Lords Sitting of 24 March 1955

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  FATSTOCK (GUARANTEE PAY MENTS) ORDER, 1955
  3.4 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL ST. ALDWYN)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL ST. ALDWYN) rose to move, That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 16th instant, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order, which is laid before your Lordships under Section 4 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, is the first of a number which will be introduced in the near future as the existing guarantee arrangements for agricultural produce fall due for renewal during the coming year. The purpose of the order is to provide a framework into which the Government's decisions as to the nature and level of the fatstock guarantees can be fitted after each Annual Review. The broad arrangements set out in the order are intended to continue from year to year, subject to amendment if necessary at any time.
  As the order is entirely procedural and technical, it does not state the price guarantees for the current year nor does it define the classes of fatstock which they cover. These matters are determined, as they have been in the past, in accordance with the Agriculture Act: first of all, in the Minimum Prices Orders which provide minimum guarantees for up to four years ahead, and then each year for the year immediately ahead in the White Paper which is presented to Parliament after each Annual Review. Your Lordships will remember that the White Paper for the current year was presented early this month and details of grade descriptions and weight ranges were published on March 14. This order, by filling the need for a formal structure of arrangements for paying fatstock guarantees, completes the pattern for the determination
  144
  and administration of fatstock guarantees.
  Perhaps it would be convenient to your Lordships if I dealt briefly with the main articles of the order. Article 3 deals with the classes of cattle, sheep and pigs to which the order shall apply. These will be specified by the Government in the light of their conclusions after a review under the Agriculture Act. The general intention is to cover those classes of stock which are reared and fattened with the main object of producing meat, and to exclude breeding stock. These detailed determinations, which in general follow the practice of previous years, have been published in the White Paper and in the Press announcement after the Annual Review. The House will by now be familiar with the system of collective and individual guarantees by which the prices for fatstock are supported. These are dealt with in Articles 4, 6 and 7 of the order. I do not think I need deal with them in detail since those of your Lordships who are interested will have made it your business to understand them when they first came into operation after the derationing of meat last July.
  Article 8 provides for the making of deadweight guarantee payments (based on the average of individual guarantee payments under Articles 6 and 7) for carcases of cattle and sheep certified under approved grade and deadweight schemes, and for pigs certified at bacon factories and deadweight certification centres. This guarantee is intended to equalise trading conditions between the live and deadweight systems of sale so that neither has an advantage over the other merely because of guaranteed payments. Article 9 provides that quality premiums for pigs may be paid out of the funds available for implementing the guarantee. Article 11 enables different arrangements to be made for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, though, in point of fact, apart from minor technical differences between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, we do not at present intend to introduce any variations in the different countries. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 16th instant, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
  3.8 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, this order is of some importance, and I am sure that I and my friends on these Benches need no more excuse to make some comments than the noble Earl needed to explain it at some, length. I do not propose myself to make any comments on the merits of the policy of private trading in fatstock. As the noble Earl rightly pointed out, the purpose of this order is to provide the machinery for making payments for guaranteed prices to producers under the policy of private trading to which the Government have reverted. I would only say, because it directly relates to the order, that the permanence of this order, when it has been approved by your Lordships and by another place, will depend upon the permanence of the marketing policy it purports to carry out. As your Lordships are aware, we on this side of the House believe in a policy of State trading in livestock. We believe that such a policy is preferable to private trading, and that is our marketing policy. It follows that the life of this order is tied up with the political lives of noble Lords opposite, and whether they continue to occupy their present position in your Lordships' House for a longer or shorter period of time will depend upon the good sense of the electorate.
  But I welcome this order because it is inspired by an intention to last longer than previous orders that have been made for the same purpose. It is obviously desirable—and everyone would agree with this—that ten years after the war these arrangements should no longer be made, as they have been made up to now, under Defence Regulations. Again, orders which have to be renewed by Parliament at short intervals, like previous orders on this subject, have the additional disadvantage of taking up a good deal of Parliamentary time and, of course, of aggravating uncertainty in industry, because there always must be an element of uncertainty so long as an order is continuously subject to approval by your Lordships and by another place.
  Finally, I should like to ask the noble Earl one question in relation to Article 11 of this order. This is something interesting and something quite new. Article 11 appears to be asking Parliament to give the Minister an important
  146
  new power, and I can assure your Lordships that it is not a power that we ever thought necessary or desirable while we were responsible. This is a power to vary the standard prices in the guaranteed individual prices for fatstock in different parts of the United Kingdom. For example, the Minister could presumably fix one price for England and Wales, quite a different price for Northern Ireland, and yet a third and entirely different price for Scotland. I am not saying that this power is unnecessary; I am far from being dogmatic about it. But I think the noble Earl should tell us why the Ministry are asking for this new power, because it is obviously undesirable for Parliament to give the Minister a new power unless it is shown by the relevant evidence that it is really necessary. The noble Earl said that there was no intention of using this power at the moment, but presumably the Government would not be asking for authority to use this power at any moment unless there were some reason why they wished Parliament to approve of it. I should be obliged if the noble Earl could answer that question when he winds up.
  3.11 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps it will save time if I make one or two remarks before the noble Earl replies. Like my noble friend who has just spoken, I agree that it is desirable to have this greater permanence of policy by the passing of one order instead of the custom which has hitherto prevailed. In so far as that gives a sense of security to the farm producers of the country, that is all to the good.
  I have nothing to add to what my noble friend said on the other point, which I regard as of considerable importance. I do not know whether my noble friend would agree that this assessment of the various localities apparently fits in again with the Government's private enterprise idea. It is perfectly true that the Milk Marketing Board, for example, have reverted to the practice, I think to some extent discontinued during the war, of having a slightly differential price for milk in the different milk regions. No doubt, there is something to be said at times, having regard to the climatic condition of a particular area, for fostering the production of the best agricultural commodity for that area. Nevertheless,

  147
  I think the Government should be careful, especially where they may want to stress the production of one particular article more than another, to see that they do not thereby induce undue production of one line by carrying the idea of specialised prices too far. Nor should those who have tried to fulfil a policy adumbrated by the Government find themselves, because of a serious variation in the other direction, left in a position which is unfair to them.
  The only other thing I want to say upon this order is this. Apart from a general debate on the Agriculture Estimates, this is about the only opportunity one has to give vent to one or two grievances of the farmers themselves. This order covers, in a very wide sense, fatstock, including sheep and pigs. I must say that the reversion to private enterprise has been, at times, a fairly good thing for the farmers, especially in the short season, say from Christmas onwards, and very good prices have been obtained. On the other hand, very good prices have had to be paid by the consumer. About the only justification that I have heard for it yet on behalf of the Government is that it shows that the British consumer wants the best meat, is determined to have the best meat and will pay the best price for it. That is all very well for those people who have the money, but it does not secure all-round average prices for the best meat to the whole of the consumers in the country, which is the principle lying behind what my noble friend was saying in contrasting the private enterprise system with the State trading system in a commodity of such importance as this. Moreover, there is inherent in the minds of many farmers the feeling that, behind it all, there are tremendous loopholes in the scheme under private enterprise. Sometimes the farmer used to grumble about how these things worked under State trading. He used to think his products were not graded properly until the meat was sold on behalf of the Government. Then if there was too big a set-off it went to the ultimate benefit of the State. Now, the farmers talk in a very different way. I can prove some things by personal experience.
  Take, for example, the grading of pigs, which is dealt with under Article 4 (3), mostly in sub-paragraphs (d) and
  148
  (e). In the case of pigs which are sent to the bacon factory in order to get this guarantee, the most extraordinary things go on. I should like to pay a tribute to the Fatstock Marketing Corporation for the successful way in which they overcame the Government's delays last year: they have really done a good overall job. But, as I say, I see some extraordinary things happen about pigs sent to bacon centres for grading. I had some fine specimens the other day, just the sort for bacon, and they were sent along for the Fatstock Marketing Corporation, from the other side of Colchester to Chippenham. They were all just about the same size when they went off, weighing out at a difference of about 6 or 7 lb. between the lightest and heaviest of the six. Three of them were graded; they got the guarantee. The other three were not graded at all. And whereas the three pigs that were graded brought a price, say, of about £19 a pig, the others brought about £11 a pig. The difference between the weight of the lightest of the graded pigs and the heaviest of the ungraded pigs was 2 lb. They had to be sent 150 miles. So the farmer gets 5s. or 7s. for what is called "shrinkage" for long distance, and he loses because those pigs are not graded. On a margin of 2 lb. he loses £6, £7 or £8. Therefore, in giving general approval to the Government's idea of having a longer basic period for the general powers sought here, I think it is time that that point was considered—because, believe me, those pigs of 6 score 14 lb. that were regarded as too light to be graded were all sold at the top price in the market. The farmer does not get the money. What has happened to it in between?
  I should like to ask the noble Earl what is his information at the Ministry concerning how that works out. Does the bacon company then make the pigs into bacon and get the top price—the bacon being even more desirable to some members of the public, because they like it a shade leaner—or are they sent for pork? If so, if the farmer sent in pigs of 3, 6½ or 7 score for pork meat, he would get a guarantee; but he gets nothing out of this. That seems to me wholly inequitable. I do not expect the noble Earl to be able to say now: "I can see exactly this afternoon how that can be put right," but I hope that before the next agricultural

