Second Reading of this Bill, I pointed out this curious anomaly. I hope that Her Majesty's Government have had time to look into this matter. I think it is absurd that the sins of one's youth should be visited upon one very much later on.
  LORD MANCROFT: This is one of a series of Amendments directed against the increased penalties which are proposed under this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Selkirk and I both remarked during the course of our Second Reading speeches, it is the intention of the Government to tighten up the penalties for using a car in an anti-social manner. In the course of that debate, the point was made by more than one of your Lordships that the courts, in their wisdom and discretion, sometimes impose light penalties, even
  570
  where Parliament has quite clearly provided that a much more heavy penalty might be incurred. One can do no more, at this time, than to suggest that the intention of Parliament is that these offences should be regarded much more gravely, and that is the broad hint given in the penalties included in this clause.
  I quite appreciate the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the sins of our youth—indeed, I appreciated it when the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, made it upon the Second Reading. The answer is surely this. The power to inflict the penalty of disqualification is purely discretionary in these cases, and I am certain that no courts would fail to take into consideration the factors which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just mentioned—twenty years of undetected crime or, indeed, innocence. One cannot lay down in an Act of Parliament every comma and every full-stop for the guidance of the courts. The courts, as they always do in these cases, must exercise their discretion. I would therefore ask noble Lords not to fetter the courts in any way so that they are unable in suitable cases to inflict the serious penalty of disqualification. We all know that in many cases disqualification is a much more serious penalty upon a motorist than a fine. If the courts were not given discretion in this matter in the Bill, I should have a great deal more sympathy with Lord Howe's arguments; but, since it is so, and one can rely upon the courts not to act harshly in the cases which he has suggested, I would ask your Lordships to leave this particular section of the clause as it is, in order to suggest, by the strengthening of these penalties, the gravity with which Parliament regards the anti-social use of the motor car.
  EARL HOWE: The noble Lord has directed most of his arguments to the penalties. He has pointed out to us that the penalty of disqualification may follow on a second conviction. We are not kicking against that. It was made quite clear in Second Reading, and it was recognised, I think, by everybody, that the Government desire to strengthen the penalties; but we feel that the operation of the law in respect of the speed limit per se may be most inequitable. One of the things that has exasperated many people, and which makes them less than ever ready to observe the law in some

  571
  cases, I am afraid, is the inequitability of the administration of the law in respect, particularly, of motor cases. One bench will, for the sake of argument, take a very lenient view of an offence, while another bench takes a very serious view. It is the inequitability of the law that troubles people. That is something we cannot help but, at the same time, it seems that it is quite unnecessary, while stiffening up the penalties, to make it indefinitely retrospective. Surely it is not an unreasonable request that there should be a limitation. If three years is too short a time, would the Minister give some consideration to some other period and suggest a different period on the Report stage? I cannot believe that we want to rake up the past the whole time in these cases, or that failure to do so would in any way jeopardise the administration of the Act or defeat its intention.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: The noble Lord the Minister has referred to what he has called the "anti-social" conduct of motorists on the road. I cannot believe that, in many cases, exceeding the speed limit is an anti-social act, because those who are prosecuted are usually prosecuted for technical infringements on roads where there is no danger at all. I have already referred to the fact that this speed limit is desirable at certain times of the day when there is danger about, but that is not usually the time when the motorist is "had up": he is usually "had up" when there is no danger at all. Consequently, the Minister must not get carried away with the idea that every time one exceeds the speed limit one is being anti-social. Having, I hope, established the fact that exceeding the speed limit is not a very heinous crime, if there is an episode in which it is a bad case, then the motorist need never be prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit; he can be prosecuted for dangerous driving. But in this particular case we are referring to two episodes of a purely technical nature where the law has been broken. To "dig up" an offence where, say, twenty years ago on a barren road one happened to be followed by a motor car, with the result that one is now liable to have one's licence suspended, is to give to the courts a power of punishment which would not be endorsed by most people in this country.
