Lords Sitting of 15 March 1955

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

  POSTAGE STAMP SALES
  2.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the number of postage stamps of the values of 2½d., 3d., 4d., 2s. 6d., 5s. 0d., 10s. 0d., 15s. 0d., £1, respectively which were sold during the last year for which figures are available.]
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, as the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Briefly, the figures run from 2,900 million for 2½d. stamps to 600,000 for £1 stamps. Fifteen shilling postage stamps are not issued in this country.
  Following is the full Answer:
  The approximate numbers of postage stamps issued in 1954 of values mentioned by the noble Viscount were:—

  2½d.

  …

  …

  2,900 million

  3d.

  …

  …

  121 million

  4d.

  …

  …

  83 million

  2s. 6d.

  …

  …

  10 million

  5s. 0d.

  …

  …

  5 million

  10s. 0d.

  …

  …

  2·5 million

  £1

  …

  …

  600,000

  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for his Answer, and also for sending me an advance copy of it.

EXPORTS TO CHINA
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether having regard to the facts (1) that the United Nations resolution of
1054
May, 1951, relating to the embargo on the export of strategic materials to China, was adopted in order to provide additional measures to be employed to meet aggression in Korea, and that its scope has never since been widened so as to cause it to become operative in relation to hostilities in any territories outside Korea or Korean waters; (2) that, in the opinion of representatives of important British business firms who quite recently visited Peking, China offers an expanding market for British engineering and other manufactured goods; (3) that it appears that China is finding sources of supply other than the U.S.S.R. for some commodities in which British firms cannot trade owing to the aforesaid embargo; (4) that as a result of the embargo, according to the Governor of Hong Kong on March 2nd, the exports from Hong Kong to China have shown a heavy fall of more than $1,000m. (Hong Kong) against 1950; and (5) that it is held to be unlikely that hostilities will break out afresh in Korea; they will now consider the advisability of initiating discussions in the United Nations with a view to bringing the 1951 embargo to an end.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, there is little that I can add to the reply I gave the noble Viscount when he raised this topic on October 21. Any change in the security controls would have to be considered in the light of all prevailing circumstances, including the necessity of taking parallel action with our partners in the Consultative Group, and the situation in the Far East generally.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess for his Answer. Arising out of it, may I ask him, in relation to the embargo on the export of strategic materials to China, whether he will be good enough to take note of the fact that British traders have adhered strictly to the terms of the 1951 United Nations resolution as operated through the organisation known as C.O.C.O.M., which sits in Paris?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I will take note of what the noble Viscount has said, which I believe accurately represents the situation.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I thank the noble Marquess.

CHATHAM INTRA CHARITY OF RICHARD WATTS AND OTHER CHARITIES BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
2.38 p.m.
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
Clause 11 [Provision of parking places where charges made]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to subsection (1):
"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."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if it meets with the approval of your Lordships, I would attempt to save your Lordships' time, which is some consideration at least, and, perhaps more acceptably, save your Lordships' patience, by concentrating my arguments in regard to all the clauses from Clause 11 to Clause 15 on this Amendment and the following Amendment which stand in my name on the Order Paper. As I pointed out to your Lordships on Committee stage, my views upon letting the Queen's highway for garaging, charging for it and having parking meters, are conditioned by whether or not the Minister is going to see that adequate off-street parking facilities are or will be made available.
Much as I disagree with much that is contained in these clauses, I understand that by them the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is in charge of the Bill, hopes to drive off the streets the long-term parker, the individual who leaves his car in the street from early morning till late at night. As I asked the noble Earl on Committee stage: where is he going to drive them? It is no good having designated parking places, going through the elaborate procedure of this Bill and strewing our pavements with parking meters—the most hideous things I have seen for a long time—and imposing excess charges for overtime parking after a stipulated time (that is what the noble Earl said he intended to do), and so discourage motorists from parking their cars, unless we are going to provide places where they can park. That is a simple issue. If I can see anything practical that will encourage me to
1056
do so, I am prepared to swallow my objections to the rest of these clauses, although I must tell your Lordships once again that they are revolting to all my principles regarding the free passage of traffic on the Queen's highway.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has two Amendments following mine on the Order Paper. They are the noble Earl's attempt to carry out the pledge he gave in response to the arguments I advanced in Committee. I am prepared to accept his first Amendment in lieu of mine, because I realise his difficulty and I want to be helpful. The noble Earl knows what I want to do. According to the best legal advice available to me, "carriage way" is no better than "road way", but I think the noble Earl has the intention of doing precisely what I want to do, and so I am prepared to accept his first Amendment in lieu of mine. But when it comes to the second Amendment, I want something more positive.
If I may strain your Lordships' indulgence, I should now like to discuss the noble Earl's Amendment. That Amendment says:
"The matters to which the Minister shall have regard in determining what parking places are to be designated under this section shall include—
(b) the extent to which parking accommodation otherwise than on highways is available in the neighbourhood or the provision thereof is likely to be encouraged there by the designation of parking places under this section."
That is far too vague. How can they decide? Who is going to decide? Surely, not the Minister. He cannot really make up his mind. He may think that the designation of parking places will be encouraged by this scheme, although I do not think it will. I think some local authorities will jump at this chance—and the noble Earl had better regulate these fees somewhere in the regulations. Are seaside local authorities going to be encouraged to provide off-street parking at the back of a seaside town, when they can let their promenades out at remunerative rates?
And when it comes to thickly populated areas, where are these motorists to be driven? They are pushed around enough at the present time. They have now to pay anything from three to five guineas to have their motor cars inspected

1057
once a year; and they have now to pay to leave their cars on the highway. Where are you going to drive them to? As my noble and learned Leader said when he argued the case about access, you are going to drive them out of the centres of the towns on to the streets just outside the centre; and then you will drive them from those streets to others. When are you going to stop driving them? The noble Earl must remember—and I am sure he has it in mind—that the motoring community of this country is responsible in large measure for the prosperity of the ratepayers, who are shopkeepers in most of the towns. It is the duty of a local authority—and it is one which they have steadily neglected—to provide off-street parking, just as it is their duty and responsibility to provide other public conveniences. They have never done it. They now see the chance of letting out their streets. What pressure are you going to put on them to fulfil their duty and provide off-street parking?
The noble Earl wants to go about it by simply saying that the Minister shall give a local authority the right to have parking on the street, if the Minister is satisfied that that parking on the street will encourage the provision of off-street parking. There is only one way that off-street parking facilities will be encouraged, and that is by putting them first; or, if they cannot be put first, by making certain that the facilities are provided, or that plans for such facilities have been submitted, or that there is reasonable facility for off-street parking already available as a result of private enterprise.
There is not very much that divides us on this matter. I want more teeth put into this subsection. If the noble Earl will give me an assurance that he will accept my Amendment No. 23 in substitution for his paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 24, I shall be perfectly happy. I do not think it will be necessary for me to make any comment upon any of the other clauses dealing with parking on the highway and the provision of parking meters. I do not think they are going to be a success, but I will not waste your Lordships' time further by arguing why. The Government want to try this experiment. I think they will be up against insuperable difficulties. I am anxious that we shall not have our streets let out for parking and end up with no more off
1058
street parking facilities than we have at the present time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 26, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting at least part of Amendment No. 24 which stands in my name. I understand that he is moving Amendment No. 22 at the moment, but that we are discussing a wider sphere. I am sure that, when the noble Lord looks at it, he will see that the scope and purpose, certainly of paragraph (a) of my Amendment, is fuller than his. I will not elaborate that aspect. I would, however, make this point. The noble Lord said in the course of his remarks that he wanted to be satisfied that the Minister would put off-street parking first. I take it that he does not quite mean that. He does not mean that off-street parking should take priority over the maintenance of the free movement of traffic.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I just wanted to be quite clear on the point. Therefore, the noble Lord is happy about the order in which I put paragraphs (a) and (b). I am at one with the noble Lord that we want to have, as I said on the Committee stage, a fairly definite link between the proceeds from parking meters and the provision of off-street parking. The noble Lord asked, "Where are you driving the motorists?" With great respect, I think that if there is not the accommodation the motorist will not come into the centre of the town. The long parker who parks in congested areas will use public transport, and I am glad that he should. I do not think he will go much further than that because he will not want to walk a long way so there are limits to the distances he will go.
It is implicit that there should be a scheme for an area. It is not simply a question of putting down a row of parking meters in one square or in one street. It must be a scheme linking up the traffic with some sort of off-street parking; and that is what we have to aim at. I think that is really what we have done. I was rather interested to note that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in his

1059
enthusiasm, in speaking freely, as he does, used the very words of my Amendment: he said "encourage that in a practical way." Those are precisely the words we use in the Amendment, and it is exactly what he and I have in mind.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The Amendment does not use the expression "practical way."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If the noble Lord wants those words in an Act of Parliament, then I will consider the matter, but I do not think it adds a great deal to his point. There are two objections to the actual wording of the noble Lord's Amendment. We know what plans are. I do not think he means plans, in the sense of planning permission, but plans on paper, which can remain on paper just as easily as anything else. From a practical point of view, there is no leverage on the Minister to do more than to see certain sketches on a piece of paper, so really there is no sanction at all in the noble Lord's Amendment.
There is one other fundamental difficulty about it and it is this. We hope (I trust that the noble Lord will concede that we have hopes in this matter) that there are two ways by which off-street parking will be encouraged. One instance I quoted last time is that of Portman Square, in which cars are parked on the public highway and a large car park is completely empty. By putting parking meters there—I do not know whether it is a good place or not—it will encourage motorists to go into the parking places that exist; and by that means there will be some encouragement to garage proprietors to extend their premises. That is our hope, and I think there is something in it.
There is a second way—and this is not covered at all in the noble Lord's proposal—by which we envisage the possibility of local authorities' helping garage proprietors, with the consent of the Minister. It may be that is the best way. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Burden, and the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, are not here, because they are strong protagonists of the independence of local authorities, and it may be that some local authorities would prefer to act in that way. There is no provision in the noble Lord's Amendment about that at all. As
1060
far as I can see, he suggests only that off-street parking should be provided by the local authority. I think that is a limitation to the point which the noble Lord has made.
I shall be glad to hear any suggestion, but we feel that we have effectually linked up what is essential here. We have genuinely sought to meet the point, and I think we have done it as far as we can. It is going to be quite a hurdle for anybody to get a designation order. He has to consult the police and have public objections, and possibly a public inquiry. The Minister has to be brought into it; he has to give his consent; and finally, as noble Lords will see from my Amendment No. 37, all the designation orders will be laid before both Houses of Parliament and can be prayed against if anyone should feel inclined. That means, in effect—and this is what I think the noble Lord is under-estimating—that if a proposed site does not seem a reasonable place for the provision of off-street parking, quite clearly the matter will be raised in Parliament. I think we have tied it up fairly well, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—I do not want to forfeit my right of reply—may I ask him this question? He used an expression which I should like him to clarify. He talked about local authorities' helping garage proprietors. What does that mean? Financial help, or what? Would the noble Earl elaborate that point?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would ask the noble Lord to look at Clause 15 which we have already considered, and he will see what subsection (3) says. There are various ways in which local authorities can use the proceeds arising from parking meters. The first is to make good to their general fund any payments made out of that fund—that is, to meet any general expenses that might arise. The second is "the provision and maintenance by the local authority of parking accommodation." The third is for "making to other local authorities" (I do not think it will happen very often, but it may happen) or "to any county council"—and I quote again:
"with the consent of the Minister, to other persons of contributions towards the cost of

1061
the provision and maintenance by them in the area of the local authority or elsewhere of parking accommodation for vehicles otherwise than on highways."
We are leaving the power quite free. The way it will be used means that it will require the recommendation of the local authority and the assent of the Minister.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I think the Minister has met us a long way on this point. My noble friends Lord Howe, Lord Teynham and myself moved at the previous stage to omit Clause 10 altogether, because we were not satisfied. I think that in his new Amendment—as we are discussing all three together—the Minister has gone a long way to meet us on this point. I doubt whether he can go any further because, as he rightly says, there is that important provision that the designation orders now have to be confirmed by both Houses of Parliament and can be prayed against if either House is not satisfied.
LORD DEMENT: My Lords, I am afraid that I rather disagree with my noble friends on this side of the House and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, particularly when it comes to this question of seaside resorts. I think they are a special case in themselves. People will continue to drive as near to the beach as they can if they come in from outlying districts, whether there is public transport there or not. What I should like to ask the Minister is whether he will look at his wording again. I do not believe that the Parliamentary draftsman cannot so word the Amendment put down by my noble friend as to make it a condition of allowing parking meters that plans have been prepared for providing off-the road parking areas, whether garages or otherwise. Not only that: there should be a condition that, when the plans have been drawn, they will be put into force as soon as money is available; and presumably the money would come from the parking meters. I feel that in the case of seaside resorts the Minister's wording is still too loose. Parking meters, particularly in the seaside resorts, ought to be tied up with the provision of parking accommodation, if only for this reason: with the very large sums of money which will be involved in popular resorts there will be a tremendous pressure on the local authority to get hold of that money and
1062
spend it as they wish. I know the Minister is saying at the moment that that cannot be done under this Bill, but I am not so certain.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, it is not a good thing for me to speak constantly on Report, but, if your Lordships will allow me, I will answer that point. I have tabled an Amendment to which I would draw your Lordships' attention, dealing specifically with the question of control of money. I think we have tied this matter up completely. I ask noble Lords to look at the Amendment No. 33 which is in my name. It says that the financial surpluses:
"(a) shall be applied for all or any of the purposes specified in the next following subsection,"—
the three purposes I have already read out—
"and in so far as not so applied shall be appropriated to the carrying out of some specific project falling within those purposes"—
that goes a long way to meet the point—
"and carried forward until applied to the carrying out thereof."
That means they need not pay it this year but can keep it for paying next year if necessary.
"Provided that if the local authority with the consent of the Minister—
that is the point; with the consent of the Minister—
"so determine any amount not applied in any financial year may instead of being or remaining appropriated as aforesaid be carried forward in the account kept under subsection (1).…"
I think that is perfectly clear; that it will be used for that purpose and that it may not be used for arty other; indeed, it must be appropriated for that purpose unless the consent of the Minister is obtained. The money cannot always be spent every year, but it is appropriated for that purpose. That is a step further than making plans. With regard to the point about the seaside resorts, I would say that the designation order is going to be different in every case, and I have no doubt special arrangements will be necessary for seaside resorts.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, before we conclude this discussion I should like to say a word or two. I am in favour of giving to the Government the right to make this experiment with regard to