  149
  debate, he will have looked into it and brought to us a proper and progressive policy to put that matter right.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was worried about Article 11. Perhaps I may give him an example of how that operates this year. As he knows, we have some progeny testing stations being set up. In order to finance them, a deduction is being made. In Northern Ireland there will be no progeny testing stations, and therefore the deductions will not be made from pigs reared in Northern Ireland. Therefore it is necessary to have this power to fix a differential price between Northern Ireland and this country.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Earl for explaining that point, but, potentially, the application is a good deal broader, is it not? Under the terms of this article there could be a different price for fat cattle, for instance, in Northern Ireland as compared with that in England and Wales. I wanted to know whether the Government had any reason for wishing to have the power for making different prices of that kind.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I can assure the noble Earl that certainly there is no intention of doing that at the moment. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, seemed to be very worried about his pigs. First of all, the price which is paid by the Fatstock Marketing Corporation is not in any way controlled by the Government: it is entirely their affair. The Government do not enter into that at all.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Private trading.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I understood the noble Viscount to say that some of
  150
  his pigs did not get the guarantee. But all pigs get the guarantee. If he would let me have details of it, I will look into it and see that he does get his guarantee.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am obliged to the noble Earl. I am not really worried about my own particular case. This has simply opened a vista to me, showing what is happening over a wide front to people who are sending their pigs to bacon factories. I want to know what happens to the difference between the £18 or £19 received under the guarantee by weight of a pig of 6 score 16 lb., and the price obtained for a pig of 6 score 14 lb.—a difference of only 2 lb. weight—for which he gets no guarantee and on which he may make a £7 or £8 loss. I want to know who is getting the difference. Is it the consumer? Who is making this prodigious profit?
  EARL. ST. ALDWYN: I must point out to the noble Viscount that it is the responsibility of the breeder to weigh his pigs accurately before he sends them to market. Frankly, that is half the trouble with a great many farmers; they simply look at a pig and say that it weighs so many scores, and they do not bother to put it on the scales.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: How on earth is a farmer, when he has weighed his pig and got his 6 score, 18 lb. as a sort of minimum, and then has to send it 150 miles by road, being restricted to a small arbitrary shrinkage allowance, to be protected against losing the whole of the balance of the guarantee, amounting to £6, £7 or £8?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I will certainly look into this matter, and I will communicate with the noble Viscount later.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  BRITISH WOOL (GUARANTEED PRICES) ORDER, 1955
  3.22 p.m.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN rose to move, That the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 16th instant, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this draft order also is laid before your Lordships under Section 4 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, and it is designed to take the place of the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1951, so as to provide for changes in the arrangements governing the guarantee for wool. The changes are intended to make the operation of the guarantee more flexible. If they are approved, this order will be followed by the usual annual order fixing the guaranteed price for the year 1955–56 on the new lines, and by a new financial agreement with the Board which will accord with the new order and will extend the period of operation of the price stabilising fund.
  Your Lordships may remember that wool was the first product for which the guarantee under Part I of the Agriculture Act was effected through the mechanism of a marketing scheme. Before the British Wool Marketing Scheme came into operation there had been no opportunity for gaining experience in working schemes of this kind, so I do not think it is surprising that the arrangements made then were not perfect. They were designed to run for five-year periods and we have waited until the fifth year before proposing changes in the light of experience. Broadly speaking, two changes are being made by this order. The first affects the Board's obligation to pay certain sums to producers. The second concerns the marketing allowance which was determined each year under the 1951 order. The arrangements for implementing the guarantee for wool are complicated but with your Lordships permission I will try to explain them briefly.
  Under the 1951 order the Ministers fixed an average price for wool at the point of sale from the sheep farmer to the Board. The Board was then required to draw up a schedule of prices for each description and grade of wool so that the weighted average of these prices should by the end of the year as nearly as possible be not less than the guaranteed average. If the Board misjudged (and it
  152
  is a very difficult calculation) it had to meet the cost of any over-payment out of its own funds and any under-payment had to be made good unless the Ministers agreed to relieve the Board of this obligation. In fact, the Board has been extremely successful in making these calculations and has never so far been more than 2d. per pound out. In three years there have been very small under-payments. If the Board had been obliged to make these good by supplementary payments the cost of the extra work, stationery, postage and other things would have swallowed up far too much of the total sum involved. The Ministers therefore permitted the Board to keep these sums in reserve. We have now come to the conclusion that this provision requiring the Board to distribute a precise sum to producers, the overwhelming majority of whom are its own voting constituents, is cumbersome and unnecessary. Therefore this provision is left out of the draft order now before your Lordships. Under the terms of this order the guarantee will be to the Board and its distribution will not be restricted by order.
  As regards the second change, the Government have each year fixed a marketing allowance in advance at so much per pound of wool, and the idea of this at the outset was to allow the Board to keep anything it could save out of this allowance, while it would have to bear out of its own funds any amounts by which it over-stepped the allowance. Now that we have had some experience with this we have come to the conclusion that there is no real distinction between the guaranteed price and the marketing allowance. Moreover, it has involved the Government each year in stating what amounts to an opinion on how much it was worth while for the Board to spend on marketing its wool. This we think is inappropriate, and we have therefore left this provision out of the new order.
  The result of these two changes is that the guarantee under this new order will be to the Board and will apply at the point of sale to the wholesale buyer. That is to say, the Government will be guaranteeing the price which will be received by the Board after it has paid its marketing costs. The rest of the order—which is the most important part—is unchanged in substance, though it has been reworded to take account of the consolidation of the marketing allowance with the

  153
  guaranteed price. There will therefore continue to be an arrangement between the Ministers and the Board to set off profits and losses, taking one year with another, with the Exchequer standing behind the Board as guarantor if the losses should exceed the profits.
  We are indebted to the producers representatives for their helpful co-operation in drawing up these proposals, and the Board is to be complimented on the success of its operations. With the help of these guarantee arrangements a high and stable price for British wool has been maintained without any call on the Exchequer; and, though prediction is very dangerous where markets are concerned, the present prospect seems to be that this happy state of affairs will continue. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 16th instant, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
  3.28 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for explaining the important and extremely intricate differences between the proposed Wool Marketing Scheme and the existing scheme. I think that this is a case where everyone has learned from experience. The defects of the old scheme have become manifest and the Government are now trying to remedy those defects by means of this new order. I think that when this new scheme comes into operation it will prove to be simpler to operate than the old scheme. It is extremely satisfactory that the farmers, the Board and the Government have all agreed about its advantages. I should like to associate myself with what the noble Earl said in this regard: that it is a tribute to the efficiency and the good will of the Wool Marketing Board that they appear to have earned the complete confidence of the farmers. I hope that this happy state of affairs will continue in time to come.
  3.29 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before we pass this order I wonder whether the noble Earl would give his attention or draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to something which I understand is causing our woollen
  154
  manufacturers in Yorkshire grave concern? I think the order which we are now discussing affects the problem. I am referring to the use of tar, pitch and other insoluble mediums with which fleeces are marked which substances cannot be removed from the wool without the use of a detergent or chemical which is highly dangerous to the operatives in the textile industry of Yorkshire. I understand that this is a very serious matter. It arises in regard to not only our own fleeces but also the fleeces that come from Australia. As the noble Earl will know better than I, there is now available a modern marking solvent which will not cause the fleece to deteriorate so much. I am told that manufacturers in industries exporting to America are losing many thousands of pounds through their inability to remove this pitch and tar marking from fleeces, and therefore from yarn, and that it will not take the very highly coloured dyes demanded by consumers in modern conditions. Can the noble Earl tell your Lordships whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared either to put a premium price on clean wool or to bring in legislation to prohibit other than clean wool from coming into the country and being marketed? Such an assurance might help our textile manufacturers, and I feel sure that anything which can help those manufacturers to face the present stiff competition in overseas markets will receive the ready support of Her Majesty's Government.
  3.32 p.m.
  LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I rise in great humility to oppose this order. I come from Romney Marsh in Kent. The Rye National Farmers' Union have passed a resolution against the order. The Romney Marsh Union have not yet met to discuss the order because it has been pushed through at such short notice. This seems to be an order produced not by a Conservative Government but by a totalitarian Government. No wonder noble Lords on my left have approved it! I should like to bring two points to your Lordships' notice. First, the Wool Board have come to terms with Her Majesty's Government without carrying out their obligations to their members—the producers of the wool—as laid down in the first Annual Report in 1951 and confirmed in the first annual general meeting in that year. It

  155
  was then said that the ultimate disposal of any quinquennial surplus not required for the operation of the scheme would be decided by the producers in the annual general meeting, in the light of conditions obtaining in four years' time, when the amount of the surplus was known.
  I believe there is a surplus of some £2 million to £3 million. So far as I can see, this order "snaffles" that surplus, made by the 1950 wool clip, although the producers were promised that they would have a voice in deciding what should happen to it in five years' time. Her Majesty's Government have "snaffled" that sum and have given to the farmers a guaranteed price for wool; but before doing so they have absorbed all the profit made by the Wool Board. Is that quite fair? My second point is that this new order is a guarantee to the Board and not to the producer. The Board can do what they like with money realised from the sale of wool but the producers have no leg to stand on. I should also like to bring out the point made in Article 5, paragraph (2) that if no such arrangement has been made, the Board shall deal with it
  "in such manner … as the Ministers may determine."
  That is a totalitarian act. I should like to hear what can be said upon this by the noble Earl who is to reply.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken seems to think that we are all totalitarian except himself, but there is this great distinction between this side of the House and that—we have not "snaffled" the money. The complaint is made that Her Majesty's Government have done so. Noble Lords will expect a clear answer on where the money has gone.
  3.36 p.m.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked about tar marking on wool. I can assure him that the Board is extremely concerned over this matter. In the years 1953 and 1954 it has imposed a penalty of 4d. per lb. on tar infected wool, and is proposing in 1955 to increase that penalty to 6d.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Hear, hear!
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: There are good means of marking which do not affect the wool, and it is hoped that, by this penalty, producers will be encouraged to use those means and to desist from the use of tar. I am afraid I am not in a position to give any answer, at the moment, regarding Australian wool, but I will look into that matter and let the noble Lord know.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Earl explains away these "totalitarian" tendencies, may I thank him very much for what he has said? The action proposed by Her Majesty's Government will go a long way. Will the noble Earl also give an assurance that, if the steps at present proposed to be taken do not cure this trouble, there will be no hesitation about making even more pronounced the differential between the prices for clean wool and dirty wool, to overcome this very serious problem?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: That is a matter for the Board, who, I am sure, will bear it in mind. The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, gave a quotation stating that the ultimate disposal of any quinquennial surplus not required for the operation of the scheme would be decided by the producers' annual general meeting. It is only fair to point out that the phrase was immediately preceded by a warning that it was impossible for the provisional board (which was responsible for that Report) to make any commitment on behalf of the Board which would be in operation in 1954–55. I would point out to the noble Lord that this is hardly totalitarianism. It was the Board, and not Her Majesty's Government, who were to decide at the end of the term what should be done with the money—whether to use it then or to carry it forward.
  LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I think the noble Earl will agree that the question was to be decided at the annual general meeting of the members of the Board—that is, of the producers—and that that annual general meeting has not taken place. You came to arrangements with the Board without that meeting taking place.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Board have full power over that money. It rests solely in the hands of the Board.