  LORD MANCROFT: I appreciate the power of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. The noble Lord will appreciate that when I used the word "anti-social" I was of course referring to speeding, to dangerous driving, to careless driving, to drunken driving and other offences of this type. I was not, of course, referring solely to speeding, the least antisocial of the offences we are now discussing. I would only say that I think the discretionary power, which I have emphasised more than once still rests in the courts, is the safeguard against some perfectly trivial and unimportant offence being punished unduly harshly. If the Committee feel strongly about this, I will, as carefully as I can, look at any further Amendment which the noble Earl cares to put down on the Report stage. But at the moment I suggest that the discretionary power vested in the courts, who after all have never shown themselves particularly unjust or harsh to motorists, is more than an adequate safeguard.
  EARL HOWE: The noble Lord cannot have appeared before some of the Surrey benches, or he would never have said that. However, if it is clear that the Minister is ready to give some further consideration to the point raised in this Amendment, I am quite content not to press it today. But I must have an assurance to that effect. If the Minister is prepared to give that assurance, all well and good; otherwise I shall press it.
  LORD MANCROFT: The assurance, which I hope will meet the point of my noble friend, is that if, on the Report stage, he would care to put down an Amendment containing some different wording it will be most carefully considered.
  EARL HOWE: What more can I do? Can the noble Lord assure me that he is prepared to give the matter consideration? If he thinks three years too short a period and would like to make it four years or five years, then I know what to do. But can the noble Lord give me an idea what he wishes me to do? I am quite prepared to consider the matter.
  LORD MANCROFT: I do not wish to conduct a Dutch auction with the noble Earl. I will certainly take advice and get in touch with the noble Earl to see if I can meet him. I do not wish to quarrel with him over this, which does not

  573
  seem to me an important matter. I certainly undertake that I will look at the matter again.
  EARL HOWE: That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment for the moment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.24 p.m.
  LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Derwent. I suggest that it is far better to leave the whole question of the period of disqualification to the discretion of the courts, who have the advantage of seeing the defendant and hearing his plea as to the whole circumstances in which the offence occurred. Here I am asking that the whole question should be left at the discretion of the court. As the noble Lord who replied for the Government said, in the last Amendment it was somewhat different—and he cannot have it both ways. Surely every case should be judged on its merits, and it is not right that the period of disqualification for driving or permitting the driving of an uninsured vehicle should, in the absence of special reasons, automatically be twelve months, but on a second conviction for dangerous driving the period of disqualification should be only nine months. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 13, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Teynham.)
  LORD MANCROFT: Here the problem is approached from a slightly different angle. In the Bill we are trying not to be unduly harsh on the dangerous driver. We think the dangerous driver needs severely punishing, but not to such an extent as is clearly unjust. Unfortunately, what has been happening is that courts have been giving derisory sentences of fourteen days' disqualification, which makes a mockery of the whole thing. What we are trying to do is to bring this penalty more into line with the severity of the penalties for driving under the influence of drink or a drug. I grasp the noble Lord's point about the discretion of the court. Here it is not quite a discretion, but an amelioration. When a court feels that it would not be appropriate to impose a period of disqualifica-
  574
  tion of nine months (that is the new period in this Bill), they may consider whether there are "special circumstances" or that more than three years have elapsed since the last conviction. I quite agree that "special circumstances" do not go quite so far as an absolute discretion, but I think the safeguards are fairly clearly set out. In view of the importance that is placed upon the desire to punish these cases severely, I would ask the noble Lord not to weaken the hand of the courts in this case, but to agree with me that the "special circumstances" provision and the three years' proviso give to the courts considerable latitude to see that no injustice or undue harshness is applied. This is a serious offence; I think we may as well admit it to ourselves and stick to our guns.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I am sorry that the noble Lord is not prepared to leave it to the discretion of the court, a course which, in all the circumstances, would I think have been best. But in view of what has been said, I do not propose to press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL HOWE: This Amendment is almost precisely the same in character as the one which I moved just now. I hold no brief whatever for those properly convicted of dangerous or careless driving, but I feel that there should be a reasonable limit to the period to which one can go back. If the noble Lord is able to give further consideration to this point (he may think that he cannot accept the period mentioned here), I should be quite content. Perhaps the noble Lord could give me the same answer as before. I cannot, in respect of this Amendment, any more than I can in respect of the other one, agree to an unlimited digging up of the past. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 30, at end insert ("within three years of a first conviction;").—(Earl Howe.)