1063
parking meters. There are so few new ideas in this Bill that I should be sorry if we did not concede to the Minister this one. I am apprehensive—I think we all are—about how it is going to work; but let us try it, I hope on a small scale, and see how it works. When I say "a small scale," I must reconsider my words. If it is on a very small scale I think it is almost manifest that it will do more harm than good, because I am afraid the result will be that people who want to park will avoid the particular street where they have to pay and will go to other streets. I do not see how you gain anything at all in that way. Therefore, I think it is a matter of immense importance that there should be some places where people can park off the streets so as not to interfere with and impede the free flow of traffic. I do not mind who provides those places; whether private enterprise or the local authority. Therefore, when I said "on a small scale" I meant one or two experiments in the first place but extending over a fairly large area; otherwise, as I say, people will avoid the streets where there are parking meters and will block other streets from other people who have their lawful occasions there.
Then there is the extreme difficulty, which I am not sure anybody has faced, about the right of access. Although nobody has a right to park his car in a street, yet he has the right to enter his house from the street. If parking meters are to be installed, cars will be parked outside with some kind of licence, because the owner of a car is going to pay for a certain amount of time. As a result the free entry and exit into the house of one of the persons who lives in that street may be altogether impeded. Where will these parking meters be installed—outside shops; outside private residences; outside places such as those in Harley Street, where doctors have their businesses and where people, unfortunately, occasionally have to go? I presume that matter has been considered and that it will be considered by the Minister in designating parking places.
But, having said all those things, I think it is so essential in our wholly inadequate road system to try to maintain the flow of traffic—and we all know how difficult it is to get about London to-day because of parking—that I should be in
1064
favour of giving the Minister the right to make the experiment. I do not suppose my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has, so far as this side of the House is concerned, borne the burden and heat of the day by doing what an Opposition must do—trying to put all the arguments against—will for one moment desire to press his Amendments. We shall watch this experiment with interest and care, and I hope that the points we have made will be borne in mind by the Minister at the present time.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl. All we are asking for is exactly that: the right to try the experiment, not on too small a scale. With regard to the point about access, we are coming to that in a minute and I will deal with it then.
3.8 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am at one with my noble and learned Leader; I want to be helpful. But the Government and local authorities are going into the garage business now. I have been in it; I know something about it. I want to make certain that these off-street parking places, whether they are garages or whether they are not, are built. I quite agree with the noble Earl's argument about Portman Square; I hope they drive the cars off Portman Square into the garage which he says is empty. But I can draw his attention to hundreds of towns in this country where there is not one inch of off-street parking place, and where the magistrates to-day have to refuse to convict motorists of offences against the "No parking" order because there is physically no place for them to take their cars. I want to see these off-street parking places provided within a reasonable length of time; and frankly, my Lords, I do not think they will be.
I want to tell the noble Earl, briefly, why. I estimate that in any average town of, say, 100,000 inhabitants, the income from on-street parking will be in the region of between £30,000 and £40,000 a year gross. It is the net amount that is carried forward, because the deficits on any one year I suppose can be cumulative. The costs, I estimate, would be somewhere in the region of £15,000. There will thus be a surplus of income over expenditure of £10,000 or £15,000 a year, if they are properly managed. If

1065
decent parking places are to be erected—and I suppose off-street parking places will in included in the amenities of the town and will not be just a bombed site kind of thing—it is going to cost somewhere in the region of £150,000. Therefore, if the noble Earl is going about it in his way and the average surplus is £10,000 a year, my mental arithmetic tells me it is going to be fifteen years before the local authority have any money in the fund to put up parking places. I want the local authority to be encouraged to do it first and pay off the debt by the cumulative revenue. I look at this from a practical point of view, not from the point of view of a lot of words in a Bill that has airy-fairy ambitions because, when you come down to local finance committees, they are just as hard-headed, perhaps, as the average business man. I do not think that they will spend any money on off-street parking until they see the money "in the kitty." I want them to spend the money first. That is my simple idea; it is as simple as that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The egg and the chicken.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The egg and the chicken, as the noble Earl quite rightly says, but I would rather have the chicken. It is a rather more substantial meal than the egg. However, the noble Earl is quite prepared to wait for my fifteen years. I hope that he can make sufficient money out of these parking places to have these off-street garages, these municipal garages, built earlier. That is my simple idea in putting down this Amendment. I certainly will not trouble your Lordships to go into the Division Lobby because I think the noble Earl has done his best to help us, but I suppose that a life-time of practical experience weighs not so very heavily against bureaucratic theory. We will wait and see who is right in the end. With those words, I will ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, and will not move No. 23. I will support the noble Earl in his Amendment, more in hope than anything else.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think I can move this Amendment formally now as I have already spoken on it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 26, at end insert—
("(2) The matters to which the Minister shall have regard in determining what parking places are to be designated under this section shall include—

(a) the need for maintaining the free movement of traffic, and

(b) the extent to which parking accommodation otherwise than on highways is available in the neighbourhood or the provision thereof is likely to be encouraged there by the designation of parking places under this section.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting in consequence of my Amendment No. 37, which makes all orders under these clauses subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in both Houses. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 14, leave out subsection (5).—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to leave out Clause 11. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have listened to practically the whole of this debate on the Committee stage and very nearly all of it on the Report stage. The more I hear of this idea of parking meters, the less I like it. I am pretty sure that I take the same view as most of the people who will be affected by it: that it is an appalling thing that the Government should wish to put a surcharge on the existing taxation. The existing taxation on the motor vehicle is running in the region of £400 million a year—over £1 million a day—out of the motor world. Why should it be asked to pay yet more money? If somebody could make a case and show that the parking meter would solve the problem of congestion, the long-term parker and all the rest, if somebody would underwrite that, all well and good; but nobody has ventured to do anything like that in the course of this debate. We all know perfectly well that this proposal for parking meters is not put forward as a solution of the parking problem. If it does anything, it will intensify the trouble; it will not make it better.
The problem in London—and it is the same in most big cities—is caused by the 77,000 who come up to London every day in their motor cars and drive away again in the evening. When they arrive, they can put their cars anywhere: they can

1067
park them in any street where they think they will not be interfered with or chased away by the police. All this time we are talking, in a sort of academic way, about parking meters that problem is steadily getting worse. It is costing the public scores of thousands, perhaps millions, of pounds. We all know perfectly well, and we have been told by London Transport, what the delay means to London Transport buses—delay caused by congestion. This suggestion of parking meters is really too absurd. It is just tinkering with the problem. It will not do any good whatever. It will not help the unfortunate people of London to get about their work, and all the time, under present conditions, stagnation is just round the corner.
I believe it to be true that, every time a London bus pulls up at a stopping place, it costs ld. The motor world is already paying, as I have explained, an enormous amount of money. No case whatever has been made for adding to that burden. The trouble is partly the long-term parker and partly the inadequacy of the streets. We cannot do very much about the inadequacy of the streets. Much has been done by having unilateral parking and by one-way streets, but there again we seem to have touched only the fringe of it. We shall not get the traffic in the central area of London going until we have a vast gyratory system which would include Oxford Street, Park Lane, Piccadilly and Regent Street, going round in that direction, and other similar devices—and we may have to come to them. It would be an intolerable nuisance to everybody, but that is the position we are gradually getting into. The parking meters were originally, I believe, invented, adapted and used by America and other countries where the layout of towns and cities is very different from what it is in this country. Already they have found many difficulties.
One of the difficulties found in America arises from the dimensions of the cars. In America, cars are very much more of one sort than they are in this country. Here, we have large cars and very small cars. The American vehicle, on the average, is about 6½ feet wide and has a length of anything from 16½ feet to 18 feet. There they have had trouble because the dimensions of American cars have not remained static—they have
1068
grown. It is quite possible that we should have the same experience here if we started a system of parking meters along the kerbs of various streets and cities. In this country we should have to allow the same space for the largest car as, say, for a motor bicycle, or the same space for a motor bicycle as for the largest car. I do not believe that we shall ever "make a go" of parking meters in this country unless cars are parked either diagonally or at right angles to the line of the traffic and the edge of the highway.
I should like to know from the Minister whether the Minister is likely to make some sort of regulation, or is prepared to say, that parking meters will be installed only where cars can be parked at an angle to the kerb, either diagonally at, say, 45 degrees or at right angles to the kerb. In places where that is possible, it would obviously simplify the parking meter question. But in this country the average dimensions of a motor car range from the small Austin, 4 ft. 7ins. wide, to the American car, 6 ft. 6ins. wide. The Austin range has an overall length of from 11 ft. 4 ins. to 17 ft. Therefore, from the point of view of parking meters the car problem here is very much more difficult. But if we had cars parked at an angle to the kerb that would not matter so much. Another point occurs to me in regard to this question of parking meters. The Working Party examining the whole question of parking in the central area of London, of parking meters and the like, said that it was no use going in for parking meters unless at the same time there were new garages. Your Lordships will find the quotation in the document. I should like to read the words because they are important, but at the moment I cannot find them. The Working Party said that their recommendations with regard to parking meters must be taken as a whole, and cannot be taken separately.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think I know the passage which the noble Earl has in mind; it is Clause 8 of the Summary of the Report.
EARL HOWE: Yes, but I do not wish to weary the House with it.
There is another question: who is going to guard the parking meters? Who is going to look after them? There may be an indefinite number of parking meters, not only in London but also in

1069
the provinces. Somebody has to look after them in the middle of the night when there are not many cars about, and probably none parked. I told your Lordships on the Committee stage, that in New York 300 were broken into and looted last July, and that in June 180 were looted; so the figure is going up. Who is going to look after these things? I should like an answer to that question. It is important because it concerns maintenance. The maintenance charges for parking meters are considerable, and one does not want to start up a new sort of industry on those lines.
I submit that if we are honest, and really wish to cure the problem in London and in other big cities as well, the idea that we shall have to come to is the one I suggested on the Committee stage—namely, to zone London. There would be a red zone, with the drivers concerned carrying a red pass on the windscreen; then there would be a blue zone, for which drivers would have a blue pass, and there would be a green pass for people wishing to come up to London for the day for shopping or to pass through. These passes could be issued by the police, and the people concerned would be allowed to pass into the red zone only if they could show that they have off-street accommodation in regard to parking in the central area. That is the only way that I can see to solve the problem. I have talked to a number of people to try to get other ideas, but I have not succeeded. That is the only way that I can see to deal with the rush of people called, I believe, "commuters"—I do not know what a "commuter" is, but anyway the people who rush up to London every day and then rush away again in the evening, in the meantime leaving their cars anywhere.
That solution would simplify the problem in the central area: it would be tackling the traffic congestion at its source. It would not be of maximum inconvenience to everybody, because the City of London and the City of Westminster areas are not very big, and the blue zone would include the Royal Parks and such places where cars can be parked easily. I submit that that is a practical scheme to try to get at the congestion of London traffic, and that this parking meters idea is really hopeless. The more I think about it the more I dislike it and everything to do with it. I may be the only
1070
one to feel as I do—I do not know; but certainly I feel that the zoning idea is the only way to tackle this question. For that reason I beg to move my Amendment, and I should like to know what the Minister thinks of the one or two considerations that I have ventured to put forward. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 11.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I have grave doubts as to whether anything I say will affect the view of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in regard to parking meters. None the less, I think I am bound to answer some of the points which he has raised today. He complains that this is another method of charging motorists. May I put it to the noble Earl that he does not mind spending sixpence when he parks his car in St. James's Square at the present time? A great many cars are parked as dead storage on particularly valuable sites in the centre of London; that is an advantage that they have had for a very long time. What we are seeking to do here—if we fail, we fail—is to make the car more valuable by making it capable of gaining access over a wider area. In doing that we give access to many parts of the congested area of the town. That is what we are seeking to do.
The noble Earl is concerned over this question of diagonal parking. May I draw his attention to Clause 13 (3)? He will see there that the designation order can deal with the way in which the cars stand. That means that the noble Earl will be able to pray against any designation order which does not clearly lay down that there shall be diagonal parking. The noble Earl is doubtful also about the provision of garages. I am glad to say that there is a considerable garage now going up in the centre of London—or, shall I say, that plans have been put forward to the L.C.C. for a ramp garage to be built on the site north of Selfridge's, the capacity of which will be up to 700 private cars. We hope that that and other similar projects will go forward.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Is that the one that is contingent upon the Government granting £25,000?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No, this is private enterprise; it is operated jointly by Lex Garages and Selfridge, Ltd. I