  157
  The noble Lord quoted a figure of between £2 million and £3 million as the surplus. I must reassure him. The actual surplus is somewhere between £1,500,00 and £2 million.
  LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, does that include the underpayment for the last three years? There is three years' underpayment, and I believe that it comes to between £800,000 and £900,000.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: As I understand it, the total surplus which there is likely to be is between £1,500,000 and £2 million. Those are the figures.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask whether it would be correct to say that a large part of this surplus would be treated as a stabilising fund, which would be paid out to the farmer if the price of wool were to fall?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lord, I am delighted that the noble Earl has in fact given my reply for me. In view of his most helpful words, I do not think I need say any more.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, and read 1a.

  NATIONAL SERVICE BILL
  3.42 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to prolong the upper age limit for National Service in the case of those who have tried to avoid their obligations by staying abroad during the last year of their liability. Your Lordships will remember that the National Service Act of 1947 and the Consolidating Act of 1948 provided that young men may be called up between the ages of 18 and 26, although in certain cases of postponement on the grounds of personal hardship this limit may be extended. In the case of doctors and dentists there
  158
  was an upper age limit of 30. The whole of these National Service Acts were built upon the principle of the universality of service and only a very few classes of person were given statutory exemption. The remainder have been liable for service and have carried out their obligations cheerfully and patriotically.
  The principle of universal liability for National Service, together with a flexible system of deferment, in proper cases, has worked extremely well. On January 1, 1955, the first age group which registered under the 1948 Act—that is to say those who were born in 1929—began to pass out of the liability as they reached the age of 26. So it is possible at this stage to consider how the system has worked over a full cycle of years. Of the 300,000 men in the 1929 age group, all but 1,000 who have gone abroad have been satisfactorily accounted for. Some of this thousand may well be coming back to this country during the course of the year. In some cases there are strong grounds for believing that certain of them propose to remain out of Great Britain until after their 26th birthday has passed, so that under the existing Act they would then be able to return to the country later this year having successfully avoided the obligations which their contemporaries have cheerfully shouldered. The number of such men is very small. My right honourable friend, the Minister of Labour, when asked to estimate the number in the 1929 age group, replied that he thought it was about 300. But although relatively few in number, they give rise to very proper and long-standing grievances among men who themselves have done their service, and also among their relations. There has been considerable public concern, and we felt it right to amend the original Act so as to prevent this mean evasion. The Bill before your Lordships will achieve this. It is short and its essentials are contained in two clauses.
  Clause 1 brings within the scope of the Bill men who reached the present upper age limit on or after January 1 this year and who have been subject to registration under the main Act. Subsection 1 (b) of Clause 1 is designed to prevent an escape from liability under the principal Act by a man who, although living here ordinarily some time after attaining 17 years and 8 months (which is the earliest age

  159
  at which men can be required to register) has ceased subsequently to be resident. Those who are brought within the scope of the Bill are those who are absent from Great Britain for a period or periods aggregating not less than 28 days during their last year of liability. The Bill is directed solely towards men who go abroad as a means of evading National Service. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 defines those men to whom the Bill shall not apply. There has been concern in another place about the position of men in the Merchant Navy, but specific assurances have been given that bona fide seamen will not be called up by reason of the Bill. I am glad to confirm these assurances.
  Clause 2 makes it clear that the powers in the Bill are permissive, and action will be taken only when the Minister, after the fullest investigation, causes individuals to be summoned to attend for medical examination under Section 8 of the main Act. Thus, only when there is prima facie evidence of intention to evade National Service will the machinery of this Bill be set in motion. I think your Lordships will agree that this Bill is necessary. I think, too, it is a model of brevity. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Carrington.)
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, noble Lords on this side of the House certainly have no quarrel with this Bill which, as the noble Lord has explained, is designed to stop a leak—a small leak it is true, but nevertheless a leak—in the operation and universality of the National Service scheme. The noble Lord mentioned that the right honourable gentleman the Minister, in another place, had given a figure of 300 as an estimate of those who might possibly have had the intention to avoid National Service. Even for that number, I think it will generally be agreed, a Bill of this sort is worth while having, because nothing touches public opinion on the raw so much as the idea that someone may be getting an unfair advantage over his neighbour. Therefore, we wholeheartedly support this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS (PENSIONS) BILL
  3.49 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MACKINTOSH OF HALIFAX: My Lords, this is a measure designed to improve the pensions and superannuation benefits for the staff of the trustee savings banks and their dependants. The Bill received unanimous support in another place, and I feel sure that it will receive similar sympathetic consideration by your Lordships. I gladly move the Second Reading of the Bill because of my close association with the trustee savings banks, both as chairman of the National Savings Committee and as a trustee of one of the largest of these banks for some twenty years.
  There are eighty-four trustee savings banks in the United Kingdom, with total deposits amounting to approximately £1,100 million. They operate nearly 1,300 branches and employ a staff of some 5,500—mostly men, of whom, naturally, a great many are married and have dependants. At present the benefits payable to the employees of these banks and their inspection committee are regulated by the Trustees Savings Banks Act going back nearly thirty years. This means that any change in the benefits payable can be varied only by the passing of a new Act. This Bill, if passed, would eliminate the necessity of fresh trustee savings banks legislation for this purpose, as it is designed to give the Treasury power, by means of orders, to authorise the payment of new or altered benefits. The Bill provides that these benefits should correspond to, but not exceed, those which are currently payable to civil servants.
  The second purpose of the Bill, and one which to my mind is well overdue, is to make provision for the widows and children and other dependants of employees of the banks who died while in the service of the bank, none of whom is covered by existing pensions schemes. In other words, trustee savings banks have no power at present to look after widows and orphans of their employees. This also would be done by Treasury order, and the benefits and other payments would be limited to the corresponding benefits payable to the dependants

  161
  of civil servants. Any such scheme, of course, would be contributory, in the same way as superannuation schemes applicable to civil servants. Your Lordships may know that the staffs of trustee savings banks are closely akin to, although not actually, civil servants, for the trustee savings banks are operated under the supervision of the National Debt Commissioners and the Treasury.
  The absence of provision for the dependants of trustee savings bank employees who die in harness has brought great hardships, as at present the banks have no powers to make any substantial payments to widows or personal representatives of the deceased. The most they can do is to allocate one year's salary. I know personally of a distinguished servant of a trustee savings bank who died only last week before reaching pensionable age—at 58 years of age, as a matter of fact—and his family will suffer as a consequence of there being at present little or no provision for them. Many other examples could be quoted. The Bill gives power to apply to trustee savings banks not only existing Civil Service superannuation legislation but also any further legislation of this kind as it may occur. This flexible arrangement is in keeping with current practice and has the virtue of eliminating the need for further legislation if and when the superannuation provisions for civil servants come to be revised.
  I would add that any orders made under this Bill will be subject to the annulment procedure of this House, so that they car be fully scrutinised before being finally approved. I would also point out that payment are made by the trustee savings banks out of their own funds, and therefore this Bill will not mean any charge whatever on public funds. The terms of the Bill are acceptable to the Treasury, the National Debt Commissioners, the Trustee Savings Banks' Association and their Inspection Committee and will give pleasure to the National Savings Committee, who work so closely with the trustee savings banks throughout the country. I am proud to have been given the task of piloting this small measure through your Lordships' House. It is the first Bill I have moved, and I doubt whether I shall ever move one that is at once more necessary and
  162
  more useful. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mackintosh of Halifax.)
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, perhaps it will be a good thing if I take this opportunity of stating the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards this Bill, because they have not had such an opportunity in another place where, apart from a speech from the mover, the Bill went through without any debate. We approve most heartily the Bill and we think it more than appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, who draws in the savings, should be the man who looks after those who handle those savings. The National Savings Movement has been vital and is becoming more vital every day. We wish that the noble Lord would sometimes come and take part in our economic debates in order to give us some of the background information which he alone possesses about that Movement. I feel that I speak for the whole House in extending this public invitation, which I hope he will not be able to refuse.
  LORD BURDEN: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, I have to declare an interest. Like him, I am a vice-president of the Trustee Savings Banks' Association, and I am also the chairman of a trustee savings bank. I am sure that every member of your Lordships' House will echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, in regard to my noble friend. He has done, and is doing, great work for the National Savings Movement, and the trustee savings banks work in harmony with that Movement.
  So far as the Bill itself is concerned, its provisions have been so lucidly explained by the noble Lord that it is necessary to say little more. I am glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that the Government approve the purposes of the Bill. From my own experience I know that it will put right some serious hardships, though unfortunately, in the nature of things, these provisions cannot be retrospective and cannot deal with some of the distressing cases of which we already know. I think it would be right to say here, on behalf of the Trustee Savings Banks' Association, how much we appreciate the ever-ready help given to the Association by the officials