  LORD MANCROFT: The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is quite right in saying that this deals very nearly with the same case as the one which he advanced on the last Amendment but one; so I will waste your Lordships' time no further by reiterating my argument, although I reserve my right with the same forcefulness as the

  575
  noble Earl, Lord Howe, has been reserving his right so far this afternoon. I will certainly consider this matter again, in conjunction with Amendment No. 83 which marches with it, and I will see whether I can do something to qualify the noble Earl's ideas, or at least to persuade him that mine are more powerful than he believes them to be.
  EARL HOWE: That being so, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.28 p.m.
  LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL moved, in subsection (2), to omit all words after "1934" and to insert:
  "shall have effect as if there were substituted for the word 'may' the word 'shall'."
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make obligatory the taking of a driving test in cases where the person concerned has been convicted of reckless, dangerous or careless driving. As your Lordships know, a large proportion of experienced drivers have never taken a test, and I suggest that an even larger proportion would fail if they did. The British School of Motoring, by testing some 1,600 qualified drivers during the last twelve months, found that nearly 25 per cent. of those who have passed the Government test subsequently acquire dangerous and careless habits which contribute substantially towards the road accidents incidence, Obviously, it is not possible to ensure that every qualified driver on the road takes a periodical test. It is equally obvious, I suggest, that any driver who has, by conviction for one of these offences, been proved to fall below the minimum standard of safety requirements, should be required to show that this was a momentary lapse rather than chronic inability.
  Nor can it be argued with conviction that the effect of this Amendment would be to impose such a heavy penalty on the offender that the courts would be reluctant to record a conviction. It would rather establish the need for a convicted driver to show that his standard of driving reached that required by the Government test. I suggest that if he was unable to do so, then it would be necessary for him to attain this standard under the conditions appertaining to a provisional licence, and so ensure that, in proved
  576
  cases of incompetence, the intention of Parliament to maintain a minimum of efficiency is realised. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 1, leave out from ("1934") to end of line 11 and insert ("shall have effect as if there were substituted for the word 'may' the word 'shall'.").—(Lord Sempill.)
  EARL HOWE: I am sure the noble Lord will forgive me if I strongly oppose his proposal. In relation to other Amendments which have just been moved, the Minister has several times said that he does not wish to fetter the discretion of the court. By this Amendment, if the case is a serious one, he may be doing so. The noble Lord wants to say "shall," which means that for a not very serious offence of this character the offender has to be given six months. Why fetter the court? I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to press such a thing for, after all, a certain amount of discretion must be given to the court in a case of this kind and all such cases are carefully considered. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will not give way too much here.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, has framed his Amendment very simply, but if noble Lords will look carefully, they will realise that the matter is exceedingly complicated. Perhaps I might explain what is the law, what the Bill proposes, and what the noble Lord, Lord Sempill proposes; because they are an interesting contrast. At present, under the 1934 Act, if a person is convicted of driving carelessly or recklessly, the court may disqualify him from holding a driving licence until he takes a driving test. That is fully in the discretion of the court. This Bill says, first, that the offence of driving under the influence of drink or drugs is added to those of dangerous and careless driving as offences for which the court may require a convicted person to pass a driving test. Secondly, the Bill requires that in every case where a driver is disqualified from holding a licence, for whatever reason, whether for careless driving, dangerous driving or driving under the influence, that driver must take a test before he gets back his licence.
  The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, in his Amendment, does not add the offence of driving under the influence to those offences for which the court may, in its discretion, require a driving test before the

  577
  convicted person can drive again; he omits that offence, but he says that in all case of conviction of dangerous and careless driving—but not, of course, of driving under the influence—a convicted driver shall be required to take a test before his licence is restored. I do not like either of these changes very much. It does not seem unreasonable that a court should have, in its discretion, power to require a man convicted of driving under the influence to undergo a driving test. I see no reason why a court should not have such discretion.
  The second part of the noble Lord's argument is that a test should be an automatic sequel to any conviction for careless or dangerous driving. But, as my noble friend has said, I believe that, generally, Parliament seeks to avoid automatic penalties, for the reason that if the penalty is automatic it sometimes happens that those who have to make up their mind in regard to convictions are influenced by the nature of the penalty. I believe it is fairly well established that Parliament is rightly most anxious to keep completely separate, on the one hand, the trial and conviction and, on the other, the sentence which, in the discretion of a judge or magistrate, may follow. I wonder whether there is any great safety factor involved here. The noble Lord has quoted the British School of Motoring. That school obviously want to show how important is their work—I am not blaming them for that, but clearly it is their business to do so. They say that a large number of people would be the better for proper instruction, and it would be surprising if they did not take that view. It would appear to me that whenever a court was satisfied of the necessity it would automatically, within its discretion, impose a test. That is what is proposed under the Bill.