1071
am mentioning this only as an encouraging factor.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thought the noble Earl said something about the L.C.C.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The plans have been deposited with the L.C.C.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is also afraid that these parking meters may be broken into. There will not be a great deal of money in them; there will not be any more money, I imagine, than one would find in the ordinary telephone kiosk. It is a risk but not, I think, a very excessive one. The noble Earl presses for licensing in Central London. There is no reason why there should not be licensing as well as this scheme. It is for the noble Earl to convince the House that that is the better way. We are open to any ideas which will help solve this problem. At the Committee stage I promised to insert provisions in regard to the free flow of traffic, linking parking meters with off-street parking and making designation orders subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in this House, and to deal, also, with the problem of access.
If noble Lords will look at Amendments 52 and 53 they will see how it is proposed to deal with the problem of access. We make it incumbent on the local authority to draw these proposals specifically to the knowledge of persons likely to be directly affected, and we give the Minister power, where he is not satisfied that that has been done, to instruct local authorities to take further steps to draw the attention of those likely to be affected on abutting properties that such proposals are going forward. The noble Earl may consider that, with a public inquiry with special attention being called, as I have described, and with the power of praying against an order, the rights of access will be fairly well covered in the new scheme. I hope I have mentioned most of the points made by the noble Earl. I cannot pretend to have convinced him, but I am aware of the difficulties and I am grateful to him for raising these points.
We might, for a moment, consider what is happening abroad. In our last discussion, I gave examples relating to New Zealand and Stockholm. One hesitates to cite examples from across the Atlantic,
1072
because conditions are very different, but we may as well know what is happening there. In Canada there are 40,000 meters installed in 150 cities. In the United States of America there are 1½ million meters installed in 3,400 cities, and meters are at present selling at the rate of over 100,000 a year. I cannot believe that a great Republic holding that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights, amongst them the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, with millions of motorists, would have installed those meters in direct antagonism to the great body of the motoring public in the United States of America. There are in that country some 57 million motor cars. I believe that is rather more than the number of people who voted in the last Presidential Election. I find it hard to believe that the motorists there are a downtrodden minority with their faces crushed in the mud by avaricious local authorities. I do not feel that the motorist can violently object to this procedure here if it is in force in those circumstances.
EARL HOWE: The noble Earl will doubtless agree that the problem in America is very different. The layout of American cities is quite different. Can the noble Earl quote an analogy in Europe?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I quite agree with the noble Earl but I said merely that this information might be of interest. I will quote, as an example, a statement from the Mayor of Haverhill, Massachusetts, which meets some of the points the noble Lord has in mind.
"We are, at the request of abutting owners, extending the meter system into several more business streets. For, when retail merchants are looking forward to meter installations in front of their stores, and when the Chief of Police praises them, there is little left to say. The parking meter has proved itself. If it can do this in Haverhill where the streets are three centuries or thereabouts old, and very narrow"—
I would ask noble Lords to note that description, "very narrow"—
"it can do as much for any city."
May I cite another example from the Treasurer of Buffalo, a town which, if I remember correctly, also has some quite narrow streets. He states:
"The merchants and the general motoring public have expressed hearty approval of the parking meter system. Our Parking Meter

1073
Division feels that control of traffic and parking in the area serviced by meters, namely our business district, has greatly improved as a result of the use of meters."
I cite those as examples of the fact that, where it is tried, the regulatory element of parking is considered of value to motorists. It should be noted that here we are assuring the motorists of the full benefit of the proceeds of meters. That is not the case in the U.S.A. where I believe, the local authority can use the proceeds for any purpose.
The meter system has several advantages. There can be no favouritism with a parking meter for it is a fully automatic system, favouring no one. Meters make parking regulations capable of enforcement where they otherwise would not be enforceable. Valuable shopping areas in the centre of towns will become valueless unless access is assured; and by access I do not mean driving past the front of the shop door but being able to leave the car and go into the shop. I believe there is a real danger that some of the most valuable sites in town centres may lose their value because of the extreme difficulty of access. Though I cannot claim to have convinced the noble Earl I ask him not to object too strongly, but to let us have this practical experiment to discover whether there is anywhere in this country where the regulation of traffic can be even slightly improved by this system. For that reason I would ask him to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am loath to intervene on this Amendment because all these matters were discussed not only during Second Reading but at the Committee stage. In spite of what the noble Earl has said of America, there are cases, which I believe were mentioned during the Committee stage, where certain countries have withdrawn parking meters because they are not satisfactory. I am, however, perfectly willing that the experiment should be carried out in an endeavour to find a solution.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his courteous treatment of my Amendment, even though I consider that the case he put against it was synthetic. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, but in doing so I assure the noble Earl that the success or otherwise of this experiment will be very carefully watched, and if, by any chance, it does
1074
not turn out to be as good an idea as the noble Earl and his right honourable friend, the Minister, think it will be, then I hope time will not be wasted but that the experiment will be brought to an end.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [General provisions for regulation of parking places]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, these subsections are now unnecessary in view of my Amendment No. 37. I beg formally to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 10, leave out lines 10 to 23.— (The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.39 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLING LORD SWAYTHLING moved, after Clause 13 to insert the following new clause:
Lights on parked vehicles not required under certain conditions
". Any vehicles or vehicles of any class or description when standing or parked within twenty yards of a street lamp or on road verges or any places specially set aside for the purpose shall not be required to show any light."
The noble Lord said: My Lord, during the Committee stage of this Bill uniformity was several times sought, and one of the reasons which has caused me to put down this Amendment is the interests of uniformity. In London, action is very seldom taken again any motorist who keeps his car stationary on the road in a lighted area with the car lights off. Yet outside London proceedings are often instituted against motorists parking in exactly similar circumstances. Some magistrates take exception to having such cases brought before them and to the conviction and fining in their area of motorists for offences which are excused in London. In my opinion this would be a very desirable regulation. In these days of modern street lighting, when cars, at night, have to be parked on the nearside of the road and are provided with two red rear reflectors, it seems to me that this is a simple Amendment which might well be accepted by Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 13, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Swaythling.)
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am very much in favour of this Amendment

1075
in principle, but I suggest, with all due respect to the noble Lord, that perhaps it requires a little redrafting. In the first place I think that provision should be made that the street lamp must be lit. No doubt, also, it is necessary that the Amendment should apply to vehicles prescribed by the Minister. I cannot help feeling that, for example, to have a heavy goods vehicle parked on the verge of the road at night might be extremely dangerous, as it would, possibly overlap into the road. I daresay the answer made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government will be that the Minister already has powers to issue regulations on these matters. I believe he is already in discussions with the motoring organisations about the matter. But I am very much in favour of the principle of the Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I think that most noble Lords will be in favour of the principle of the Amendment, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, that it will require some redrafting. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment said that he did so in the interests of uniformity. I am supporting it in the interests of common sense. It seems to me quite unnecessary to have a rear light at the back of your car, or two rear lights, at the expense of your battery, when you park the vehicle at night in the sort of circumstances we have in mind. When you do, you often find in the morning that you are unable to start your car. That is what I have found on a number of occasions. When, in fact, there is adequate lighting in the neighbourhood, a car is visible from a considerable distance. I speak feelingly about this matter, because for some years the police turned a blind eye on my car which I used to leave underneath a street lamp. Later, I found that a very important Minister of the Crown had appeared in the same block of flats. The police were in constant attendance upon him, and consequently they found it necessary to take note of the fact that my car was unlighted. As a result, I was prosecuted. But for years my car had done no harm. When the Minister of the Crown left my block of flats and the police went with him, I was able to do the same thing again with impunity.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): I am sorry the noble Lord ceased to be my neighbour.
LORD SILKIN: I hope that in the interests of common sense something on the lines of this Amendment will be accepted.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, on this, the ninth day of our discussions on this almost endless Bill, I am certain that your Lordships would like to join with me in welcoming a newcomer in the person of Lord Swaythling to the team of "old regulars" who are now becoming so accustomed to the pros and cons of this matter. It is a very happy initial performance, for I hope to give the noble Lord not only everything for which he has asked, but, as I think he will agree, a great deal more. The situation has been hinted at by my noble friend, Lord Teynham. The law as it stands enables my right honourable friend, the Minister, by regulation, to exempt from the requirements as to obligatory lights of the 1927 Act
"any vehicle or vehicles of any class or description when standing or parked within one hundred yards of a street lamp or on road verges or in places specially set aside for the purpose."
The only regulation so far made by my right honourable friend under these powers is Regulation 28 of the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1954, under which chief officers of police are empowered to give consent to the parking of vehicles without lights in any authorised parking place. In November, 1954, my right honourable friend announced in another place his intention to make regulations of wider scope dealing with the use of parking lights and the parking of unlit vehicles on roads in built-up areas in London and, subject to police control, elsewhere. The proposals of my right honourable friend were circulated to interested organisations in December, and the replies are now under his consideration. The new regulations which will be based on those replies will be published in the very near future.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, will find that they will give him more than he wants and will take in all the points which have been made in the course of this debate. It is better we should do it in this way, because the noble

1077
Lord's proposal would tend to limit the Minister's powers. I think it is right that these provisions should be kept out of the Bill so that the Minister's powers can be extended and varied if necessary. This is a difficult matter to legislate for on a permanent basis, as the considerations which must be taken into account in each case must vary so much.
LORD SWAYTHLING: Do I understand that the Minister's orders will be made only on the recommendation of chief constables? If a chief constable does not see fit to move, is there no method by which anything can be done in his area?
LORD MANCROFT: Certainly. The Minister naturally will take the chief constable of any area into his confidence, but the ultimate responsibility to make an order is naturally with the Minister. I think when your Lordships see the regulations in the near future, you will find that they are drawn more widely than the Amendment, and in a slightly more satisfactory way, if I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling. They will deal with this and the wider problem. I hope that in view of what I have said the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, I should like to put a question arising out of this matter to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. In all the interesting explanations he has given about these parking places, he has never yet told us how it is intended to treat them at night. I do not particularly want an answer to-day, and the noble Earl will perhaps find it necessary to consider this matter. Would he consider night parking at designated parking places, with the lighting problem which must come into it? Would he also consider a suggestion that the charge for parking at night should be modified or the time extended so that greater facilities for orderly parking at night will be available, instead of the rather haphazard parking outside houses which now takes place? Would he consider also whether it is necessary to have lights on these designated parking places?
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I say that I hope that these regulations will be
1078
clear. This is a matter which affects me. Fairly often I go out to dine with some one, and when I do I use common sense: if the street is reasonably well lighted, we park—being careful not to cause any obstruction—without lights. I should hate to have to carry a tape measure to measure whether my car was within twenty yards of a lamp. I often wonder whether I am breaking the law—I really do not know. That is one disadvantage of having all these things laid down in regulations; no one can keep in touch with all the regulations. Therefore, I hope that we shall have a simple regulation in relation to this matter which will tell us plainly when we have to turn on the lights and when we have not to do so. It is hardly common sense to turn them on and run down your batteries unless there is real need. At the same time, we want to be reasonably certain in this matter. I frequently go out in my car with my wife, who is my chauffeur. When we get to our destination at night, we have a discussion as to whether we should leave the lights on or not. My wife always says, "No," and I always say "Yes"—so we never do. But let us have it plain in the regulations, and then to the best of our ability we will try to keep within the law.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sure my right honourable friend will be grateful for the interest which the noble Lord is taking in this matter. I certainly would not attempt to advise the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, whether in certain cases he is breaking the law or not. I can tell him that these regulations will be simple. My noble friend Lord Man-croft said that they were so simple, he hoped to be able to understand them himself. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised the question of parking meters at night. I would draw his attention to Clause 13 (1), where it is clearly envisaged that, in designation orders, parking meters will not be operated during twenty-four hours a day; they will probably be operated only from eight in the morning to six in the evening. At night-time they will not be operated at all—that is to say, there will be no charge for using these parking places at night. I should not like to say anything at the moment about the question of lighting. That will depend on the circumstances in which the most general answer can be given.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I should like to clear up one point. Will the orders or instructions which the Minister is to produce be uniform for the whole country, or will they be dependent on the whim of the local chief constable? In other words, will there be a uniform order saying that no lights need be carried on a car left in a built-up area, or will a chief constable be able to say that he objects to cars not having lights in a certain street and that motorists must have lights on their cars in that street, though not anywhere else in the area? That strikes me as fundamental to this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I believe the answer is that the orders will be uniform for types of district and road. I cannot say at the moment how they will be expressed, but in that general sense, they will be uniform.
EARL HOWE: This is going to be difficult. I do not gather from what the noble Earl has said that the position will be clearly uniform. How can the wretched motorist know whether he is in the right type of street, whether it is a street of the type of Grosvenor Square or Lincoln's Inn?
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, as the noble Earl knows, in many areas there is the very useful sign, "No lights required." I do not know whether the regulations will envisage an extension of that idea, but these signs would help enormously. There are certain spots where, obviously, lighting is not necessary, but it is comforting to see the sign "No lights required." There is one other point which has not been touched upon and which comes, I think, under the common-sense view. On a foggy night, or when visibility is obviously dangerous from the motorist's point of view, it is much easier to see a red light than the back of a car, because a red light has a way of getting through the mist. I take it that no motorist would be fool enough to park on a foggy night with no light at all. But I wonder whether it would be worth putting in such a provision.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I know your Lordships disapprove of speakers bobbing up and down on Report stage, but with the permission of the House I should like to inform the noble
1080
Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Howe, that it was to find an answer to all the problems that have been raised this afternoon that my right honourable friend has had comprehensive discussions with everybody concerned; and I know enough of my right honourable friend's very considerable intelligence to expect that all these points have occurred to him.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken for the Government. I should like to emphasise once more the question of uniformity, although it was laughed at and noble Lords seem to prefer the phrase "common sense." There is the question I put forward about magistrates having to fine people for doing in one area what they are allowed to do in another area. What are motorists to do if they live in an area where no lights are required and visit an area where they can get into trouble for leaving their car with no lights on? In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Clause 15 [Parking places: financial provisions]:
3.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment and I do not know whether noble Lords want me to enlarge on it. It has been put down to meet a point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Burden and Lord Milner of Leeds. In effect, it gives local authorities wider scope within the purposes laid down in Clause 15 to use the monies as they think fit, but it is equally provided that the Minister can see more securely that they do not go outside the purposes laid down. I think it is effective in that sense in protecting motorists from having the money spent beyond the purposes of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 23, leave out from ("applied") to end of line 29 and insert ("for all or any of the purposes specified in the next following subsection, and in so far as not so applied shall be appropriated to the carrying out of some specific project falling within those purposes and carried forward until applied to the carrying out thereof:
Provided that if the local authority with the consent of the Minister so determine any amount not applied in any financial year may instead of being or remaining appropriated as aforesaid be carried forward in the account