  163
  of the Treasury and the National Debt Commissioners. It is not often that one has an opportunity of paying tribute to work of this kind, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, will agree. I believe I can say that there is no opposition to the Bill on this side of the House, and I hope that it will have a speedy passage.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
  3.58 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I beg to ask a question about the convenience of debate on this matter. We have a large number of Amendments—almost like a Report stage. Would it, or would it not, be convenient for the House to dispose of the Amendments on the Third Reading, and then having done that, make our speeches about the Bill on the next stage, on the Question: "That the Bill do now pass"? I suggest that that might be convenient, if the Government and other noble Lords agree.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I would much rather speak straight away on the Third Reading. Then, if the Bill survives my powerful speech, we may go on to the Amendments.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMON WEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, I think we should get this matter clear. Were we to take the normal course, it would be the one which the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition proposed. Until we have disposed of the Amendments we really do not know what it is we are reading a third time.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: On the other hand, we do not know whether there will be a Bill to go on with at all.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, that is an observation more appropriate to a Second Reading than to a Third Reading. It does not very much matter in which way it is done: whether we take the general debate now or after dealing with the Amendments; but I take it that we do not want two debates. If the House prefers, we can have the debate now and after that take the Amendments, and then take a formal Motion that the Bill do pass.
  EARL JOWITT: I am willing to fall in with any course, but any Member of the House is entitled to speak on Third Reading and to divide the House against the Bill. I do not mind which course is taken.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I should like to speak about the Bill now, but if the Government say they would rather take the other course, I do not mind giving way.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: No.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I had every intention of putting down a Motion on the Paper to move that this Bill be read again six months hence, but I have been persuaded, much against my will, not to do such a thing. I was told that this is a Conservative measure, and that I am a Conservative. Frankly, I was not impressed by that argument at all. This is not a Conservative measure; it is not a Party measure; it is nothing else but a departmental Bill, and a very bad one at that. It seems to have no Minister at the back of it, except perhaps the composite, mystical figure of Mr. Lennox Boyd-Carpenter. I have a great love for another place, where they work very hard—much harder than we do—and where life is grim, and perhaps it would be a shame to deprive them of seeing this Bill when it arrives there and of having a good laugh.
  I have refrained from that drastic step, but I feel in my bones that there are few of your Lordships who would not vote against this measure if you were voting on nothing else but its merits. The Bill is described as a "Road Traffic Bill." Noble Lords in charge of the Bill have alternated in their descriptions between "road traffic" and "road safety," whichever they liked. In my opinion, however, it is a new criminal law

  165
  amendment Bill. It is vindictive in every sense, and it suggests that by the intimidation of penalties the roads can be cleared of accidents. It might also be described as a London spoliation Bill. Our great squares in future are to resemble enormous petrol stations; and I suppose every two hours a horn will blow and there will be a general post of one vehicle passing from one position to another, because it cannot remain in one place for more than two hours. That is the Government's solution to the traffic problem of London.
  I should like to extend my sympathy to the three noble Lords in charge of the Bill. They were, of course, acting under instructions—instructions to resist everything—and, in my opinion, they resembled a trinity of Molotovs falling over each other to say "No." I have seen on their faces astonishment, chagrin and humiliation when they realised that they had themselves to voice what was in their briefs. It is a curious thing, but your Lord ships' House, which has always been so distinguished in these motor matters, knows a good deal more about the subject than the Department, and time and again noble Lords in this House have shot to pieces the proposals in this Bill. We have had the repeated cry ad misericordiam: "Please withdraw your Amendment, and we will promise to look into the subject." How many times has that been said to us? It has been said on every important subject that has cropped up. I think it is the duty of the Department to look into these things before they present a Bill, and not to put forward half-baked proposals that can be, and have been, pulled to pieces. We had from one of the noble Lords the ingenious and ingenuous plea that the arguments made would be brought to the notice of the Minister. That seemed to me quite a charming idea; but I should have thought that the Minister himself might have read Hansard when the creation of his Department was having such a rough handling, as it has had in this House.
  There are two subjects with which I myself was concerned: one was the speed limit, and the other was the offence of being "drunk in charge." I referred to a pledge which was given by a former Government and which was not implemented, but I will not go into that matter
  166
  again. Your Lordships will remember that I asked that the speed limit should not be enforced in the small hours of the morning, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft told us that the figures of accidents were extremely bad during those hours. I have been into those figures, and they are interesting. The noble Lord is right in one particular, as to the hour from 12 midnight to 1 a.m.; but from 1 a.m. onwards the accident rate is practically negligible. The total casualties in the whole of England—not only fatal accidents but injuries—in controlled and uncontrolled areas is 238,000. The peak hour, the worst of the day, is between 5. p.m. and 6 p.m., in which hour a total of 24,000 people are injured. The figure goes down, until, from 11 p.m. till 12 midnight, it is 8,000. From 12 midnight to 1 a.m. it is higher than I thought, at 3,000; but from 1 a.m. to 6 a.m. it goes down to 800. It is at that particular time that I should like to see the speed limit taken off. I hope that in this funny sort of inquiry that was promised—which afterwards the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, said was only consultation with the Minister, and not the making of an inquiry—they will consider that particular position.
  I was rather upset that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, was not in the House when I made this proposal, because he made a powerful speech at a later stage in the debate. Your Lordships will know that the Lord Chief Justice, if you know him personally, is one of the most agreeable, charming and companionable men that exist. But his reputation outside, to people who do not know him, is that of a very fierce Judge, who might well be described as a sort of modern Judge Jeffreys—the sort of man who might easily give you penal servitude for life for parking without a light. But what does he say about the speed limit? He considers it a farce that should be done away with. That opinion was reechoed throughout England, and every newspaper said that at last we were thinking clearly on this matter and how much they agreed with the Lord Chief Justice. I hope that after those remarks, addressed to your Lordships by the Lord Chief Justice, the investigation into the speed limit which was advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will be

  167
  taken rather more seriously and considered extensively.
  As to the "drunk in charge" question, the position, I think, was wholly unsatisfactory. Everyone admitted that the law was wrong: it is believed to be wrong throughout the country, and the Government said it was wrong. Yet the combined talent of the whole of the Civil Service could not frame an alternative Amendment. Really, I cannot believe that that is a possibility. I welcomed the contribution to the debate on that subject of the noble Lord, Lord Reid, because his words rang through the country as a little clear thinking, when he said, "Better that many people get off than that injustice should be done and the law look foolish." That is the position to-day, and that is the position that apparently will be perpetuated unless the pundits of the law can find a suitable Amendment. I cannot help saying that I disapprove of this Bill, but I must congratulate the three noble Lords in charge. Never in the whole of my experience of political life, which extends over about thirty years, have I seen noble Lords put in a more embarrassing and hopeless position than they have been over this Bill. I think it is due largely to the courtesy of the House that they have not repeatedly been shot to pieces.
  Now we come to the Third Reading. There are rumours of an Election. Whether it will come soon or late, we do not know. Frankly, I hope it will come soon and that another place will not be bothered with this Bill, but that it will find its way quickly to where it belongs; that is, the wastepaper basket.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, the question is that this Bill be now read a third time.
  EARL HOWE: I wanted to say a word—
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may we have some guidance from the Acting Leader of the House? We understood that the Third Reading was to be formal, that the Amendments were then to be put and that we could make the speeches on the Question, "That the Bill do now pass." An exception was made in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, to which my learned friend did not object. Can we now proceed
  168
  by the method which was suggested by the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House?
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am entirely in the hands of the House. I think we must keep some sort of order in these proceedings. There are two ways of proceeding. One is to take the Third Reading formally, then have the Amendments, and then to proceed to a debate on the Question, "That the Bill do now pass." Now that the Third Reading has been moved and the debate has started, I should have thought it would be convenient to conclude the debate on the Third Reading, and then go on to the Amendments.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Do we now proceed—
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: You now proceed to make your set speeches.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Not our set speeches, but in the order which has been arranged through the usual channels
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, I think so.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will allow me, I will proceed—
  EARL HOWE: May I inquire what has been agreed through the usual channels? I am anxious to say a word on the general question, following upon what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: What was agreed through the usual channels was, as I understand it, that the Third Reading would be taken formally, that the Amendments would then be discussed and voted upon or disposed of, and that we should then have a debate on the Question, "That the Bill do now pass." There was no intention of cutting anybody out. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has started the ball rolling, we will now take the general debate in which everybody who wishes to speak on the Third Reading can do so. Then, having disposed of that, we will come later to the Amendments.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I am sorry if I have upset the proceedings of the House, but I was not in the channel.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: We should have hated not to have had that delightful piece of obstruction of the channel.
  4.15 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if it is the wish of your Lordships I will now resume the debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition. I regret that I shall have to proceed in somewhat the same strain as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. Your Lordships' House has received many Bills ill-conceived and slipshod in their drafting and conception, but in my experience I doubt whether there has ever been a Bill which has left your Lordships' House that has not had deeply imprinted upon it the hallmark of your Lordships' House as a Revising Chamber. In my experience, now extending over a few years, I think we could always say, whether we agreed with the principle of the Bill or not, that at least it left your Lordships' House with some credit to us and that we wished it well.
  To-day we are being asked to give a Third Reading to the one notable exception. I do not mind from which standard this Bill is judged—it is just deplorable. I do not mind whether it is judged from its contribution to road safety, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has said, as a Road Traffic Bill: it is equally deplorable. I will deal, first of all, with its contribution to road safely, because that allows me to deal with Clause 1. That clause sought to set up a grandiose scheme of testing stations—I should estimate somewhere in the region of 15,000 stations, employing 100,000 people. The problem it sought to solve was the prevention of exactly 2,501 accidents out of 200,000. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, rightly said, that scheme was shot to pieces by your Lordships. I think the comment of the Economist was apt—that the dimmist bureaucrat could never hope to see a clause like that get safely through your Lordships' House.
  We on this side of your Lordships' House were in a most difficult position. We were pressed from various quarters to lend our support not to give this Bill a Second Reading at all. In consultation with my noble and learned Leader, who had put upon me the responsibility, on behalf of the Opposition, of conducting the examination of this Bill in your Lordships' House, we decided that it
  170
  was our public duty to subject this Bill to the fiercest investigation, but that we should at least allow your Lordships to try to make it a better Bill, and not throw it out, neck and crop, upon the Second Reading. It was with that attitude in mind that we approached this problem.
  I would call your Lordships' attention to the debate we had on the first day of the Committee stage, when we on this side, with the support of many noble Lords sitting on the Government side of the House, found ourselves so diametrically opposed to one of the principles in the first clause that we found it necessary to take your Lordships into the Division Lobby to express your opinion. Your Lordships expressed an opinion contrary to the terms of the Bill. It is always nice to defeat a Government of the other political persuasion, but I confess that I never considered that the victory won in that Division Lobby as a defeat of the Government: rather was it a defeat of the bureaucratic mind which thought your Lordships' House was nothing but a rubber stamp. I have a shrewd suspicion that quite a number of noble Lords who sit on the Government Front Bench were just as delighted as we were at the result of those Division Lobby figures. With the end of the consideration of that Clause 1, a noble Lord from the Back Benches of the Government side moved the deletion of Clause 1. Again, we on this side of the House were in a quandary, and it was only because the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack made such an impassioned appeal to your Lordships not to throw it out neck and crop, as it deserved to be thrown out that we desisted. The noble Lord, in my view quite rightly, did not press his Amendment.
  I am going to read from Hansard precisely what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said—I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT (Vol. 191 (No. 20), col. 61) of February 15. He said this:
  "I told your Lordships a few moments ago that Her Majesty's Government were quite prepared for discussion and that I believed that by our common intelligence, we could work out a system."
  The noble and learned Viscount went on to say, in column 62:
  "It is the good fortune of the Government that we have had a number of suggestions put forward, and these will be considered and we shall try to find the best method; but (and I