  LORD SILKIN: May I ask the noble Earl whether he has any information as to the extent to which this discretionary power is at present being used?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sorry; I have not that information at the moment, and I am not sure that it is available. I will make investigation to find out whether this power is being extensively used at the present time. To some extent, the period during which the test could be taken would depend on
  578
  fortuitous circumstances; but in regard to motor-cyclists who are driving on a temporary licence, it would make absolutely no difference to them. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment. I appreciate the reasons for which he has put it forward, but I believe Parliament would be very jealous of accepting automatic penalties of that character.
  LORD SEMPILL: I am sorry that the noble Earl does not agree with my Amendment. In view of his long explanation as to why it should not be accepted, although, with respect, I would say that it carries no conviction in my mind, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "1930," where that date first occurs. The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will have seen that subsection (2) of this clause provides that when a person is convicted for driving under the influence of drink or drugs and is disqualified, he can be ordered to undergo a driving test. It may be desirable that a court should have discretionary power to order a person who is convicted of driving under the influence of drink to take a driving test, but it seems quite useless to require the court to do so in every case. Surely the test is one of competence to drive and is not a form of punishment; therefore, I suggest that the obligation to take a test should be imposed on a defendant only when the evidence before the court has indicated that that defendant lacks ability as a driver when sober. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 6, leave out lines 6 to 11.—(Lord Teynham.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, on this Amendment. I agree that it is a matter of discretion; but is the man being tested for his ability to drive when drunk? It appears to me, as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has said, that a driving test is imposed not as a punishment but because the court have some doubt in their minds, through his careless, reckless or dangerous driving, whether he is a competent driver. If the imposition of a driving test upon a man who has been convicted of driving "under the influence" is a

  579
  punishment, then let us say that the taking of a driving test is an added punishment. But I do not believe that that is the intention of Her Majesty's Government. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, that the court should be given discretion to impose a driving test only when the court is satisfied that the individual is not technically competent to handle a motor-car. How they are going to do that in this case, when he is drunk, I do not know. I think that the principle behind these words is wrong, and I hope that the noble Earl will either accept Lord Teynham's Amendment or will put in some other words to cover the point which both Lord Teynham and I have made.
  VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: If the person in question who is convicted of driving when "under the influence" is a person who has never taken a test before, and that is ascertained, I can see the force of making him undergo a test. But unless that proviso is made, I must support Lord Teynham.
  6.40 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: There are, I think, two proposals here. One is that driving "under the influence" should be brought within the general discretion conferred by the 1934 Act. That Act lays down that it lies within the discretion of the courts to ask for a test before a man is allowed to drive again. The other proposal is for a general proviso that those who have been disqualified from holding a licence shall have to pass a test before they get it back again. In regard to the first, it is all very well to say that no one knows that the person in question is incompetent. No one knows that he is competent. I should have thought that this was a matter in which the court should have discretion if they feel inclined to ask a man to do a test. I recognise that it is very easy to argue to the contrary.
  Coming to the second part, I am not very sure of the exact effect of the intervention of the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven. It seems to me that he raised the question whether the fact that a man has taken a test in the past is proof of fitness or not. If I may speak from my own experience—and this is a matter in which I have experience—I would cite the case of pilots of aeroplanes. Such people
  580
  are frequently tested. It is a routine matter for air lines to re-test their pilots. I should have thought that it would not be a bad thing to have a similar system applied with regard to car driving. Again, in regard to the second part we have made the suggestion that any man who loses his licence should undergo a test. We make the suggestion because in any case in which a man, by his conduct, has shown himself, in the opinion of the court, unfit to drive on the road, it seems fair that before he has the right to obtain a licence again he should give proof of his competence to drive. That is why we have advanced this rule.