1081
kept under subsection (1) of this section to the next financial year").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 31, leave out ("first").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 35, leave out ("next").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment, again, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 38, leave out ("next").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following new Clause:
Parking places: supplementary provisions
".—(1) In the provisions of this Act relating to parking places the expression 'prescribed' means prescribed by order of the Minister.
(2) Anything authorised or required by the said provisions to be prescribed or to be done by order of the Minister may, save as otherwise expressly required, be prescribed or done either by an order designating parking places or by a general order.
(3) Any power to make an order conferred by the provisions of this Act relating to parking places shall be exerciseable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think I have substantially already dealt with this Amendment. It brings all orders described in these clauses to deal with parking meters tinder the Negative Resolution procedure of both Houses. Perhaps I should make the point again that whilst the whole procedure has to be carried out before a designation order can be put forward, even after the order has been made and the Minister has confirmed it, it still can be negatived in this House. I know that some noble Lords
1082
have certain anxieties about this matter, but I think no one can fail to recognise that if there are objectionable features in any designation order, there is ample opportunity for making them known. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15, insert the said new Clause, —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.58 p.m.
Clause 16 [Penalties and disqualifications]:
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to add to paragraph (a):
"if three years or less have elapsed between the dates of the convictions."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment and the next are similar in principle, although applying to different provisions of the Bill. As the Bill is drafted, if a motorist is accused and found guilty of exceeding the speed limit, on a second conviction his licence can be taken away. There is no limit to the time the courts may go back to find out whether he has any previous convictions, and I submit to your Lordships that it is only reasonable that the convictions should run with the current period of a licence—namely, three years. When we were considering the Bill on Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, seemed to find a good deal of difficulty in dealing with this point, but I hope he will be able to relax a little this afternoon, especially in the case of the speed limit. In the case of careless driving, my next Amendment is the same in principle, but I am not prepared to press that if the noble Lord feels that it cannot be accepted. But if he could grant the Amendment dealing with the speed limit, I am certain that it would be what most people would consider reasonable and just. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 15, at end insert ("if three years or less have elapsed between the dates of the convictions").—(Earl Howe.)
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word or two on this Amendment. I feel that I ought to apologise to the House for not having put down an Amendment. I should have liked to put down an Amendment to omit altogether paragraph (a) of subsection (1). I am not inclined to be lenient towards people

1083
who drive at excessive speeds in built-up areas, but at the same time this paragraph, if it were accepted by your Lordships, would mean that a person, on the second occasion he was convicted of exceeding 30 m.p.h., might have his licence taken away. I would submit to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill for consideration whether the period of disqualification for this offence should not, at any rate, be limited on a second conviction to no more than disqualification for a month.
I suppose there is no offence on the Statute Book which is so unequally enforced as offences against the speed limit. You can drive through half the counties in this country and you will find that no prosecutions take place at all for this offence; and you can go into a county where in one division of the county the police enforce it, and in another division they do not. This limit is almost impossible to enforce except by the method now generally adopted. I do not think the old police traps have been kept up in the same way that they used to be—the test over a measured half-mile, or something of that sort. What happens is that the policeman chases the motorist in his car; and I have often wondered what answer a police officer would have if a motorist, having been fined for exceeding the speed limit, took out a summons against the police officer for exceeding the limit. I do not think he would have any answer, although that may sound rather absurd. There is a provision in the Road Traffic Act, 1934, which exempts from the speed limit ambulances and fire engines. If the law is to allow police officers to travel at 50 m.p.h. to catch a motorist going at 45 m.p.h., then I think there ought to be some provision for it in the Act.
What is the point of putting up to £30 the penalty for exceeding the speed limit on a first conviction? No magistrates that I know ever fine more than £3 for a first offence, although at the present time they can impose a fine of £20. It seems to me that this is dangerously near making a farce of this matter, to expect any bench of magistrates, for a mere offence of exceeding the speed limit, to impose a fine of £30. I have often thought that it would be much better if the offence of speeding were done away with altogether, and, where a man was thought to be
1084
driving in a dangerous manner, it were left to the police to prosecute for dangerous driving. On the other hand, I am sure that one ought to do everything one can to prevent excessive speed in towns. I would remind your Lordships that the High Court have held that speed alone can be enough on which to convict a man of dangerous driving: it is the case of Bracegirdle v. Oxley, that came from the county of Cheshire, and a court of five judges laid that down in explicit terms.
We have now a situation which I submit to your Lordships is thoroughly unsatisfactory, where in one county, as I say, there will be no prosecution, yet when you cross into the next county you find that you are chased by a policeman on any particular occasion. I wonder how many of your Lordships (if I may ask the rhetorical question) obey the speed limits in the parks. I go through Green Park every morning on my way to the Law Courts. I try to see that my man does not travel at more than 20 to 25 m.p.h., but I am passed by every car on the road. I have never seen anybody observing the speed limits in the parks, and it is seldom that prosecutions are brought, although, if there is danger they ought to be. At any rate, I would ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill if he will reconsider whether it is necessary to increase the fine up to £30. In my view, no bench of magistrates will go over £5, and few will go up to £5 for a first or second offence. I would also suggest that if disqualification for a second offence (which I think is too harsh) is to be kept in the Bill, it should be limited to one month.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I entirely support what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard. If the proposal were limited to drivers who have on their licences concurrent endorsements for the same offence there might be some justification for it. As I said on Second Reading, at the moment it means that a motorist who exceeds the speed limit at the age of twenty-five can, at the age of fifty, on a second offence, be disqualified. I think that is an absurd position, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will look into this matter again.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I was under the impression that there was a powerful argument behind the thesis of

1085
the noble Earl, Lord Howe, even before I heard the speech of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice. He would be a brave man indeed who would stand at this Despatch Box and try to oppose the noble Earl, Lord Howe, after hearing the views of the noble and learned Lord on the subject of speeding. Some of his views, if I may say so with respect, went a little further than the actual Amendment we are now considering, but I will see that my right honourable friend is made aware of them. The noble and learned Lord questioned the right of the police to go faster than the speed limit when tracking down somebody breaking the law. It is with the greatest possible temerity that I suggest any point of law to the Lord Chief Justice of England, but I think he may find an answer in section 3 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, which reads:
"The provisions of any enactment, or of any statutory rule or order, imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall not apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes …"
The noble and learned Lord also raised the question of the £30 fine. We discussed this at length on Second Reading: the reason why all these fines have been increased in the Bill is to try to draw attention to the gravity which Her Majesty's Government attach to this matter, as contrasted with the leniency with which some fines have been imposed. But I appreciate fully the point that the noble and learned Lord has made. He will also bear in mind that the fine has been increased by only 50 per cent. since 1930, whereas the value of money has gone down appreciably.
I turn now to the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The noble Earl gave us a clear indication that he will not press the similar Amendment he has down in regard to careless driving—and that Amendment we could not possibly accept. There is quite a sharp distinction between careless driving or dangerous driving and speeding. As the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said, a perfectly clear record for twenty-five years may be marred by this one offence; and that, obviously, would be unjust. Therefore, if it is acceptable to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I would say that the Government are prepared to agree to what he wants in this Amendment—that is, to provide
1086
that three years shall have elapsed between the dates of the convictions—on condition that he realises that the Government cannot possibly meet him on his second Amendment about careless driving.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has said, I do not propose to move my next Amendment. However, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him for giving way on this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think I should give your Lordships notice that I am not going to move a number of Amendments dealing with limited disqualification.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): Perhaps my noble friend will help me as to those as we go along.
Clause 17 [Operation of driving disqualifications]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 27, leave out ("under the Act of 1930").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 36, at end insert ("or disqualification by virtue of the last foregoing section.").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.12 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, after Clause 17 to insert the following new clause:
Appeal against finding of no special reasons for not disqualifying
". A person disqualified by virtue of a conviction under the Act of 1930 may appeal against the disqualification in the same manner as against a conviction, and the court by or before whom he was convicted may, if it thinks fit, pending the appeal suspend the disqualification."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a somewhat similar Amendment was set down on the Committee Stage of the Bill, and your Lordships will see that this Amendment leaves the suspension of disqualification pending an appeal to the

1087
discretion of the court. In the past there have been some doubts as to the powers of the court to suspend a sentence of disqualification pending an appeal when such disqualification follows automatically upon a conviction by virtue of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act. This Amendment will clarify the position, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will see their way to accept it in this form. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Teynham, because the Amendment which he had down and which we discussed in some detail on Committee went a good deal too far, as I think he was prepared to admit on reflection. He has now brought his Amendment down to proportions which are acceptable to all of us, and in view of that I shall be happy to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WALERAN LORD WALERAN moved, after Clause 17 to insert the following new clause:
Extention of provisions as to warning of intended prosecution
". Section twenty-one of the Act of 1930 (which provides that a person may not be convicted of excessive speed, reckless or dangerous driving, or careless driving unless either warned at the time of the possibility of his being prosecuted or within fourteen days thereafter either summoned for the offence or notified that he is to be prosecuted) shall apply to offences under sections forty-nine and fifty of that Act (which relate respectively to failure to obey traffic directions or to conform with instructions given by traffic signs and to leaving vehicles on roads in dangerous positions)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recollect that on the Committee stage of this Bill I moved an Amendment to which Her Majesty's Government agreed in principle and were good enought to say that, if we had consultations, we might get a draft which would be mutually acceptable. This new clause is the method we have agreed upon as the best way of doing it. It is mutually satisfactory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Waleran.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, is quite right.
1088
This Amendment is now acceptable to all of us in the form we have it on the Order Paper. In the Bill we are increasing the penalties for a number of offences, and I think it is only reasonable that we should give a motorist further protection against the possibility of being prosecuted for an offence after he has completely forgotten the circumstances of the case. The Amendment seems to meet the need and I shall be happy to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.14 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 19 to insert the following new clause:
".—(1) At the end of subsection (i) of section eight of the Act of 1934 (which prohibits the sale or supply of vehicles for delivery in a condition in which their use on a road would be unlawful by virtue of section three of the Act of 1930) there shall be added the words 'or by virtue of any provision made as respects brakes, steering gear or tyres by regulations under section thirty of that Act'.
(2) At the end of the said section eight there shall be added the following subsection—
'(5) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall affect the validity of any contract or any rights arising under a contract'."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a rather complicated Amendment, and if your Lordships will bear with me while I try to explain it I will do my best. The first subsection of this new clause reproduces the substance, with one exception and in different wording, of an Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, on the fourth day of Committee stage of the Bill. It extends the provisions of Section 8 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, so as to make it unlawful for a person to sell a motor vehicle not only when that vehicle does not comply with the requirements of the law as to its construction, but also if its brakes, steering gear or tyres are not maintained in accordance with the requirements imposed as respects these matters by the Construction and Use Regulations made by the Minister under Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. This will remove the defect in the existing section which was revealed by a recent case in the High Court.
One difference of substance exists between this Amendment and the one previously moved, and that is that silencers were referred to in addition to brakes,