  171
  choose my words with the greatest care) I say that it would be a major tragedy if, at this stage in the Bill, your Lordships' House were to eliminate the suggestion of testing and so eliminate what I believe will be a great help in dealing with our problem."
  The noble and learned Viscount ended with these words, in column 63:
  "Let us go on, as I say, co-operatively, in order to try to get the best Bill we can. But for us to delete the clause, and for it to go out from this House that we are prepared to tolerate the danger of ill-conditioned vehicles and ineffective brakes, would, I repeat, be a major tragedy."
  That put it into our minds, as I know it put it into the minds of all noble Lords opposite, that what we could safely do was to bow to the wishes of the noble and learned Viscount, for whom we have such a profound respect, and that the Government would bring forward, before the next stage of the Bill, a reconstituted clause which would more closely conform to the wishes expressed from every side of your Lordships' House.
  When we came to the Report stage, however, the only view that was put forward was the view from this side of your Lordships' House. In another place (I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not mind my saying this) that might have been considered to be legitimate Parliamentary tactics, but in your Lordships' House a harsher term would be more appropriate. I think it is to the everlasting disgrace of the Government that they never implemented at all the undertaking which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack gave, which alone saved that clause from being turned out of this Bill.
  It was again on the Report stage, and on behalf of noble Lords sitting on this side of your Lordships' House, that I put down the only Amendment to Clause 1. Again the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor made an impassioned appeal, and my Amendment was just defeated. And what has happened? Here we have a Clause 1 that is a disgrace to any legislative Chamber. For my part, I tell your Lordships this: that it offends so much against my instinct of pride of workmanship that I have not even troubled to put down an Amendment on Third Reading. I am ashamed to allow this clause to go to another place as the workmanship of a House of the calibre of your Lordships' House. I am ashamed of it. What does it do? It is completely
  172
  inoperative. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, was not using extravagant language when he said that, when it gets to the other place, the only thing they can possibly do is to give it a good laugh—because it will never work. It cannot work.
  I felt desperately sorry for the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is in charge of the Bill and to whom I should like to pay my tribute. All the way through this Bill, he has done his best, in face of terrific opposition—not opposition from Her Majesty's Opposition, but opposition from that place where bureaucracy reigns. He was not allowed to do what I feel certain in his wiser moments he would have done—that is, to send this Bill forward at least with a workable scheme. What are the Government doing? They are telling another place that our considered judgment on this matter is that hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money should be spent on putting up grandiose testing stations and trying to staff them with non-existent labour, at wages which the Government can never afford to pay—to cure 2,501 accidents. Yet when, at a later stage of this Bill, I bring forward a common-sense Amendment that would prevent the 2,650 accidents caused by dogs, it is greeted with ridicule. That is the balance that has been preserved throughout this Bill.
  Take other concessions to road safety. We are told that to give the police some very slight authority to stop 40,000 accidents happening every year to pedestrians through jay-walking is ridiculous. We argued it on Committee stage, and we argued it on Report stage. Yet in this Bill we blindly put responsibility on the police for controlling 12 million cyclists and for bringing them within the scope of the road traffic law as it applies to motorists. As every chief constable will say: "It is just an impossibility." Take this Bill as a contributory element in relieving the great congestion on our roads. The best that the noble Earl could say—let me be fair; perhaps I should say the worst, because there are four clauses which give a right to designate parking places on our main streets, to litter our sidewalks with parking meters—was: "I doubt whether there will ever be a designation order made because of the difficulty, through this Bill, of ever getting

  173
  a designation order." Those are the exact words that the noble Earl used.
  Looking through the Bill, I find one or two good things, and they are the only things that will help me salve my conscience. The one good thing that was in the Bill, and the only good thing that was in the Bill to start with, was the rectification of the anomaly in the law as regards contract carriages. In that regard I have paid tribute to the Government. I repeat ray tribute. There is a cleaning up of some anomalies of the law. They were never cleared up in the original Bill, but your Lordships on both sides of the House insisted upon it.
  There is the case of the 30 m.p.h. limit with the lamp standard that was proposed—that was a new clause in the Bill. The ridiculously little item regarding motor mowers was put in. But steadfastly, all the way through the discussions on this Bill, there has been stub-born resistance to put in the Bill the one thing which would make any contribution towards solving the great social scourge of this country, road accidents. Every proposal we put forward was bluntly refused. When the heat and the dust of this Bill has faded away, should the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, read some of the puerile nonsense that was put into their briefs for the purpose of resisting some of these Amendments, I am quite certain that blushes will suffuse even their cast-iron countenances, because some of it is an insult to the intelligence of the people who read it.
  My Lords, we on this side of the House can do no more. Whatever else may be said, I think it will be agreed that during the passage of one of the most difficult Bills that has passed through your Lordships' House for quite a long time we on this side have played the part that Her Majesty's Opposition should rightly play. We regret nothing that we have done. We have tried at every turn to get the Government to do something regarding the congestion of our roads caused by abnormal loads. Times without number my noble and learned Leader and I have begged and begged. We have tried to do something to see that the by-passes of our towns and cities were used. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft (this, I think, illustrates the point that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, made so well), on the Committee stage used these words:
  174
  "of course, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would put his finger on this point. It is a weakness in the law and we intend to do something about it."
  But nothing has been done. When, on the Report stage, I asked the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, why not, he said, "Well, we have not had time." I said, "Are you going to do it on Third Reading?" He said, "No." I asked, "Will you tell me when you are going to do it?", and he said, "We might do it in another place." That has been the whole attitude of the Government to this Bill, and it is one which I can only regret. It makes the position of Her Majesty's Opposition still worse.
  The noble Marquess the Leader of the House interposed himself in the middle of the arduous discussion that we had, I believe at the end of the Committee stage, and before the Report stage. The noble Marquess made a speech on the debate concerning the reform of your Lordships' House, which, if he will permit me to say so, was one of those speeches which we have come to expect from him and which we admire so much. I speak only for myself, but I think he then paid a tribute to Her Majesty's Opposition and those of your Lordships on all sides of the House who spend their time in the ordinary hard work—if I may use the expression, the chores of legislation. It is sometimes to be regretted that the care and thought which are put into this work, in a non-political sense—because right from the start to the end of the discussions on this Bill not one note of Party politics has crept in from either side—and the reasoned arguments which have been put forward from life's experience have not weighed a little more heavily. However, we now say "Goodbye" to this Bill. We hope that in another place it will be altered. There is no Party issue here, but unless this first clause, which is, I think, the biggest blot I have ever seen on any Bill, is shaped to tackle this problem seriously, then the attitude that we on this side of the House take when the Bill comes back, will have to be the subject of very serious consideration.
  4.37 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, when, months ago, we were told that a Road Traffic Bill was on the stocks, many of us who are deeply interested in this subject formed the highest hopes of what