  I know it may be argued that drivers are competent but irresponsible, but it seems to me to be plain that it is sometimes quite possible for gross irresponsibility to mask gross incompetence. Therefore, it does not seem to us to be too exacting to lay it down that anyone who has shown himself unfit to drive on the road should establish his fitness before being again allowed to do so. Those are the reasons why we have put this passage forward. If the noble Lord feels that it is not justified, of course he will say so. But we feel that there is here a question to be answered. A man has shown himself unfit or irresponsible. It is a serious matter. He has been deprived of his licence. Should he not be made to undergo a test before again being allowed to drive?
  EARL HOWE: I can understand the noble Earl's argument if it should be disclosed in the proceedings that the man had been guilty of very bad dangerous driving as well as of being drunk. But a mere test of itself does not prove anything at all. A fellow may easily pass a test. Indeed he would probably be able to do so easily enough if he was a driver of experience. He would show himself capable of making road signals, keeping his car in the right position on the road, and all that sort of thing. He would also show himself capable of carrying out the provisions of the Highway Code. All this, I suggest, would bear no relation whatsoever to the offence of which the man had been convicted. I am all for discretionary powers being given to the court in cases like this, to order a man to have a test if the proceedings disclose the necessity for it. But a test which is imposed automatically may prove nothing.
  LORD TEYNHAM: Surely the court should have discretion. That is really all that is required. It should not be laid down that it is necessary for a person who has been convicted of drunkenness and has had his licence taken away to pass a test, unless the court thinks there is a special reason for his doing so.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: According to this part of the Bill, a man who has been convicted of drunkenness and who has had his licence suspended then has to go through a test. It is in the discretion of the court whether his licence is suspended or not; therefore, in that sense, the court does have discretion. The only thing we are making automatic is that a man, having been disqualified, has then to undergo a test. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, says that the man may have carried out all the provisions of the Highway Code. I should be very surprised if a man were convicted of a highway offence if he had carried out all the provisions of the Highway Code.
  EARL HOWE: I meant that he is able to show a full knowledge of the Highway Code.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I submit that it is not a bad thing to remind oneself just what is in the Highway Code. The Highway Code is not intended to be more than a direction; it is not law. It is a broad indication to people to observe decent standards. If noble Lords feel strongly about this, I am ready to go into it, in order to see whether we can put it the other way round. As it is, we do not think it is unfair or unreasonable.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I appreciate very much the assurance given by the noble Earl. Perhaps at a later stage in the Bill we could deal with this point about the court's discretion to order a test or not, even if the man concerned has been disqualified. In view of the assurance given on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 15 agreed to.
  6.48 p.m.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA LORD BRABAZON OF TARA moved, after Clause 15 to insert the following new clause:
  ". In the Act of 1930, after paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section fifteen there shall be inserted the following proviso—
  "Provided that if on summary proceedings under this section the court or on proceedings
  582
  under this section on indictment the jury are satisfied that the accused, though under the influence of drink or a drug, had no intention of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle, he shall not be liable to be convicted of the offence.""
  The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I have the honour to move refers to drunkenness, and I would preface my remarks my saying that I do not think there is anything more anti-social that anyone can do than drive a motor car when under the influence of drink. It is, to my mind, one of the most anti-social and dreadful things a person can do. The law as it stands is summed up in the Act of 1930, Section 15, which states that:
  "Any person who when driving or attempting to drive, or when in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place is under the influence of drink …"
  And then follow the usual penalties. What I want to do is to try to convince the Government that those words "when in charge of" are an incentive to someone to drive when drunk. There have been cases in which someone, having driven, for instance, to a dance, has realised that he has got drunk at the dance, and, very wisely, has refused to drive back. He has got into the back seat of his motor car, and thrown the ignition key away. Subsequently, he has been discovered by the police, and charged under this clause as being drunk in charge of the vehicle, although it was clearly evident that he had no intention of driving whatsoever. That is obviously a case in which a man could not have been worse treated if he had deliberately driven the vehicle home. There was another ridiculous case in which a man who was in his own house—and, after all, we are still entitled to get drunk in our own houses if we like—had left his car outside his front door. The police called on him about some parking offence he was committing. When he came out of his front door the policeman realised he was drunk, and, being drunk, he was still technically in charge of the motor car which was lying outside his house and would have remained there all night. That is a travesty of justice.