1089
steering gear and tyres. It has been suggested, however, that inasmuch as silencers are not a matter affecting safety, it is not necessary to make it an offence for a person to sell a vehicle with a silencer in a defective condition, although this is justified and appropriate where it is the brakes, steering gear or tyres which are not in conformity with the relevant regulations. Also, the police would have power to deal with a vehicle if its silencer were so defective and made too much noise. I should, perhaps, make it clear that the effect of Section 8 as proposed to be amended, will not make it unlawful for a person to sell a car in a defective condition to someone who knows of the defect and is intending to repair the vehicle, because subsection (4) of Section 8 gives a defence to anyone charged under the section if he can prove that he had reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle would not be used on a road until it had been put into a condition in which it might lawfully be so used.
Subsection (2) of the clause adds a further provision to Section 8 for the purpose of securing that civil rights and obligations of the parties to a transaction of a kind which is made unlawful by that section shall not be affected by the fact that the transaction is made unlawful. I am informed that if such an amendment is not made to Section 8, persons who have bought a second-hand car which was defective to an extent which would make Section 8 applicable, and who have taken delivery and paid for the car, or have perhaps paid for such a car before taking delivery, may be placed in a position of some difficulty and uncertainty as to their rights and liabilities in relation to the seller, and that in some cases they may be less favourably placed than if the contract had not been made unlawful. I understand that such a contract would be illegal and, therefore, unenforceable, but that the consequential effects of the illegality on the civil rights and obligations of the parties to the contract might not always be easy to determine in all the various circumstances which may occur in such transactions.
It has also to be remembered that it will not always be a dealer who is the seller and a private person the purchaser. A car in the relevant defective condition may be sold by the ordinary owner-driver to another owner-driver or to a dealer. Accordingly, as we are concerned much
1090
more with making it an offence to sell vehicles which are defective so as to prevent them from being sold to people who are likely to use them on a road while in a defective condition, than to protect people from the consequences of a bad bargain, it seems to me that it would be wise to include a provision preventing the section from operating to alter the respective civil rights and obligations of the seller and buyer under the contract they have made. I believe that this is not the first time that such a provision has been included in a Statute making what is normally an innocent transaction unlawful, and it seems to me that in this case it is desirable to make this provision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 19, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is the Amendment which was referred to yesterday in your Lordships' House and about which the Government wished to listen to the arguments, to weigh the relative merits of this Amendment and the one that I ventured to put before your Lordships yesterday afternoon, when my ill-fated attempt to put some sense into this Bill went wrong.
I am quite in agreement with what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, seeks to do, and I think he is in agreement with what I sought to do. But I would go about it in a rather more simple manner, and that is the manner I suggested to your Lordships yesterday afternoon. I agree that one of the sources of danger in any mechanical defect in a motor vehicle stems from the fact that there are on the road thousands of motor vehicles which never should be allowed to be on the roads. But I would not do it in this way, and I hope the Government will not do it in this complicated way. I do not want to bring the Construction and Use Regulations into this matter; I do not want to bring any of the Statutes which the noble Earl has just enumerated into it—and for this simple reason: I want to place firmly on the shoulders of the seller the onus of issuing a certificate of fitness. The wording of the certificate will, of course, have to be agreed with the motor trade and the Minister, but it must be the same thing in all cases; it must be the same type of certificate that is envisaged in Clause 1, that will be or can be issued by a Government examiner.

1091
I want to eliminate from the requirement of this certificate, however, all those transactions which I described to your Lordships yesterday afternoon, transactions in the motor trade as between trader and trader, part exchange and new car buying.
If your Lordships will bear with me, I will repeat the salient points of what I suggest is the best way of doing this. As I said in my Amendment, power should be given to the Minister to make regulations for the control of this matter and to take out of it all transactions except those of sale by retail—the sale of a used vehicle to the retail purchaser. There are thousands and thousands of transactions that do not affect the safety factor at all, because they are transactions between trader and trader for the purposes of the ordinary course of business. As I said to your Lordships yesterday afternoon, I suppose that in normal times—and we are getting back to those in the motor industry—new vehicle selling will be largely a replacement business. Ninety-four per cent. of the motor cars sold in this country before the war were sold with another vehicle taken in part exchange. It went on and on like that until the average number of motor cars taken in part exchange for a new one was 2½ to 3. What I want to see is a very careful check made upon the last vehicle in this process, which usually is sold to the scrap dealer, or the vehicle breaker, and then finds its way into circulation once again.
One of the things I should like to see the Government do, after careful consultation with the industry, is to see that at some date a vehicle is broken up, the licence and the log book cancelled, and that that vehicle never comes on the streets or the roads of this country again. It is that vehicle which, because it is in such bad condition that it is worth nobody's while to spend the money to put it right, is sold to the man who has about £20 in his pocket—and he cannot afford to keep it in decent order and takes out third party insurance, only because the law compels him to do so. He finds that the wretched thing is nearly collapsing under him in a month, and then he sells it to somebody else—and the same experience goes on and on. Those are the vehicles, both private cars and commercial vehicles, which constitute the biggest menace on the roads of this country.
1092
In my Amendment yesterday afternoon I wanted the certificate to be issued by either the trade seller of the car or other competent authority or authorities, as the Minister may authorise; and I had in my mind Government examiners, as I sought to put in the Bill yesterday. I do not want to go over the old ground and fight the old battle again, but testing stations would be useless for this job; there would not be enough of them. What the Government must not do is to interfere too much with the ordinary legitimate channels of trade by tying this up with a lot of red tape, which would be the result of putting into effect the process suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. There are most comic things in the Construction and Use Regulations which could all be brought into it. I do not know whether your Lordships know it, but it is illegal for your Lordships to have a speedometer on your motor car which, at precisely 30 m.p.h., is 10 per cent. in error. That provision has never been enforced. I want to have a separate piece of legislation for this particular problem, and not bring in any of the legislation by reference which the noble Earl has so well illustrated this afternoon. You have to jump from one Act to another, back to the other and then to a Regulation. If the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will take my advice on this matter—and, as I have told your Lordships before, I am not inexperienced in this kind of thing—he will try and do it the way that I have suggested in my Amendment of yesterday: to have discussions with all the interested parties to see whether he cannot—and I believe the motor trade would welcome this—put the onus definitely upon their shoulders. That is where it should lie, and that would save, I should estimate, the testing of almost 2 million vehicles a year. You will not have any bureaucratic regulations; you will not have any bureaucratic examiners; it will be done in the ordinary course of trade.
I have been careful all the time to use the word "certificate," because all reputable dealers sell their best used motor cars under a warranty. A warranty can vary very much, and I am not going into the technicalities of the difference between a warranty and a certificate. But I want the Minister to be able to say that this certificate should show at the time of sale (and it can be given only at the date of sale) that the brakes, steering and tyres

1093
were up to a certain standard—not guaranteed for any purpose whatsoever, but were up to a certain standard—in exactly the same language as will be used on the certificate that he proposes to issue from these testing stations. If the noble Earl will agree will me, I should like to take advantage of the noble Earl's offer that he made yesterday and have that Amendment put into Clause 1 of this Bill on Third Reading. It could be done without any discussion, because we do not want discussion on Amendments on Third Reading. That will give the Minister time to work out these regulations with the industry to effect what I know the noble Earl, Lord Howe, wants and what I want at the same time. That is my comment to the noble Earl who wanted to hear the debate on the noble Earl's Amendment. That is my contribution to this problem which I hope the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will accept.
4.31 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I should like to say one brief word in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has just said. Week by week I see a certain country newspaper, not a small-sized one but a full-sized one. Week by week, that paper has a whole page, and sometimes one and a half pages, of advertisements of second-hand motor cars. After listening to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said on a previous occasion about this, I had the curiosity to go through those pages, car by car. It is perfectly obvious, even to someone without the intimate knowledge of the motor trade that the noble Lord has, that many of those cars could not possibly be in a fit condition to be on the road.
This is not a case of caveat emptor. The buyer of one of those cars, at the price at which it is offered, must know perfectly well that he cannot be getting a sound article; but because he has some little business transaction in hand that he wants to carry through which can be carried through only if he has a car of some description or other, he takes a chance and buys one. By so doing he puts the public in jeopardy. If that is one case which comes to my notice from one paper, this sort of thing must be going on on a very wide scale all over the country. Cars are offered for sale which the vendor knows perfectly well ought not
1094
to be on the road and which the buyer himself knows ought not to be on the road. It seems to me, if I may say so with respect, that there really is the clearest possible duty on the part of the Government to protect the public from the danger into which they are brought by these transactions.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think that very little divides the noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Winster, from the noble Earl, Lord Howe. What they want to do is something which I am quite certain the House also wants to do—it is only a question of method. Whatever they do certainly touches my conscience personally, because the first car with which I was in any way connected was a quarter-share which I had in a 1923 bull-nosed Morris Cowley which we bought for £15. It was painted blue on one side and red on the other, in order to confuse the witnesses if we ever had an accident. Eventually, I sold my quarter-share for 37s. 6d. to an unsuspecting Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas. I certainly should have been caught by the Amendments of both the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
As the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has pointed out, the principle of caveat emptor does not apply in this case. Many of these vehicles are quite clearly dangerous weapons, and the stiffest control we can devise should be put upon them. All we have to decide is which is the best method of control. In this case it is a question of which is the better method because we have two, that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and that of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. For my part, I favour that of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Of course, I bow to the practical experience of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and think he has made out a good case for his scheme. I cannot find anything seriously wrong with it, except that it would involve a good deal more red tape, bureaucracy and difficulty than the method proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. There would be one or two complicated elements, because the noble Lord has tackled his problem from a slightly different point of view. I am not criticising at all, but he appeared to be concerned more with trade ethics and trade discipline, both of which are dear to his heart, whereas the noble Earl, Lord

1095
Howe, looked at the matter more from the principal question of road safety. I do not think that the accusation of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that the Amendment of the noble Earl is overcomplicated is a very serious one. The Amendment seems to me pretty straightforward and to cover, more than the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, the case of the buyer and the seller with no professional dealer coming in between the two.
Of course, we will look again at what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, but I can see very little wrong with the Amendment of the noble Earl, which I believe meets the case we are all trying to meet. We will, of course, listen to what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has to say in reply, but unless he has any reason to differ from me I think your Lordships would be well advised to take the noble Earl's Amendment in preference to that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I speak again, with your Lordships' permission? I fail absolutely to understand the argument of the noble Lord. One of the defects of his Amendment, if I may say so with great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is that the vehicle will not have a certificate of fitness, the very thing that is the essence of this Bill. That is the only safeguard. Everybody has to have a certificate of fitness once a year for the vehicle that is on the road. That is the basis upon which this Bill rests. My suggestion is that the life of a motor vehicle with its new owner shall start off with a certificate, and it shall start with a certificate issued by the vendor. Could there be anything more simple?
By the noble Earl's suggestion, you are setting up another method of arriving at the fitness of a vehicle by saying "It shall be an offence to sell a vehicle which is this, that or the other." What I suggest should be put in this Bill is that it shall be an offence to sell a vehicle unaccompanied by a certificate set out in precisely the same manner. If the vendor does not provide a certificate, the owner will have to go to a testing station and get it himself. There is no bureaucracy in it. It does not require any inspector at all,
1096
unless the sale is between two ordinary private individuals, and then there is no need to go to an inspector. I think my proposal is the essence of simplicity. It would be agreed by the industry far more quickly than the complicated method, because the method in the Act has been so complicated that it has never yet been enforced. I repeat to your Lordships that, having some knowledge of this problem over all my life, I am certain that the way I suggest will meet the case better under the principle which your Lordships have already adopted in this Bill.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will agree that both his idea and mine should stand over until the Third Reading. That would give the Minister further opportunity to study the points which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, put forward just now and consider the points which I have endeavoured to put forward in support of my Amendment. I am quite ready to agree to that course if it will meet with the views of the Minister and of the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If the noble Earl feels that, I shall be very happy to consider it between now and Third Reading. We do not like to have too many Amendments on Third Reading if we can help it, but if the House is in any doubt about this matter, that is probably the best course.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, in that case I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after Clause 21 to insert the following new clause:
Appeals relating to road service licences
".—(1) Where the holder of a road service licence makes application to the commissioners to exercise their powers under subsection (4) of section seventy-two of the Act of 1930 to vary the conditions attached to the licence, then in any case in which the Minister notifies the commissioners that the application ought to be entertained it shall be the duty of the commissioners to consider whether they shall exercise the said powers.
(2) Where the commissioners (whether or not in consequence of a notification under the last foregoing subsection) entertain an application for them to exercise their said powers, but refuse to vary the conditions attached to the licence, the holder of the licence or, if