  175
  might come to us. I can only say that when I saw the Bill I was bitterly disappointed in it. I am afraid I must ask your Lordships' indulgence in regard to this matter, because this is a subject to which, off and on, I have devoted a great deal of attention throughout the years. I can only describe this Bill as a ramshackle Bill. When we heard about it in the months gone by, many of us thought that we were going to have a really constructive plan presented to us for the prevention of road accidents and for the general betterment and speeding up of traffic. Now we have got Clause 1, which deals with the examination of cars. No doubt your Lordships have seen in the newspapers an account of a terrible accident which occured the other day in which a reverend gentleman was killed. That matter is still sub judice, so I cannot go into it; but undoubtedly, so far as I can judge, it was due to a defective vehicle. But there are only 2,000 accidents (2 per cent. of the total) caused through defective vehicles. Those figures are disclosed in the official statistics. All this has been said before, but I cannot help but say it again. It is quite right to say that some of these statistics have already been vitiated by the tendency of the driver, when an accident takes place, to blame everybody and everything except himself, including the condition of the car, whereas if the driver were to exercise more sane judgment the accident might never have occurred. However that may be, we have got Clause 1.
  I think Clause 1 could be a most valuable clause in any Bill. Unfortunately, the discussion on it was vitiated from the start by the noble Earl who was speaking on behalf of the Government, when he said that the examination of vehicles for defects was not going to be at all elaborate. What does that mean? It means simply that the test is a purely pro-forma test which will indicate that any particular car on the particular day upon which it was tested passed a test. It will indicate nothing else. It will not indicate that that car can be depended upon not to be the cause of some terrible accident in a few weeks' time. Unless you carry out a really thorough test—which, in my submission, should be the case—you cannot possibly tell; but nothing of that sort is contemplated in
  176
  the Bill. The original proposals put into the Bill were completely and obviously unworkable. I am perfectly certain that 6,200,000 cars could never have been tested in a year as those proposals required. The Minister of Transport only yesterday stated in another place that in the next three years the number of vehicles licensed on the road will increase by 1½ million; so that within three years there may be some 7½ million motor cars on the road. An examination of that magnitude is quite impracticable.
  The House, in its realism, went to a solution which might be practicable and it is trying to relate Clause 1 to the testing of second-hand cars. That clause could be very valuable if those cars were properly tested; but they will not be. They are to be tested on one day. Who knows what will be the condition of brake linings and similar things a fortnight after the test? Such questions will never be answered. The House then considered the question of garage staff. Anybody familiar with the motor industry will know perfectly well that additional suitable men cannot be found because they do not exist. To-day garages are short-handed because they cannot get the type of really efficient garage foreman that they must have. I know that, because I happen to be connected with a firm in the engineering industry, and if those people were available they would quickly be snapped up, not only by my own firm but by every one of our competitors. What is the good of a Bill which tries to bring arrangements of that kind into being? I am all in favour of the Minister's having his pilot station, about which he is so keen. I am sure it will provide valuable data for the Ministry. But beyond that Clause 1 is just a mirage to lead everybody up the garden path and means nothing. It will not work and it will do no good whatever.
  I cannot understand the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the next provision in the Bill, that for parking meters. The Report of the Working Party on Car Parking in London laid down as clearly as possible, without ambiguity, that there were three proposals which hung together, and that to take one without the other was a course which should never be considered. That is stated in Appendix J of that Report. To have these meters scattered about will bring no solution of the problem which

  177
  brought them before us. Parking meters would never have been heard of had it not been for the extreme congestion caused by parked cars in London. The idea was brought from America, a country whose cities and towns are very different from ours and where what happens bears no analogy to what happens here. Parking meters are per se no solution to the traffic problem in London or any other big city. The introduction of parking meters will bring problems peculiar to themselves. Who is to look after parking meters all night? In our earlier discussion on the Bill, I gave the House some details from New York. In June last, 180 were broken into; in July, 306. There will be a number of similar episodes here if meters are widely adopted. Is this to be another job for the police, who are already understaffed? They have other things to do besides seeing whether people are trying to break into parking meters or whether the red discs have appeared.
  It is pathetic to consider this when, day by day, the traffic in this country is increasing at the rate of some 400,000 new vehicles licensed every year. Our traffic problem is obviously going to get much worse unless some drastic action is taken. There is nothing in this Bill to enable action to prevent extreme congestion in London. What are we to do when the speed of all traffic in the central London area, or any other big city, is brought down, as it is to-day, almost to walking pace? The London Transport Executive will not be able to make their undertaking pay, and we shall have further demands for fare increases as a result. Action far beyond that contemplated in this Bill must be taken on a drastic scale. There is another aspect of parking meters. Is it not a shame for Her Majesty's Government to tell the unfortunate motorist, who is already paying well over £1 million a day for being allowed to drive his car on our inadequate road system, that he must pay further charges for the use of the highway? Parking meters, as provided for in this Bill, are only a device for "milking" and "soaking" the motorist—a very popular pursuit. But there are limits in this direction, and not all those who own motor cars are wealthy people.
  I fear I share the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on this Bill. For me there is only one bright
  178
  spot—the charm and courtesy with which the whole thing has been handled by our Front Bench. They have really had a most difficult job, and have been shot at all round. They seem to have few friends anywhere around your Lordships' House, but they have tried at all times to deal with us in a fair and kindly way. I would assure my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Selkirk, and the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, of my deep gratitude for the great help they have given at every stage. I only wish I could think better of the Bill than I do. I think it is a dreadful Bill, and I am completely opposed to it.
  4.45 p.m.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, pretty well everything that can be said about this Bill has been said; in fact most of it has been said twice, and at very great length. I wish to make only a few brief remarks. I hope that I may be allowed to associate myself with the tributes which have been paid to the courtesy and consideration of the Ministers in charge of the Bill; but I am afraid that my congratulations will stop at that point. Her Majesty's Government seem to have been reduced to playing the very worst sort of cricket. Unable to face the bowling, they have been reduced to blocking every ball with a dead bat; and they have certainly failed to score.
  In anything to do with road traffic or motor cars we can learn something from America, and I have made it my business to try to get some information from America on matters contained in this Bill. I will refer to only two. From what I have heard from America in regard to parking meters, I can only express the hope that the noble Earl will not be disappointed in the results of what he has described as an experiment which Her Majesty's Government must be allowed to try—though I fear that he may be. In this regard there are some for whom I feel sympathy. People will pay a great deal for peace and quietude in these days, and many people pay large prices, or large rents, for houses or flats in quiet squares and localities, I fear that many of those people will find the quietude for which they have paid highly disturbed by an influx of motor cars the drivers of which are seeking refuge from the parking meters.

  179
  The other matter to which I wish to refer on Clause 1 is the question of the inspection of motor cars. There is in America an association called the Travelers Insurance Companies, and these people, of course, have a financial interest in motor car accidents, because whenever one of their clients has an accident, or is involved in an accident, and is responsible for it, they have to pay up. The consequence is that, just as President Coolidge's preacher was "agin" sin. so these insurers are against automobile accidents. For twenty years now they have been publishing annually a book on such accidents, analysing the causes. I think these figures are relevant to Clause 1. In 1953, 43,500 cars were involved in fatal accidents, and of that number 96·7 per cent. of the cars were in good condition Over 2 million cars were involved in non-fatal accidents, and, of that enormous number, 98·3 per cent. were found to be in good condition.
  These are the views of the American insurers upon the causes of accidents:
  "Our annual studies … have shown that more than 90 per cent. of the vehicles involved were in good condition. The highways were adequate if used at the speeds for which they were designed. We found the weather to be a negligible factor. We found that curved roads were no more hazardous than straight ones."
  These were variables in the accidents, but they were all variables in the equation of highway safety. The insurers go on to say:
  "The constant, unchanging factor was the man, woman or child who sat behind the wheel of a car and transformed it from a useful servant to a projectile of destruction; or who, as a pedestrian, walked carelessly into the path of danger…. In most accidents, the guilty party is man and not machine, mind and not motor, reflex and not roadway."
  There is not one word to be found in this booklet, to which I have referred, which endorses the idea of compulsory automobile inspection. I venture to think that these extracts from that book issued by the insurers of America, constitute a very pertinent comment upon Clause 1 of the Bill, and support and endorse what has been said in protest against Clause 1 this afternoon.
  4.52 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I rise to make but a very brief speech, if only for the reason that all I want to say has
  180
  already been said graphically and in strong terms—stronger, perhaps, than I would use: I am not accustomed to use strong language about Bills. I will say merely that I think this is the worst Bill I have ever seen introduced into this House. Here there is an immense problem which does not raise Party issues at all. There is a frightful death-roll on the roads. The Government have a young Minister who has done very well before; and we very much hoped that he would give us some really original ideas and put some thought into this Bill. But this Bill might have been produced by a crabbed old man who had lost all interest in life and who regarded all these things as inevitable. I am bitterly disappointed. The only few new ideas this Bill does contain were largely brought about at the suggestion of noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House.
  I must say this to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has criticised Clause 1 of the Bill—entirely justly as I think, for it is quite ridiculous. I would add a little to the history given by Lord Lucas of Chilworth. On the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who also speaks with great authority on this matter, had an Amendment down to leave out Clause 1, and the Committee decided—very rightly, in my view—that all this business of testing by private garages should go. But, as Lord Lucas of Chilworth has reminded us, it was the Lord Chancellor's intervention that undoubtedly saved the clause as it then stood, because no one can doubt that, had we had Division, the whole of the clause would have gone. The Lord Chancellor intervened, and, out of respect to him, we allowed the matter to stand over to a further stage of the Bill. When the further stage of the Bill came, we moved that Clause 1 should go out altogether. Then Lord Teynham, who had previously put down an Amendment to omit the clause, voted in favour of retaining it. Then there was the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who made a speech against Clause 1 in that very discussion, and who has made another devastating speech against Clause 1 to-day. In what Lobby did he vote when he had the chance of getting rid of Clause 1? He voted in the Lobby in favour of the clause. It hardly lies in his mouth to