  I should have liked to see the words "or when in charge of" withdrawn, but I have been particularly lenient and have put down an Amendment which puts upon the accused the onus of showing that he had no intention of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle; and

  583
  I am perfectly certain that if your Lordships agree to this, it will be well received, and it will certainly be equitable. I hope that whichever one of the triumvirate of noble Lords is going to reply to me, he will not take upon his shoulders the responsibility of encouraging people to drive when drunk, which is what he will be doing if he does not accept my Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 15, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
  6.52 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord replies, I would underline what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has said. I do not think there is a more anti-social act which anybody can commit than to drive a motor car when under the influence of drink. If I had my way I would make no bones about it; nobody convicted of driving a motor vehicle when under the influence of drink would ever drive a motor vehicle again in his life. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said, the present state of the law has been the cause of more foolishness than I suppose any other of the penalties in the road legislation.
  I will cite another case that would not be covered by the noble Lord's Amendment, and that is why I wanted to intervene. If the noble Lord is at all sympathetic, I hope he will find a better definition than Lord Brabazon of Tara has done, because I have a case in my mind where someone, realising that he was under the influence of drink, actually gave the policeman his ignition key and then repented of it and tried to open the locked door to get in; he was so drunk. He was brought up on a charge of being in charge of a car while under the influence of drink, because, although it was admitted that he had given up possession of the car by handing the policeman the ignition key, he was regaining possession in trying to open the door. Yet he did not get the key, and he could not get in without the key. What he had forgotten was to ask the constable to give him the key back. But he appeared on a charge of being drunk in charge because he was attempting to regain possession. The noble Lord's Amendment would not cover that case.
  584
  I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will give serious attention to this point. He has got to be very clever, I agree. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said, if any of us feels—and there are many of us who can say that at times we have felt—that it would be better that our friend should drive the car home while we sat in the back, doing the sensible thing, as any sane man would do, we should still technically be guilty because we are in charge of that car. If the noble Lord can think of an Amendment—and by the nod of his head I feel he will be sympathetic—which will cover this point, he will have done a good thing to remove what is a very grave blot on justice at the present time.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I take it that the object of Section 15 of the Act of 1930 was that a person in charge of a car should not be under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to render him incapable of controlling the car. What his intentions were in regard to the car is regarded as immaterial by the section: he might, of course, have no intention of trying to drive the car, but in his drunken state he might knock the brake off and start it rolling downhill. If the noble Lord is feeling sympathetic towards this Amendment, I suggest that the Amendment as drafted is rather loosely phrased and is too wide. If anything of this sort is to be done I would suggest some wording to this effect:
  "Provided that if a person is charged with being in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle, then if on summary proceedings under this section the court, or on proceedings under this section on indictment, the jury, are satisfied that the accused, though under the influence of drink or drug, had no intention of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle, he shall not be liable to be convicted of the offence."
  I should have thought that wording would be rather tighter and more to the point than that of the Amendment as proposed.
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I should like for a few moments to support this Amendment. Great increases in possible penalties have been put upon the motorist this afternoon. I hope Her Majesty's Government will now accept this Amendment which will to some extent lighten the burden.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, sitting here and listening to the debate I get the impression that the purpose of this debate is to make things easier for people who are drunk in charge of a car or who are driving recklessly. Every single Amendment since I have been here has been for the purpose of making the task of those in charge of the Bill more difficult. I hope the Government will take a rather firmer line in these matters and not give way.
  On this particular Amendment the test is not whether the person is in charge of a car but whether he is capable of doing damage. I cannot see how a person can really discharge the onus under this Amendment, by saying: "I had no intention of driving; I got in at the back. I admit that I was drunk, but I had no intention of driving." He may or may not have had. The only person who can really establish that is the person himself, and he comes into court perhaps two or three months later to say so. The court have only got his word. I cannot see what is the value of this Amendment anyway, because his unsupported word would not go very far. If he can show that he had made it impossible for him to drive the car, that is another matter. I imagine that if he could establish that today it would not be an offence, because if he could establish that, it might be a way of proving that he was not in charge of the car. Short of that, I hope the Government will not give way.