1097
they have made representations in favour of the exercise of those powers, any of the following persons, that is to say—

(a) the council of any county, county borough or county district in whose area the route to which the licence relates or any part of that route is situated, or

(b) any person providing transport facilities along or neat that route or any part thereof,

may within the time and in the manner prescribed under section eighty-one of the Act of 1930 appeal to the Minister; and on any such appeal the Minister shall have power to make such order, binding upon the commissioners, as he thinks fit."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is in consequence of an undertaking given to Lord Rothes to put down an Amendment allowing certain appeals from the licensing authority. I might mention one thing that has perhaps escaped your Lordships' attention—namely, that paragraph 16 of the Third Schedule restores the words "traffic commissioners." Those were the original words used in the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. The Chairman of the Traffic Commissioners when sitting alone to deal with goods licences will continue to be known as the licensing authority. This Amendment allows the holder of a road service licence to appeal to the Minister to instruct the commissioners to entertain a variation of the conditions of his licence. Where the commissioners have entertained an application for a variation of the conditions of a licence but have refused to grant the application, then (a) the licence holder, (b) the local authority in whose area the route lies, and (c) the transport organisation providing transport on or near the route shall have a right to appeal to the Minister, provided that they have made representations in favour of the application. The Minister has powers to make regulations laying down the procedure to be followed in exercising these powers of appeal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, is unable to be present to-day, but he has asked me to say a few words on this Amendment. I am sure he will be grateful to know that it is now possible to appeal to the Minister. But your Lordships will remember that an Amendment was set down on the Committee stage to deal
1098
with the right of an operator who had been granted only part of the variation for which he had applied, to put that part into operation while still appealing in regard to the remainder. So far as I can see, the Amendment as drawn does not meet this point. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can look at this again.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord has raised that point. If he will look at Amendment No. 64 he will see that the point is dealt with there. That Amendment appears accidentally in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe; it should be in my name. My noble friend will find that under paragraph 11 (7) the regulation may be made to meet the point he has in mind. I am glad to give the noble Lord the assurance that those regulations will in fact be made. That, I think, meets the point he has in mind.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that assurance.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill what is the necessity for enabling the Minister to notify the commissioners that an application ought to be entertained, when eventually the matter may come back to the Minister on appeal? I do not recall whether there are precedents for this procedure, but where parties have a right to make application to the commissioners, is it necessary to provide that the Minister may direct them to entertain an application and, to that extent, override the discretion which would otherwise rest with them, especially when, if I understand the Amendment rightly, in the event that a person is dissatisfied with the eventual decision, by way of refusal or otherwise, there would be an appeal to the Minister?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, no one knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, that this is a most complicated matter. It was most carefully examined by the Thesiger Committee, and I am given to understand that this proposal is substantially what that Committee recommended. I hesitate to answer the nobel Lord other than in very careful wording, but I think the procedure is that an applicant cannot insist on the consideration by the licensing authority of any variation unless the licensing

1099
authority entertain that variation as their proposal. Accordingly, if they refuse to entertain that application, the applicant can appeal to the Minister and the Minister can instruct the licensing authority to entertain it. If, having entertained it, he refuses to vary it, the applicant—the local authority concerned, or the operator providing the transport in the neighbourhood—can appeal to the Minister. I am given to understand that the intention is to enable certain ideas to be put forward which are not necessarily at the fiat of the commissioner. I do not know whether it is the noble Lord's view that the commissioner should have less opportunity of appeal. There is, above all, the opinion of the Thesiger Committee, that there should be some appeal to meet these points. So far as I know, it is intended to carry that out. I do not know whether I have met the point of the noble Lord.
LORD HURCOMB: I am obliged to the noble Earl. I will certainly look again at the Thesiger Report; but in my experience the great success of the Act of 1930 and of the jurisdiction of the traffic commissioners was that they were left to exercise it without previous interference of any kind, although they were always subject to be corrected upon appeal. There may be some point which escapes me here. I must say, having had some experience of this matter, that responsible authorities, used to acting in a judicial spirit, could, I should have thought, have been trusted to judge whether or not the application made to them was one which they ought to entertain, without being directed from above that they must entertain it; and then, if they do not treat it in a way that satisfies the applicant, to be subject to the decision of the Minister. But there may be something behind this which I fail to understand. I am obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.46 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, after Clause 21, to insert the following new clause:
Constitution of London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee
". In the Twelfth Schedule to the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933 (which sets out the constitution of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee) for the
1100
provision for one member to be appointed by the Minister to represent the interests of certain persons providing or using mechanically propelled road vehicles there shall be substituted the following provisions:—
'Two—By the Minister, after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think fit, to represent the interests of persons (other than such persons as are hereinafter mentioned and other than the British Transport Commission and any Executive) providing or using mechanically propelled road vehicles within the London Traffic Area.
One—By the Minister, after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think fit, to represent the interests of persons (other than the British Transport Commission and any Executive) who are holders of public carriers' licences and limited carriers' licences under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, carrying on business within the London Traffic Area.
One—By the Minister, after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think fit, to represent the interests of persons who are holders of private carriers' licences under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, carrying on business within the London Traffic Area.
One—By the Minister, after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think fit, to represent the interests of persons (other than the British Transport Commission and any Executive) who are the holders of licences authorising them to operate public service vehicles within the London Traffic Area'."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is a modification of a somewhat similar Amendment which was set down on the Committee stage of the Bill. It will have the effect of giving representation to certain road interests by adding an additional member to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, to represent the mechanically propelled road vehicles, so that there will be representation of the holders of public and private carriers' licences and limited carriers' licences, as well as the holders of licences for operating public service vehicles. In asking Her Majesty's Government to accept this Amendment, I hope that when opportunity occurs they will give due consideration to reducing to a more manageable proportion the total representation on the Advisory Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am glad to accept this Amendment. We discussed it on the Committee stage,

1101
and since then we have made one adjustment. I said on the last occasion that this was essentially an interim phase and that the whole Committee requires further examination and probably a reduction in numbers. That we have it in mind to do. But we thought it a good thing to take the opportunity of this Bill slightly to readjust the balance on the Committee. I would mention only one other point. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised a question in regard to the wording, "represent the interests of persons." He took exception to those words. We have repeated them here only because they are the original words in the 1933 Act; but we will certainly bear in mind the point which he made. We agree that the more modern practice is to make appointments after consultation with persons interested in certain features. However, that is a matter about which the Minister, or whoever is in charge, will have to make up his mind when we make a wider and further amendment of the Act.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule [Procedure for orders designating parking places]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is an Amendment to which I have already referred. It recites that local authorities will draw the attention of persons who live on property abutting on areas where designation orders will be made and who may be affected by designation orders for parking places or other similar purposes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 24, at end insert—
("(2) On applying for such an order a local authority shall take such other steps as appear to the authority reasonably practicable for the purpose of bringing specifically to the knowledge of persons likely to be specially affected, as the occupiers of land adjacent to the parking places, information as to the matters specified in heads (a) to (c) of the last foregoing sub-paragraph.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I have already dealt with the obligation upon the local authority to inform people living in neighbouring property of such proposals. This Amendment provides that the Minister can instruct the local authority to do so more thoroughly if he is dissatisfied. I believe this fully covers the undertaking which I gave upon
1102
this point at the Committee Stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 32, at end insert—
("Provided that where it appears to the Minister that before the application is referred as aforesaid the local authority should take further steps for the purpose mentioned in subparagraph (2) of the last foregoing paragraph, he may direct the authority to take such further steps for that purpose as he may specify, and if he does so the period within which a copy of the order and plan may be inspected, and objections may be made, shall be deemed to be extended by such time as the Minister may direct.")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule [Conditions affecting classification of vehicles]:
4.50 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in paragraph 12, to omit all words after "who" and to insert:
"is travelling for any purpose other than that for which the journey has been arranged."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage I made an ineffective attempt to get this provision as it affects contract carriages clarified, in order to prevent the unfortunate position which arose over legal interpretation of the drafting in the old Statute of what constituted a private party on a special occasion. The dictum which caused the trouble was a decision of the Divisional Court. Although some people did not agree with it, evidently it was the law. That decision practically ruled out of private hire all contract carriages where separate fares were charged for the journey, whether or not those separate fares included or excluded the fare for the journey plus the entertainment at the destination. I will again attempt to convince Her Majesty's Government that my Amendment is better than the wording in the Bill because the latter uses the word "frequently." That word can be, and I suppose will be, a lawyers' paradise. Having listened to all that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor had to say upon this question of "frequently" I remain unconvinced.
If I may draw your Lordships' attention to the wording of the Schedule, we are here dealing with the coach that is hired to take a party and for which no road service licence is required, since the coach is subject to certain restrictions. The noble Lords will see in the Second

1103
Schedule, Part IV, paragraph 8, the conditions which have to be fulfilled:
"Arrangements for the bringing together of all the passengers for the purpose of making the journey must have been made otherwise than by, or by a person acting on behalf of,—

(a) the holder of the public service vehicle licence in respect of the vehicle, if such a licence is in force,

(b) the driver or the owner of the vehicle or the person who has let the vehicle for hire by any hiring agreement or hire-purchase agreement, if no such licence is in force,

and otherwise than by any person who receives any remuneration in respect of the arrangements."
That explicitly rules out all commercial concerns. Nobody can run such journeys for personal profit or receive any remuneration; so that it is quite obvious that the only people who will have contract carriages under this particular regulation are charitable, sporting and social organisations, musical societies, works outings and similar groups where there is no commercial gain. I want to try to prevent what I feel is otherwise inevitable, the legal squabble which will ensue as a result of the words in this Schedule. Paragraph 12 of Part IV provides that:
"In the case of a journey to a particular destination the passengers must not include any person who frequently, or as a matter of routine, travels, at or about the time of day at which the journey is made, to or to the vicinity of that destination from a place from or through which the journey is made."
I seek to cut out those last words, from "frequently" to the end of the subsection and to insert the words
"is travelling for any purpose other than that for which the journey has been arranged."
That is a simple provision which is not open to abuse as is the present form. One will not get abuses, because these arrangements are to be limited to non-commercial organisations.
I will give one or two examples. There is the very common case of the organisation of a supporters' club of a football team. Every other week these people club together to travel to see their team play away from home. Every other week, through the winter, they go to cheer on their local heroes; so they go frequently—and why should they not do so? These people may be in the heart of a rural area, where such arrangements would not
1104
interfere with any stage carriages or with any route operated by a stage carriage operator. The trip, of course, may be on such a route, but that is not my fault: it is the fault of the Bill, in that the door has been opened so wide. But in these rural areas, where transport is getting shorter, such people, if they do not hire one of these coaches, may not be able to make their journey with their team. Then what of the sports and social club of big works which have a football team? Why should big works not be able to organise parties of their social club and go to see their cricket or football teams play? This arrangement will not be abused. It will be abused no more by putting in words to confine the passengers of this vehicle to those who are going for the purpose for which the journey has been arranged. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts on this matter.
My noble friend Lord Winster raised one point on the Committee stage, and I am not going to elaborate it now, because I expect that he is going to address your Lordships and that he will deal with the point. Lord Winster himself, in his social capacity, would be debarred because he comes into the second category of one who travels on the same route that his club might want to take. I ask the noble Earl, without more arguments, to accept the Amendment. I do not wish to weary your Lordships. I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has done. He has taken out of the Statute those obnoxious words "a private party on a special occasion" and has put in these words which we now see. The noble and learned Viscount pointed out that this provision has been in another Statute for quite a long time. I am aware of that; but it has never been a source of legal objection, because the great objection with regard to the old Statute was based on the words "private party on a special occasion." I could go on arguing the case for a very long time, but I should only bore your Lordships if I did. This is the third occasion on which I have dealt with this matter so, without further words, I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 33, leave out from ("who") to end of line 36 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
5.3 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I support the Amendment. My noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has covered the case so fully and has made his points so strongly that there are only one or two words that I need add. I entirely appreciate the purpose of the Government in putting this provision into the Schedule. It is a proper purpose and one that I support. The only point at issue is the method by which they seek to carry out their purpose. They seek to carry it out by the form of words which appears in the Schedule. Lord Lucas of Chilworth proposes an alternative form of words, but the purpose is the same. In Committee, I gave an illustration upon which I do not recollect having an answer. It is the case that if one of the local clubs with which I am connected organised a party to come up to London to look round the Houses of Parliament, and were kind enough to invite me to accompany them and I did so, I should be committing an offence, because I should be making with them a journey which I frequently and regularly make. It is clear that, under the words of the Schedule, I should, technically, be committing an offence. That is only one matter. I am sure other noble Lords could bring forward instances as to how they would be trapped by the words in the Schedule.
The words which Lord Lucas proposes are perfectly clear and definite. There is no ambiguity about them at all. They are not open to the objection which I have just quoted. This, I think, is the point which your Lordships have to decide: the object being the same, do the words in the Schedule or the words proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth achieve the object in the best possible way? I have pointed out one instance where, as I say, under the words of the Schedule, I should be guilty of an offence, whereas, under the words proposed by my noble friend, I should not be guilty of an offence. If we have a choice between ambiguity and non-ambiguity, I feel that we shall be wise to come down on the side of non-ambiguity and support my noble friend's Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like at the outset to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winster. First, let me say that he would
1106
not be guilty of an offence. Whoever was the owner of the bus or the organiser of the journey ought to have obtained a road service licence but he did not do so. This matter is really more interesting than the noble Lord seems to think. The question I ask the noble Lord, Lord Winster, is this: when he comes up from Dorking, or from wherever it is that he does come, with the Anglers' Association, will he travel at or about the time of day at which his journey is usually made? That is a question he has to ask himself. Suppose he "books in" for duty in the House of Lords at ten o'clock in the morning—assuming it is his routine business to work here from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. If one day he comes with a party, admittedly he might invalidate the licence, because the party he comes with should be travelling in a vehicle which is owned by someone who has a road service licence.
That opens up the very point where the Amendment moved by Lord Lucas of Chilworth is unsatisfactory. I want to tell your Lordships what the words which Lord Lucas has in mind would mean. They would mean that anyone could travel to work every day by a contract carriage. That means that every party going to a factory or a workshop from one area to another could travel day by day to their work. They would be all on the same purpose. The noble Lord is aware that that would fundamentally undermine the structure of travelling facilities by road service licences. That is why the words in his Amendment would not work. I do not think the words that we are using are open to any such strong objection. I am not sure that I have fully answered the noble Lord, Lord Winster. To do so, I should have to cross-question him about his private life—whether, for instance, when he travels up with the Anglers' Association it will be the same time of day that he normally travels. I do not know the answer to that question. I do not wish to cross-examine the noble Lord upon his private life.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, my private life is open to the full, clear light of day. The noble Earl may make, any examination or investigation into it he pleases. In fact, the journey would be, in this particular case, at or about the same time of day. I come up as a rule