  181
  criticise Clause 1. If I may say so, it is just that sort of thing which makes one sometimes despair of this House.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble and learned Earl, but I explained that I knew the Minister was very anxious to have a pilot station; and it was for the benefit of the pilot station that I voted for what was left of Clause 1.
  EARL JOWITT: There is precious little about a pilot station in Clause 1. If only Members, when this House is dealing with Bills which are not Party Bills (I realise that in the case of Party Bills the position is different), could be relied upon to say what they think and to vote as they think, then I think the House would become a much more effective place than it is at the present time. I am not going to labour this point. Everyone knows that Clause 1 is ridiculous. I am all in favour of having vehicles tested; I do not want to have "dud" vehicles on the road. The problem is how to use to the best possible advantage the existing manpower. It is hardly possible to get enough men to do the testing. Obviously, the Government cannot have a great many men employed upon this business: there is only a small army, and it must be used to the best advantage. I think it is manifest to anyone who considers the arguments that, if this testing is to be carried out, it must be by the spot check, as Lord Lucas of Chilworth—to whom, for his knowledge and energy about the Bill, I feel that not only this side but the whole House is greatly indebted—advocated.
  All the way through all the stages of the Bill, what has happened to every suggestion we have made? Take, for instance, the question of dogs. Some 2,500 accidents a year, I believe, are attributed by the police to the presence of dogs on the roads. I say that if a man takes his dog for a walk on the road he ought to have it on a leash. The noble and learned Lord Chief Justice says, "Oh, but we have never done that, you know—we have never had any legislation making it compulsory to keep dogs on a leash." Then Lord Mancroft, with some nice little joke, turns down the proposal, and refuses to have it. And there we are: not a thing is to be done to try to stop these 2,500 accidents. And 75,000 dogs are killed every year on the roads of this country.
  182
  Nothing is done about that, and the suggestions which are made about it are ridiculed.
  Then I had a suggestion to make about heavy loads. I should like to mention this matter because the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, seemed to think that I had said I thought the drivers of heavy loads were abnormally selfish. The noble Lord said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 191 (No. 33), col. 1036) that I had
  " … given the impression that the road hauliers are inconsiderate to everyone else; that as long as their loads, the abnormal loads, are below certain sizes and weights, they do not care anything for anyone else:"
  I do not think that at all and I never said so. I am quite certain that they are like the rest of us; and while some are more selfish than others, on the whole I believe them to be a decent lot of people. The problem is that if it is necessary that abnormal loads should travel along our roads, so far as we can we ought to arrange that they travel at a time and packed in a manner to cause the least possible inconvenience to other road users. That is my only proposition. Various suggestions made on this matter have been received with a complete lack of sympathy. Take the instance which the noble Lord gave of giving the policeman some sort of power to control and direct pedestrians, thereby possibly reducing the vast sacrifice entailed there. There again, absolutely nothing has been done.
  We did not refuse to give the Minister power to have his parking meter experiment, though he is a pretty optimistic person who thinks that that is going to make any real contribution to the road problem. What we must do is to get these parked cars off the roads, so that traffic is allowed to move, and not to give a sort of licence to motorists to park and block up the roads. If the Government provided proper parking places, then that might solve the problem. Everywhere I turn in this Bill I find complete lack of imagination, of willingness to try something new and of thinking things out. I hope that this Minister, of whom we had hoped so much, will think again about this Bill when he has heard what is said about it on all sides, and that by the time the Bill gets to another place he will see whether he cannot give us something better. Of course, if there is going to be

  183
  an Election, as I have read in the papers, then this Bill will die its death; and I think its death will not be at all untimely.
  5.3 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, in some ways I wonder whether this Bill is worthy of the great flow of rhetoric which has been flooding upon it from one side of the House and the other. When I introduced the Bill I said it was controversial, but I also said, although some noble Lords seem to think differently, that it was a modest Bill. It does not attempt to do a great deal, but if the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, will allow me to say so, it did a number of things which he could not stomach. He complained that there are no novelties in the Bill, but the novelty that is in it he does not like. What we have tried to do in this Bill is to clear up and strengthen the road traffic law as it stands at the present time. The Bill is not the whole of the Government programme. Far more important is the programme of road construction, and I would venture to say that our educational programme is also more important. I know that the word "education" is sometimes used ad nauseam. I think it is worth noting that the casualties among schoolchildren show that it is paying some dividend. It is also worth noting that last year the casualties were fewer than they were in 1938. That is an impressive fact, which shows that some progress is being made in the sphere of educating those who use the roads.
  The noble Lords, Lord Brabazon of Tara and Lord Lucas of Chilworth, delivered some strong criticisms of the Bill, but the point that struck me was that they did not attack what was in the Bill so much as they complained of what was not in the Bill. In Clause 1 we have inserted the requirement of an Affirmative Resolution. I do not want to leave the House in any doubt about this—the Government are not pleased with Clause 1, and they reserve entirely the right to make such alterations as they may think desirable. But I think it is worth saying to those who poured such scorn on Clause 1 that in a recent Gallup poll 80 per cent. of the people questioned said that cars should be inspected.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Why should we not?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble and learned Earl said something very close to it.
  EARL JOWITT: I never meant to pour scorn on the idea of inspection. I think it is an admirable idea, if we have the people to do it, but we have not.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble and learned Earl agrees with inspection. I must confess that some of his speeches led me to suppose that he was not in favour of inspection, but I am delighted to accept what he has said, and I do so readily. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, complained of a number of things which we had not put in the Bill. One thing he said did hurt me a little. He suggested that we had said we would look at a number of points and did not do so. I really do not think that that was quite fair. We have looked at all the points raised, and if we have not been able to meet them I can assure the noble Lord it was not for lack of trying. There are many questions which arise on these points and we sought to meet the points which he raised. I know that he raised them with great force, but some of them presented great difficulties. We have tried throughout the Bill to keep a sense of balance between the different road users—the motorist, the cyclist, the pedestrian and the highway authority. All of these people have had the disciplinary laws applying to them slightly strengthened, but we have tried to keep the balance between them. If I may express one regret, it is that the point of view of the pedestrian was not voiced very often. I make a notable exception of the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, who certainly made a clear and distinct speech in that respect. Unfortunately, there were not many more.
  I think I am right in saying that we have accepted every practical idea which was put forward. In the course of these discussions we have accepted no fewer than twenty-one Amendments of substance. If any noble Lord doubts that, I ask him to look at the Bill itself. When it came here it had twenty-five clauses; it now has thirty-three—that is an increase of 30 per cent., which is quite a good productivity figure, whichever way we look at it. I have noted the noble Lords who have suggested Amendments, and according to my table the noble

  185
  Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, had seven major Amendments accepted; the noble Earl, Lord Howe, had four, and the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, four; and there are a number of other noble Lords who made Amendments at one time or another.
  I hope your Lordships will not press this Motion to a Division. There are points in this Bill which we should like to improve, but there are a number of provisions which are worth while. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, nor the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, criticised so much what is in the Bill as what is not in the Bill, and therefore I hope they will allow the Bill to be read a third time. We appreciate the trouble which noble Lords have taken in making many suggestions for the improvement of the Bill. I should like especially to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has shown immense ingenuity and great industry in examining various propositions—propositions which we also have examined fully, on his suggestion. I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has brought to our discussions an immense, long and varied experience of motoring, and who, I think, has not missed a single day, or, indeed, a minute of the ten days on which we have discussed this Bill. We are indeed grateful to those two noble Lords.
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  Clause 1 [Tests of satisfactory condition of vehicles]:
  5.11 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the first five Amendments really do no more than fulfil an undertaking I gave on the Report stage that no cars will be brought under the conditions of Clause 1 except after Affirmative Resolution passed in both Houses of Parliament. I can assure your Lordships that these five Amendments do no more than that. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 6, after ("vehicle") insert ("to which this subsection applies and'').—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 13, leave out ("Provided that this'') and insert—
  ("(5) The last foregoing subsection applies to motor vehicles of such classes or descriptions as may be specified by order of the Minister:
  Provided that the said").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  The EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 29, after ("make") insert ("orders and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 30, after("and") insert—
  ("(a) an order under subsection (5) of this section shall not have effect unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, (b)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment carries out the bargain the noble Earl made before we went to the Division on Clause 1 which the Government won by the skin of their teeth. I thank the noble Earl for carrying out this part of the bargain, and, in fairness to him, I should tell your Lord-ships that the other two things that he was rather morally committed to do—that is, to put the other part of my Amendment into this Amendment—I asked him not to do, as I thought it would not be appropriate. But for this Amendment I thank him very much, and I think it may turn out to be the lifeboat in which the Government can, so far as Clause 1 is concerned, row away safely.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  5.14 p.m.
  LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
  ". Where a person is charged before a court of summary jurisdiction with an offence under section eleven of the Act of 1930 (which relates to reckless or dangerous driving) and the court is of opinion that the offence is not proved it shall be lawful for the court, if it