  If one takes the case mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, where the drunken person handed the ignition key to the policeman, I would have said that that was a clear case where he had rendered it impossible for him to drive the car. But if he had succeeded in getting it back, he would have made it possible for him to drive. So I should have thought the test was not his intention but whether he had rendered it impossible for him to drive the car. A man may have an intention one moment and then feel that he has got over it; and perhaps half an hour later he might start driving, though just as unfit to drive then as he was in the beginning.
  7.0 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: This is a very important matter. I think we are all agreed upon two things: first, that there is something not quite right about the
  586
  present state of the law upon the subject, and, secondly, that it is extremely difficult to draft the necessary improvement in the law. I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for his very skilful attempt; but I also apologise at once to him for having to tell him that I think he has not wholly achieved what he wants to do. It may, however, console him to know that the Government want to do exactly what he wants to do. We have, therefore, to try to find some means of getting over this technical difficulty.
  We are agreed upon a third thing; that is, that the drunken driver is a menace and that it would be most undesirable to make any change in the present law which would make it more difficult for the police and the courts to deal with him. I think that in this case we should be quite right if we erred on the side of strictness. For these reasons it is essential that Section 15 of the 1930 Act, to which the noble Lord has referred, should cover the person in charge of a motor vehicle on the road who is under the influence of drink or a drug unless it is quite clear that he had not been driving whilst unfit and that he had no intention of doing so. It lays an obligation on anybody in charge of a potentially dangerous instrument to take care that he is in a fit state to use that instrument or to put himself in such a position that he cannot use it.
  The words "in charge of" in Section 15, as your Lordships now appreciate, are, however, very wide, and as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has reminded us, both on Second Reading and in his speech to-day, there have been cases which have led to convictions of being "drunk in charge" when by common consent the offender had not driven, or could not possibly have been driving, the vehicle. That is the sort of case with which we are trying to cope. It is clear, however, that it is a difficult matter to draft a provision for those cases to which the noble Lord has referred without letting out cases which ought not to be let out or creating further, and possibly worse, anomalies.
  The clause which the noble Lord has so ingeniously drafted is a little too wide, I submit. It does not cover one point which it would seem ought to be covered—namely, that the person charged must not have driven under the influence of

  587
  drink; and even if this point were disposed of, there is the further difficulty of whether a provision can really be acceptable which rests wholly upon the mere existence of an intention on the part of a person charged not to drive whilst under the influence of drink or a drug. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has raised a problem which has been a subject of argument time and time again—namely, how to deal with a man who admits that he is not fit to drive. He has the sense and sobriety left in him to draw into the side of the road, and he drops asleep, either in the front or the back of the car; then he wakes up and, though he is fuddled, thinks he is a good deal more sober than he is, drives away and has an accident. There is also the case of the man who misguidedly has "one for the road," waits a bit and, thinking that he is sober enough to drive, gets in, drives off and has an accident.
  The new clause which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has drafted ought to cover these points. I should like to help the noble Lord in any way possible to meet our common desire, and I think we should include certain provisions. We shall have to take care in drafting these provisions that a motorist should satisfy the court that he had not driven a vehicle whilst unfit to do so, and that the circumstances of the case were such as to provide corroboration of his intention of not driving whilst unfit. That would meet the point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made. It will be difficult to find words to cover these points, and I must confess that we have tried our hands at drafting such a provision, and have not been so successful as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara.
  I readily admit that the Government agree with the main object of what he is
  588
  trying to do. We shall put the service of the draftsman at the noble Lord's disposal to see whether we cannot together produce something that will meet the noble Lord's point and, at the same time, include the extra safeguards which I hope noble Lords will agree ought to be included in this clause, if it is not to open the way for more anomalies for the court than already exist. It is important to try to meet the noble Lord's point and stop these ridiculous cases which he has rightly put before the Committee. Equally, we must maintain the principle that anyone who drives under the influence of drink is committing an offence of very great seriousness; the law must continue to express its contempt for people who so drive.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will not remain without sleep to-night for having partially accepted an Amendment. I gratefully accept his proposal that we should have another attempt at drafting something satisfactory, but when we look at Clause 16, which is about the biggest gibberish in any Act of Parliament, I do not think we shall get a great deal of help there. But with my sage experience, perhaps we may get something and we might have another attempt on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  House resumed.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS (PENSIONS) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
  House adjourned at eight minutes past seven o'clock.