1107
by a train leaving at 9.10 a.m. and I have noticed that these parties—not of the Anglers' Association, but various parties—who travel to London, leave as a rule at about 9 or 9.30 a.m. That is about the usual time for them to leave the village.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I must say then that there is some peril when the noble Lord travels up with a party. But I am prepared to make him this offer. If in the case of any bus with which he is concerned a fine is imposed, I will pay that fine myself. I think the chances of a fine being imposed are utterly remote, but I concede that there is a chance in this matter. As anyone who has examined it will realise, we draw a very difficult and delicate line. What is so difficult about it is that we have to take note of the possibility of someone who is acting carelessly but in good faith, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, someone who is clever but possibly unscrupulous, and is seeking to get the fullest advantage he can out of every word in an Act of Parliament. I do not think it is as bad as Lord Lucas of Chilworth makes out. I will tell him why. He has given us one example of going to an "away" football match. These people can go to every "away" football match throughout the season in contract carriages; there is no difficulty about that as we have drafted this in the Bill. I think that meets the point which the noble Lord has raised.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Will the noble Earl tell me why he says that? It is very interesting.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: You have only to read it here to see that "Away" matches, by definition, are in different places. That is exactly what it says here on page 23:
"In the case of a journey to a particular destination."
By definition they are different destinations, therefore one can go round to half a dozen places, but what one cannot do is to go regularly to one place. We cannot allow people to go regularly to one place because, as the noble Lord knows quite well, that would undermine the regular services, which are advertised in advance to run regularly. Frequency is the essence of these services. That is why we must have the word "frequently."
1108
If we did not have that word in the clause, we should undermine all the regular services. I cannot think of any way in which that word can be avoided. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has dealt with this point before and I would only add that the word "frequently" has been in road traffic legislation since 1934. It was not until 1951 that difficulty arose over the words "special occasion" and during the whole of that time no difficulty arose in the courts in regard to "frequently." I admit that it is a matter for the courts to interpret, but I do not think that they will have any difficulty in interpreting the clause sensibly. I believe they will do what is reasonable in the circumstances.
I am anxious to set the noble Lord's mind at rest about this matter. We have not followed here the Thesiger Report. We did not do so because we thought that it would be too rigid, and that few advantages would result from doing so. But we consulted the bodies who gave evidence to the Thesiger Committee and the overwhelming majority of the representatives of the associations we consulted, including the representatives of the local authorities, private owners and the British Transport Commission and many representing the public in various ways, such as the Central Transport Consultative Committee, the local authorities of Scotland and Wales, the National Federation of Football Supporters' Clubs, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Theatres National Committee, the Workers Travel Association, the Association of Health and Pleasure Resorts and the British Travel and Holidays Association, very much preferred our proposal to that of the Thesiger Committee. I am not going to say that some of them would not have liked to push the line a little bit this way or that; what I do say is that they preferred the general approach here to that in the Thesiger Report. Of course in a sense everybody is trying to get the balance tilted a little bit in his own direction.
I would ask the noble Lord to believe that I cannot conceive of any system where the word "frequently" is omitted which would not fundamentally undermine the regular services on which the whole country necessarily and properly depends. It may be that I have still not convinced him, but I think the noble Lord's Amendment, far from making this

1109
provision narrower, goes much wider. If he considers our drafting too wide, his goes much wider. I am reluctant to change the exact alignment because I know that if we change it one way, all sorts of people would wish to push it the other way.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, my difficulty is that I agree with the noble Earl so much in this matter, and I do not want to push anything one way or to influence it. The noble Earl has opened the door so wide that he himself has done what he accuses me of wanting to do. He has now put contract carriages in direct competition with stage coaches without let or hindrance. If he had accepted the Thesiger Committee's recommendation, anybody who wanted to run a contract carriage would have had to get a licence from a licensing authority, who would have been bound to take into consideration the availability and frequency of stage routes; and if the licensing authority were of the opinion that there were adequate facilities they would not grant the licence. That was the basis of the Thesiger Committee's recommendation. The noble Earl does not do that. Of course, all the organisations to which he referred are overwhelmingly grateful because this opens the front gates to contract carriages.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Run by the British Transport Commission.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The British Transport Commission cannot run them.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: But they are grateful for the chance to do so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That may be. The noble Earl overlooks the point that the embargo falls upon rural areas where there is no stage carriage. Take the case of the local football supporters' club—and I am grateful to him for pointing out where I was in error. They can go to every match their team plays away, but they cannot go when their team plays at home, because then they go to the same place frequently.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: They can have a road service licence.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Take a village, say six miles away from a decent-sized town. Supporters of the
1110
village team can go all over England when the team plays away, but they cannot go to town when they play at home; and there may be no stage coach to take them there.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I cannot see why they cannot get a road service licence and go there every Saturday. That is quite a simple matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No; with respect, it is not a simple matter. If they wanted to do that, they would have to obtain a stage carriage licence and then they would have to supply a stage carriage service which would have to run, hail, rain or shine, whether there were passengers or not. The granting of a licence places obligations on the operator, who would be granted a route and have his fares and times fixed by the authority. It may be that a match has to be abandoned because of frost, but they have to run a stage coach into town just the same. If the noble Lord will only realise it, I am trying to help him. I am not an interested party. I am not on the side of the devil; I am on the side of the angels—and the angels are in front of me, sitting on the Government Front Bench.
If the noble Earl has put his foot wrong in this matter, it is because the Government did not accept the recommendation of the Thesiger Committee. In the suburbs of London to-day a contract carriage can be run in competition with regular services with impunity. If the Government had accepted the Thesiger Committee's recommendation, no one would be able to do that. I am not grumbling about that—that is the Government's fault. What I am saying now is that a limitation is being put upon the very people who will suffer more and more because of this provision—that is, those who live in remote rural areas. I have stated the case. It is far too much for me to hope that the Government will give way, but I think that in the not too distant future the same difficulty will arise over this provision as arose on the question of "special occasion" and we shall find that there will be legal cases.
If I may say so with respect, the noble Earl made another error when he replied to the noble Lord, Lord Winster. As intended, and as the noble Earl admitted on the last occasion, the operator does

1111
not commit any crime. The operator can run his contract carriage as many times as he likes, so long as he does not carry anybody in it who goes frequently. He can run it all the time, if it is a 25-seater coach, so long as he takes twenty-five different people every time he runs it. It is the man who travels frequently who commits the crime, as this provision is worded. All this will go on the record. I do not expect the noble Earl to accept this. I have tried to argue as best I can to help him. He spurns my help, and he must take the consequences. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.21 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to paragraph 13:
"(c) a notice displayed in any periodical published for the information of, and circulated wholly or mainly among persons who are, members of the organisation upon whose behalf the journey is being arranged."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage I moved an Amendment to add the words:
"at or in a place frequented by persons who are members of the organisation or body upon whose behalf the journey is being arranged."
In Part V of the Second Schedule there is a relaxation of the embargo that any one of those journeys must not be advertised to the public. Paragraph 9 of Part IV of the Second Schedule says:
"The journey must be made without previous advertisement to the public of the arrangements therefor."
Then in Part V, paragraph 13 (a) and (b), there is a relaxation in respect of a notice displayed in a place of worship and a notice put in the parish magazine. I wanted to enlarge that relaxation on behalf of people who are non-sectarian, who do not hold their meetings in places of worship. I said that such an announcement was a public advertisement. On the Committee stage the noble Earl said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 191 (No. 27) Col. 643]—and I think he misled me, although inadvertently:
"However, I must say that I think the noble Lord has seriously misinterpreted this clause. What we have said is this. We have said that there must be no previous advertisement to the public. That means to say that anything in a social club canteen, which is not open to the public, is not public advertisement.
1112
Lord Winster's angling club is not public, because it is open only to the members; therefore, there is no need for anxiety in that matter; the anglers can do exactly as they always have done."
It appears that there is some misapprehension about this, because I have a note here that in the case of Poole v. Ibbotson, in 1949, the Divisional Court decided that "advertisement to the public" meant an advertisement which could be read by the public, and that it was irrelevant that the advertisement was directed only to members of a particular club. I have also found out that if, in a social club or in a works canteen, an announcement is made that a party is going by contract carriage somewhere or other on the following Saturday, and it is made over the loudspeaker system, and the windows are open and the public can hear it as they walk by, that constitutes advertisement to the public. If the public do happen to go in a canteen, then they can hear any announcement made and see any notice; and that is advertising to the public. If the noble Lord, Lord Winster, takes any of his friends into the angling club he mentioned, they are members of the public. It is only places from which the public are expressly excluded—and I do not know where they are—that this particular clause relaxes.
On the assurance of the noble Earl on this point, I did not put down that part of the Amendment, and I can perhaps be forgiven for exercising a little of your Lordships' tolerance by mentioning it now. But I do come back to the present Amendment, which seeks relaxation for
"a notice displayed in any periodical published for the information of, and circulated wholly or mainly among persons who are, members of the organisation upon whose behalf the journey is being arranged."
I cannot see that there can be any harm in putting a notice in a works magazine to say that these trips are being run, and when they are being run. Why should it be confined to religious magazines that circulate only in the local parish? Having withdrawn my first Amendment, I shall have to withdraw this one. If the noble Earl had accepted my first Amendment, his whole case against advertisement would have fallen, because if the journeys are confined solely to members of the organisation for the purpose for which the trip is being run—and I have tried to point out that all the previous provisos in this Schedule make it quite clear that

1113
they cannot be run commercially—it would not matter if it was advertised in the Daily Mirror or the Daily Mail, because nobody but members of the organisation would be taken on the trip.
I am afraid that the noble Earl is going to run into trouble on this matter when this Bill gets to another place, and I should not like to see that happen. There are a great many Members in another place who are interested in the welfare organisation is of factories. I think it is a serious blot that the Bill gives the right to advertise in a parish magazine that the choirboys are going down to Brighton for the day on their annual outing—or it may be an outing of the mother's meeting attached to the church, or any other of the church activities. The Schedule uses the words "in a place of worship," and somebody is going to ask the noble Earl: What is a place of worship? It has been held that a man's private home can be a place of worship. In excluding from this relaxation notices put up in the welfare halls of mining villages, because, they say, that is advertising to the public as some member of the public might walk in, the Government are putting an embargo—and I think it is a silly embargo— on the people they should be looking after: on the welfare of the workers.
Again, I have stated this case. I hope the noble Earl will give way on it. I will cite one last case. I mentioned the football supporters' club. The football supporters' club cannot put in their programme one of these advertisements to say that they are organising a party to go to the next away match—which the noble Earl says they are perfectly at liberty to do as many times as they like—because the programme in which they might put it would be circulated on the ground to people other than members of the supporters' club, although only members of the supporters' club would be allowed to go. Even if they tried expressly to limit it to that, they could not put that simple advertisement in. They cannot announce it over the wireless or public address system, because people other than members of the supporters' club might hear it. Does not the noble Lord think that between now and the time this Bill goes to another place he might have another look at it and save himself getting into a great deal of trouble? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 5, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, when this Amendment was discussed on the Committee stage, the noble Earl was good enough to reassure me about the position of the members of my anglers' club, and I was comforted by that assurance. In view of what my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has said, I am now getting rather nervous about that assurance. The anglers' club put up their notices outside the local barber's shop which, of course, is a place of great public resort. In spite of what has been said, I hope that the noble Earl may be able to repeat his assurance to me so that I can bring comfort to the anglers. To make assurance doubly sure, perhaps I had better have regard to paragraph l3 (b), and ask my parson whether he will give out our notices with the other notices on Sunday morning. He is a very good sportsman and in spite of the dreadful untruthfulness into which angling leads people, I am sure he will try to oblige—provided, of course, he can get past his Bishop.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I must confess that I hesitate to give the noble Lord, Lord Winster, any more advice—I really must get a few more facts before I do that. Something that is confined to a club is not a public affair; it is not open to the public to take part. I do not want to go into the point in too great detail. I should have to ask a lot of questions as to the exact circumstances. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is really pitching this on the wrong line. A miners' welfare hall obviously would not be a public place—only members, I take it, are allowed to enter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Is anyone allowed in?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes. May I cite a case? A miner's wife, his children and his friends can go in. I have been into many of them. If he likes to entertain his friends, the owners are only too happy.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: You go in as invitees; you do not go in as a right. Surely, no one is allowed to go in as of