  187
  is satisfied that he is guilty of an offence under section twelve of the said Act (which relates to careless driving or driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road), to find him guilty of that offence."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack dealt, I felt in a kindly way, with my new clause on the Report stage, but I think on re-reading what he said that I did anticipate some of the objections which he foresaw to my clause. However, as a layman in these matters, I did not feel able to counter his points until I had had time to study them. On that account, I have put the clause down again on Third Reading, in order to try to reply to some of the objections which the noble and learned Viscount raised. My remarks are, therefore, rather in the nature of what the French call l'esprit de l'escalier—that is to say, the bright remarks one thinks of when going downstairs after the interview.
  There were, I believe, two main objections raised by the Lord Chancellor. The first was that under the present procedure it is made quite clear, either by the existence of a second information for careless driving or by the magistrates using their powers under Section 35 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, that the defendant is faced with an information for careless driving; whereas under the proposed new clause, if the defendant was not legally represented, he might not realise that he could be found guilty of careless driving on an information for dangerous driving. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, did not lay too much emphasis on this objection, because defendants usually are represented. I think the answer to the objection is in the words of the noble and learned Viscount, that a defendant who is on a charge of dangerous driving is usually represented by a solicitor or counsel who will know the legal position. Even if a defendant is not legally represented, I feel quite sure that the court would inform the defendant of the position and would make it quite clear to him that the court could convict of careless driving if it dismissed the case of dangerous driving. If there is any doubt about this, however, I think my proposed clause could be amended by adding a clause in the following words:
  "Where a person is charged before the court with an offence under section 11 of the Act of 1930. the court shall, before informing
  188
  him of his right to be tried by a jury under the provisions of section 25 (3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, inform him of the provisions of this section."
  That, I believe, would meet the point which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has raised.
  The second main objection was that the Amendment is limited to courts of summary jurisdiction, and magistrates will have the power to find a person guilty of careless driving on an information of dangerous driving, while a jury will not have that power. While a jury does not have power to find a person guilty of careless driving, because this offence is a summary offence only, a magistrate's court at present has the power to find a person guilty of careless driving, but either a separate information is necessary, or the court, if it dismisses the information for dangerous driving, may direct a charge to be preferred for the lesser offence of careless driving. I have previously pointed out the technical difficulties which may arise on both of these procedures, and the only purpose of this Amendment is to simplify the procedure in magistrates' courts free from the technical difficulties that I have mentioned. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Winster.)
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, on the last occasion the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that he would give the matter consideration, and I rise now just to say that I hope the consideration is favourable to the clause. I too have given it consideration, and I remain of the opinion that I formed on the previous occasion: that, on balance, this is a good clause. I have always felt the danger that it might be said we are giving the magistrates an easy way out. But, after all, they have that to-day, if two summonses are brought; or they have it, even where two summonses are not brought, when they can direct that the proceedings be taken for careless driving. I am not at all impressed with the argument about a jury. Careless driving is a summary matter which does not go before a jury at all and, with great respect, it seems to me that there is no substance in saying that this cannot be extended to the justices unless it is extended also to proceedings on indictment.

  189
  As the Lord Chief Justice said on the last occasion, I think this is a procedural matter. On the last occasion the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, told us, in effect, that this is what his court is repeatedly doing, and it is what I think ought to be done. The effect of the new clause, therefore, is that two informations will not in future be necessary; it can all be done in one. I think it is desirable; it clears up procedure, and may avoid a great waste of time. As I know quite well, what happens in a good many magistrates' courts is this. The man is first charged with dangerous driving, and the evidence is called. If the magistrates then come to the conclusion that it is not a case on which they ought to convict or send the man for trial on the dangerous driving charge, they proceed to consider the case of careless driving; and the whole of the evidence has to be heard over again. That is an appalling waste of time, and I cannot see that anything is gained by it. Under the simple procedure of this Amendment that will be avoided. The magistrates will hear the evidence, and if they consider it a fit case for committing, they will do so. If, on the other hand, they think it is not a case strong enough to commit, they can there and then deal with careless driving on the evidence they have heard. I think it is a useful procedural reform. I am supported by the fact that the Lord Chief Justice, who has a great knowledge of these matters, also thought so. I would humbly urge the Lora Chancellor to take that line and to let us see how it works.
  5.22 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, for raising this matter again, and I should like to assure him and the noble and learned Earl that the matter is seriously receiving consideration, and sympathetic consideration. The noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition will realise that, on a matter like this, one has not only to consider those of us in the Government who deal with the legal points but also to consult the police in the various parts of the country. That has taken longer than I anticipated. I am sure that all the House would wish us to complete that consultation before coming to a decision.
  190
  The noble Lord, Lord Winster, said that I have not put much stress on the first point. One knows, as a matter of fact, that insurance companies are interested in the result of these cases, and therefore the defendant is practically always represented, and his representative ought to be alive of the point. The major point which I had in mind was this—perhaps I put it rather badly in comparing, without elaboration, the summary and the indictable offence. The difficulty that appeared to some of those who have been considering this point is that if, on the summary charge of dangerous driving, it is permissible to bring in a decision of careless driving, there will then be pressure that when the dangerous driving is dealt with on indictment there should be a similar way out. It is true, as the noble and learned Earl said, that careless driving is only a summary offence; but I think every noble Lord who has considered these cases would view with a certain amount of apprehension the idea that it should be brought in as a loophole to juries in the case of indictable offences. I think that is something which requires serious consideration, and the pressure was something which we thought had seriously to be considered. At the end of this marathon consideration there is one point which has never been denied in all our discussions, and that is that juries have a reluctance to convict on serious cases. That is a matter which, as realists, we must take into account. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to give me a little more time for consideration. Of course, I stand by the undertaking that I gave before the noble Lord withdrew his Amendment on the previous occasion.
  I hope your Lordships will allow me to say one further word. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was a little severe to me on a personal matter, that of taking a matter into consideration in regard to Clause 1. I ask him to believe that when I say a matter will be considered, it is considered; I ask him to accept that. I also ask the noble Lord to remember his own ministerial experience, and to realise that, while consideration is one thing, to get a result to consideration sometimes takes rather longer than one expects. Without saying anything more, I would ask him to take that into account. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Winster, will accept my words

  191
  in regard to the Amendment now before the House.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt for lending his powerful support to my suggestion, and naturally I am fortified to think that he does not find any particular fault with me on a legal point. I fully appreciate the fact that consultation with other Departments on this matter will require a good deal of time. As the noble and learned Viscount has been good enough to say that my proposals will receive consideration—in fact, sympathetic consideration—I am happy to accept that, and to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.26 p.m.
  EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 9 to insert the following new clause:
  Amendment of s. 8 of Act of 1934
  " .—(1) At the end of subsection (1) 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 Amendment is in the same form as it was submitted to your Lordships on the Report stage. I do not think I need weary the House with all the long rigmarole that I had to sumbit to your Lordships in support of the Amendment. On Report stage a somewhat similar Amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and I agreed to withdraw my Amendment in order that we might have consultation. That consultation has taken place, and the upshot of it is that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and myself have agreed that this Amendment, in its present form, may be resubmitted to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving
  192
  that explanation, so long as your Lordships fully recognise that this Amendment is no substitution for the Amendment that I put down. The reason why I have not put down that Amendment and do not intend to oppose this one, is because all this Amendment does is to cure an anomaly of the existing law; it will add nothing to the cause we seek to serve, which is road safety. By this Amendment, the position will be that what everybody thought, until a High Court case a few weeks ago, was the law, will, in fact, be law. The reason why I have not put my Amendment down again is because I am of opinion—as I was of opinion when I discussed the matter with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, the other day—that Clause 1 is so bad that no Amendment that I could put down would make it any better. Therefore, I have left with the Government the case that I made for the proper examination and certification of used motor cars. I have left it with the Government to see what they propose to do when Clause 1 is considered in another place. I am sorry that the Lord Chancellor has had to go but, with reference to his words, may I say this: that such is the high regard in which I hold the noble and learned Viscount that any assurance he gives me I readily and whole-heartedly accept.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I very much hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would not for one moment claim a monopoly of good ideas. I would say that what he has said, in effect, is that this clause is necessary.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will not estimate its relevant importance, but I am sure the clause will be a potential danger to anyone who sells a car which is unfit, whether or not there is a prosecution. I do not think that the value of this clause could ever be measured only by the number of prosecutions which might take place under it. I hope the House will accept this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11 [S. 1 of Act of 1934 to be permanent]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, these Amendments to Clause 11 are really for purposes of clarification. All they

  193
  do is to make it clear that, if a completely new system of lighting is installed, it does not necessarily thereby make the road a restricted area. It is a pure technicality. These Amendments can be taken together. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 18, leave out ("the system was provided after") and insert ("no relevant system of street lighting was provided thereon before").—(The Earl ,of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 25, leave out from ("no") to ("is") in line 26 and insert ("relevant system of street lighting").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 37, leave out from ("whether") to end of line 38 and insert ("a relevant system of street lighting was provided on any length of that road before").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 4, at end insert ("and the expression 'relevant system of street lighting' means a system of street lighting furnished by lamps placed two hundred yards or less apart.") —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Operation of driving disqualifications]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is an Amendment that I ought to have moved at the Report stage when we omitted the clause about limited disqualification. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 3, leave out from ("vehicle") to end of line 4.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Meaning of "public service vehicle," "stage carriage," "express carriage," and "contract carriage"]:
  THE EAFL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 20, line 8, after ("Act") insert ("any of").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 33 [Short title, commencement, repeals, savings and extent]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 26, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 29.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Privilege Amendment be agreed to.
  Moved, That the Amendment (privilege) be agreed to.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE BILL
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

  IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM BILL
  5.38 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Furness.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD TERRINGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be reported to the House, without amendment.
  Moved, That the Bill be reported to the House, without amendment.—(Lord Terrington.)
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about this Bill, because in my speech last Tuesday I put forward some suggestions for the consideration of the Government.

  195
  Furthermore, I indicated that I would propose an Amendment at the Committee stage to exclude the more important pictures at the Imperial War Museum from the provisions of Clause 2, except as temporary loans to special exhibitions. However, since the Second Reading I have received certain assurances which do not, I think, make necessary an Amendment to this clause. It appears that the Trustees of the Museum had already anticipated my suggestion and had excluded from loan, except for short-time periods for public exhibition in other galleries and museums, about 1,500 pictures of particular artistic or historical importance. I understand that, in addition, a somewhat larger number of pictures is reserved for display and reference purposes, either to provide adequate representation of a particular artist's work, or to show a particular aspect of war history.
  So far as the pictures to be loaned are concerned, it appears that not more than four pictures will be lent at a time to any one institution to which the public are not generally admitted, and that the maximum period of a loan will be two years. I am most grateful to the noble
  196
  Lord, Lord Glyn (who, I am sorry to say, cannot be here to-day), and also to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for kindly taking up these points with the Museum authorities. I am also grateful to the Director of the Museum, Mr. Bradley, for his courtesy and helpful information. It is most gratifying to know that my few small suggestions have met with such a ready response.
  On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill reported without amendment accordingly.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  TRANSPORT (BORROWING POWERS) BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
  Second Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
  House adjourned at nineteen minutes before six o'clock.