1115
right except a member of the club. I do not know, and I say it with diffidence, but I take it that no one would be allowed in there any more than they would in any other club. The same applies to an advertisement in a welfare hall or a works magazine, provided it is not available to the public. We have set our line here quite rigidly. I am bound to say there is a profound lack of logic in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. He has said that we are opening the door too wide. What we have laid down quite clearly and rigidly is that there must be no public advertisement, and we have stood quite firmly on that, with the exception, as I said last time, in the case of a church, because in theory every church is open to the public and is a special place. But no other club is open to the public. Take this House; it is not open to the public.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Is it not?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No. A person may come here by permission. Of course, if a noble Lord speaks here he is speaking to the public; but the House is not open to the public as and how they wish. That applies to any club. What is meant by "public advertisement" is that the announcement goes out to a much wider audience. The noble Lord took the rather grotesque instance of a canteen and of someone speaking through a loudspeaker through open windows. Again, I hesitate to give advice whether that is a public announcement or not. I should have thought that the case of Poole v. Ibbotson which the noble Lord quoted was a very clear case indeed. The following announcement was previously broadcast on the football ground to the public there assembled by means of loudspeaker apparatus:
"Our supporters' club informed me that they have a full fleet of coaches running for the match."
I should have thought beyond peradventure that that was a public statement.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I said it was.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Exactly, because it is in a public place, I do not see the analogy at all, because I should have thought it had no relation to what we are
1116
trying to do. We are seeking to exclude anything of that sort.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Except, of course, that the announcement said that the coaches would carry only members of the supporters' club.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It was an annoucement to the public, and I think it is quite right that it should be excluded. We have stood, if anything, too rigidly on this question of public advertisement, but I think we are right to do so. If we did not, it would throw the privilege open to a much larger audience.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, this is a subject about which I know nothing, but it seems to me a really astounding proposition. Why should this privilege be attached to places of worship? Periodically, I attend a place of worship. I suppose there are some people who are agnostics, or whatever you call them, who do not attend places of worship. Perhaps there is some kind of agnostics' or atheists' club. If they put up a notice in the hall of such a club they do not get the privilege.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes, they do.
EARL JOWITT: No, because they are not allowed to have a public advertisement. You start with that, and then you make two exceptions which would otherwise be, I presume, public advertisements. The first is where the advertisement is in a notice displayed in a place of worship, and the second is where it is in a periodical published for the information of persons who attend a particular place of worship. I do not particularly wish to encourage people who do not attend places of worship, but it seems to me a most extraordinary thing that the question whether a person should be qualified to run one of these tours depends upon whether or not he attends a place of worship. That is very nearly where we are getting. We have the broad proposition that there must be no public advertisement except it is in a hall or a place of worship, or so long as the public advertisement is catering for people who attend a place of worship. That is all right. Apart from that, it must not be done. I do not think it is a matter of any great importance—it is not so far as I am concerned —but it seems to me that if a gentleman

1117
from Mars came down and listened to our debates he would be absolutely staggered to think that the test whether one can or cannot have a public advertisement depends upon whether it is allied to a particular place of worship. I would commend to the noble Earl further study of this matter in the interval between the passing of the Bill in this House and its appearance in another place, in order that he may, more clearly than at present, if I may humbly say so, sort out his ideas.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I must ask your Lordships' permission to reply to this point, because it is going so wildly astray. May I commend to the noble and learned Earl a little closer study of Parts IV and V of the Bill? There is absolutely nothing there which says that the matter depends upon whether or not one attends a place of worship. If the noble and learned Earl is interested in agnostics' clubs, he will find, surely, that the normal feature of such a club is that it is not open to the public. What I tried to say—and I think this is the difference between us—is that a place of worship is clearly open to the public. Your agnostics, philosophers, philatelists, or whatever they may be, may have their own club and meet there, and whether it is at Lord Winster's anglers' club or anywhere else they can make any statement they like. I do not think noble Lords have penetrated very far into this rather difficult drafting.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am going to leave it now to another place. I have one consolation. I am delighted to see that this particular clause emanated from my old Ministry, the Ministry of Transport, and I am glad to see that some kind of religious conversion has come upon them. That is the only reason I can think of for the inclusion of this provision in the Bill. With that, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Schedule [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
5.40 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the late Lord Badeley, when he was Clerk of the Parliaments, used to say that there were two types of Bill which filled him with foreboding. The first type was so complicated that your Lordships could
1118
not understand one word and spent the whole Committee stage in lambasting the draftsman for his obscurity; the other type was the one your Lordships understood quite well and spent the Committee stage painting the draftsman's lily. This is an Amendment that might have been transformed from the first type into the second type. I suspect that even the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, the first time he read this Amendment, did not understand what it meant. It is quite uncontroversial. It is to put right a minor oversight in the Statute Law Revision Act, 1950. It does it in a most complicated way, and at this time of night your Lordships will not require any further explanation from me in commending it wholeheartedly to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 6, at end insert—
("1. The following enactments that is to say—

(a) section six of the Locomotive Act, 1861 (which restricts the use of locomotives over suspension and other bridges),

(b) section seven of that Act (which relates to the making good of damage to bridges caused by locomotives or their trailers), and

(c) section seven of the Locomotives Act, 1898 (which enables owners of locomotives to appeal against restrictions on passing over bridges), and section eight of that Act (which prohibits locomotives being driven so as to pass one another on bridges)

shall cease to have effect.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 28, after ("court") insert ("by or").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on my Amendment of Clause 16. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 36, at end insert ("and after the word 'Enactment' there shall be inserted the words 'or a second such conviction the date whereof falls more than three years after the date of the first conviction'").—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment ought to be in my name. It is consequential on Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
Amendment [No. 63] moved—
Page 26, line 6, leave out from first ("words") to end of line 8, and insert ("'the date whereof falls more than three years after the date of the first conviction' shall be inserted after the words 'in the case of a second conviction'").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is the Amendment I thought I had just moved.
Page 26, line 39, at end insert—
("10. Section seventy-nine of the Act of 1930 (which relates to procedure on applications for licences) shall apply to applications for the exercise by the commissioners of their power to vary the conditions attached to licences and to the determination of questions in connection with the exercise of that power where such applications are made.
11.—(1) A local authority shall not be entitled to appeal to the Minister under section eighty-one of the Act of 1930 against the grant of a road service licence or any condition attached to such a licence, or against any variation of the conditions attached to such a licence, unless the licence relates to a route situated wholly or partly in the area of the authority.
(2) A person providing transport facilities shall not be entitled under the said section eighty-one to appeal to the Minister against any of the matters aforesaid unless the road service licence relates to a route along or near which or some part of which he is providing transport facilities.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the right conferred by the said section eighty-one on a local authority or holder of a road service licence to appeal against the variation of the conditions attached thereto includes the right to appeal, where the variation was made on an application, if aggrieved by the variation differing from that applied for.
(4) In paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the said section eighty-one for the words from 'opposed' to 'licence' there shall be substituted the words 'made representations with respect to the grant of a road service licence or the variation of the conditions attached thereto.'
(5) In paragraph (e) of the said subsection (1) for the word 'proposed' there shall be substituted the word 'imposed.'
(6) In subsection (2) of the said section eighty-one for the words ' (including an order revoking a licence)' there shall be substituted the words 'for giving effect to his decision on the appeal.'
(7) Regulations of the Minister relating to appeals under the said section eighty-one may contain provision whereby the holder of a road service licence who appeals to the Minister is enabled to exclude, wholly or partly, the operation of subsection (4) of that section (which provides that on an appeal against the variation of the conditions of a
1120
licence the variations shall not have effect until the appeal has been disposed of.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Amendment No. 63 was the one which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was sponsoring, and I did not think he would want to move it, because it is the one that refers to the previous Amendment which he did not press. No. 63 is not moved, and No. 64 is the one which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk moved.
EARL JOWITT: The House passed No. 63.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I said, "No."
EARL JOWITT: You said, "No," but the House said, "Yes."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is, of course, not for me to say anything to your Lordships on matters of order, but I would ask your Lordships to consider whether we could not extend mercy to both the noble Earls involved and take it that No. 63 was not moved.
EARL JOWITT: I think both the noble Earls are in such need of mercy that we ought to do so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With the consent of the House, we take it that No. 63 was not moved and that No. 64 has been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I will put it again to the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 39, at end insert—
("10. Section seventy-nine of the Act of 1930 (which relates to procedure on applications for licences) shall apply to applications for the exercise by the commissioners of their power to vary the conditions attached to licences and to the determination of questions in connection with the exercise of that power where such applications are made.
11.—(1) A local authority shall not be entitled to appeal to the Minister under section eighty-one of the Act of 1930 against the grant of a road service licence or any condition attached to such a licence, or against any variation of the conditions attached to such a licence, unless the licence relates to a route situated wholly or partly in the area of the authority.
(2) A person providing transport facilities shall not be entitled under the said section eighty-one to appeal to the Minister against any of the matters aforesaid sinless the road service licence relates to a route along or near which or some part of which he is providing transport facilities.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the right conferred by the said

1121
section eighty-one to appeal against the variation of the conditions attached thereto includes the right to appeal, where the variation was made on an application, if aggrieved by the variation differing from that applied for.
(4) In paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the said section eighty-one for the words from 'opposed' to 'licence' there shall be substituted the words 'made representations with respect to the grant of a road service licence or the variation of the conditions attached thereto'.
(5) In paragraph (e) of the said subsection (1) for the word 'proposed' there shall be substituted the word 'imposed'.
(6) In subsection (2) of the said section eighty-one for the words '(including an order revoking licence)' there shall be substituted the words 'for giving effect to his decision on the appeal'.
(7) Regulations of the Minister relating to appeals under the said section eighty-one may contain provision whereby the holder of a road service licence who appeals to the Minister is enabled to exclude, wholly or partly, the operation of subsection (4) of that section (which provides that on an appeal against the variation of the conditions of a licence the variations shall not have effect until the appeal has been disposed of.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment makes it clear that regulations may exempt a licence holder from keeping records of work in respect of himself when he is driving other than for his business—that is to say, when he may be using his car for recreational purposes over the week-end. In deciding hours of work of employees who are engaged on driving duties, other work must be taken into consideration which may not have anything to do with driving or loading of vehicles. This makes the matter quite clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 49, at end insert—
("14.—(1) Regulations under section sixteen of the Road and Rail Traffic Act. 1933 (which relates to the keeping of records) may exempt the holder of the licence from recording in formation as respects himself when acting as, driver or statutory attendant in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations.
(2) Regulations under the said section sixteen may require separate information to be recorded as to the time spent by a person in work in connection with the vehicle or its load or such description of such work as may be specified in the regulations and the time spent by him in other work.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, such is the speed at which we are now moving that the last Amendment is one upon which, at that moment, I was contem
1122
plating a tremendous oration, as I thought I was to move it. No. 66 is one that I can commend to your Lordships as being consequential and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 8, at end insert—
("16. Section thirty of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, shall come into operation on the coming into operation of this paragraph.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 4, at end insert—

("24 & 25 Vict. c. 70.

The Locomotive Act, 1861.

Sections six and seven.")

—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 9, at end insert—

("61 & 62 Vict. c. 29.

The Locomotives Act, 1898.

The whole Act, so far as still in force.")

—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 31, column 3, after ("one'') insert ("in subsection (4) the words 'notwithstanding that such a system of lighting as aforesaid is provided thereon' and the words 'notwithstanding that such a system of lighting as aforesaid is not provided thereon'").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 38, column 3, leave out ("and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this, the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 40, column 3, at end insert ("and in the Third Schedule, the entry relating to section eighty-one of the Act of 1930").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before six o'clock.