Lords Sitting of 3 July 1956

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

  AIRFIELD EXTENSIONS AND MAJOR ROADS
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government why a section of A.15 has been rebuilt to cross at ground level the new runway extension of Scampton Airfield.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, the provision of a temporary road surface over that section of the A.15 affected by the development of Scampton Airfield was carried out at the request of the local authority in order to reduce the interference with road traffic during the construction of the airfield. A permanent diversion for the A.15 is being constructed to the East of the airfield.
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask him two supplementary questions. The first is whether the question of tunnelling under the runways instead of building a diversionary road was considered, and if not, why not? The second is, if it was considered, can the noble Earl tell me whether comparative estimates of cost were obtained—that is to say, for the cost of a tunnel scheme in comparison with the cost of the diversionary roads scheme, taking into account, of course, the cost of requisitioning agricultural land for the diversionary road.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I shall be obliged if the noble Lord will allow me to answer those supplementary questions—if this is in order—after I have given him the Answer to his second Question.
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in nay name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, when it is proposed to extend an airfield, consideration can be given, as a matter of principle, to extending it in such a manner as not to require the diversion of a major highway, and whether, in the event of extension in such a manner not being practicable, consideration can be given, as a matter of principle, to the construction of a tunnel to accommodate the major highway to avoid its diversion, with consequent increased use of the country's transport resources resulting from the extra distance involved and loss of agricultaral production caused by the use of land for its construction.]
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, all projects for the extension of runways are carefully examined to see whethet they can be carried out in such a way as to avoid affecting roads. This examination includes the possibility of constructing a tunnel for a road that has to be cut by a runway; but, en grounds of cost as well as the security of the runway, it has so far been found that a diversion is the best means of solving the problem.
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords. I thank the noble Lord for his second reply. May I ask him whether he is in a position to tell us the difference in the cost of the two schemes in the case of Scampton, and whether due consideration was given to the loss of future food production from the agricultural land requisitioned?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the answer is, yes. Tie building of a tunnel was certainly considered. The question came before the local council. The estimated cost of a tunnel is £800,000 as compared with £175,000 for the diversion of the A.15. The approximate acreage to be lost is twenty-three.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Earl give an assurance to the House that due consideration is given to the necessity of providing adequate transport by road? That is one of the main requirements of this country, and I am not at all satisfied in my own mind—perhaps the noble Earl can satisfy me—that due consideration is given to transport needs as against the convenience of the Air Ministry, or whichever Ministry it is who want the highway diverted for an extension of a

  327
  runway. Who is the final authority to decide what must be at times a delicately poised balance?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I think I can assure the noble Lord that all due consideration is given on these occasions. I think that it is an illustration of the consideration which was given to road users in this case that new taxi tracks were built and the road was then diverted round these taxi tracks while the runway itself was extended at a cost of something over £2,000. The original road was taken across the present runway so as to give as little disturbance as possible to traffic until such time as the new road is completed. In all these cases, meetings are held between the Air Ministry, the local authority and the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. It is with the concurrence of all three that the final decisions are reached.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Earl be kind enough to answer just one more question, if he can? What is the additional length which road traffic has to travel in this particular case which it did not have to travel before the diversion was made.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: Half a mile.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the answer he has given also applies to the case of Blackbushe? Road users have been wondering whether considerable danger might not be caused by the fact that A.13 goes straight across a portion of that airfield.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I am afraid I am unable to reply to the noble Earl now, but if he will put down a Question I will gladly give him an Answer.

WAR OFFICE ACQUISITION OF FARM LAND
2.42 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg! to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why it is necessary to acquire the
328
Beaconsfield Drive at Wilton Park instead of the London Road Drive which would avoid damaging the Home Farm by severance and save the nation £2,500 compensation for severance.]
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for War, decided that it was necessary to acquire the Beaconsfield Drive at Wilton Park mainly because the alternative drive would make the journey to the village three times as long for the Servicemen and their families who are stationed there. The longer route would also mean that women and children would have to walk some distance along a busy main road, and the point at which the London Road Drive meets the London Road is dangerous. Further, the extra cost of necessary road work on the London Road Drive would be considerably greater than the compensation for severance. The Beaconsfield Drive has been in use by the Army for about fifteen years and does not appear to have seriously affected the Home Farm.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but it is obvious that there are factors in this business with which he is not acquainted. I shall be very grateful if he will look at them personally. For example, is he aware that there is a perfectly good footpath from the hutments at Wilton Park to the London-Beaconsfield road which adds no distance whatever to the distance that has to be travelled to get to Beaconsfield village? Has he taken that into account? At a time when enormous pressure is being put on civilians to reduce costs, does he not think it is scandalous that a farm should be cut in half and £2,500 in compensation paid in order that these people may walk along a metalled drive instead of over a perfectly good footpath? I the work is being done for vehicles, it will make little or no difference in going to Beaconsfield or going to London: it is half a mile longer. Can the noble Lord tell the House why the Minister all along has refused an inquiry into this matter, which is of some importance? Does he not think it would be useful to have an inquiry so that all matters may be threshed out in public?
EARL HOWE: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers, may I ask whether

329
he does not agree that the exit of the proposed Beaconsfield Road drive is much safer from the point of view of people emerging from Wilton Park than any other exit on the main road would be?
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, in reply to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, may I say that I think he is referring to a right of way which goes along the Beaconsfield Road drive. If he wants that kept in operation as well as the new drive—that is, the London Road drive, then he is asking for two drives to be kept open. The Beaconsfield Road drive which has this right of way would be open to vehicles under the Government's proposed plan. The noble Lord is not quite right as to the cost of this proposal. In fact, the Government's proposed plan is cheaper than the noble Lord's alternative proposal. In either case the drive would need to be repaired and brought up to standard. The Government's proposed plan would cost £4,000 less than the noble Lord's plan, but against that must he put the £2,500 which must be paid in compensation to the owner of the farm. Therefore, the net difference is that the Government's proposed plan would be£1.500 cheaper than the noble Lord's plan.
As to an inquiry, the powers of the War Office of compulsory acquisition derive basically from the defence Acts, under which the service of a notice to treat is normal procedure if acquisition by agreement is not possible. This procedure does not provide for holding a public inquiry into the requirement to take over land, but, since 1947, when the White Paper entitled The Needs of the Armed Forces for Land for Training and other Pvrposes was published, special extra-statutory inquiries into the requirement of land for Service requirements came into force. These include a provision for a public local inquiry into cases where there are substantial objections on the ground of public interest, but—and I would ask the noble Lord to bear this specially in mind—such extra-statutory public beat inquiries are not empowered to consider objections from individuals on private grounds, and that applies in this case. In regard to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I said in my original answer that one of the advantages of the Beaconsfield Road drive is that it is much
330
safer than the other drive, which comes out on the main road.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that long answer. Surely he would agree with me that the severance of a valuable farm and payment of compensation up to £2,500 or £3,000 is a matter of public interest and not just a private interest and ought to come within the rule of matters of public interest allowed to he inquired into at art extra-statutory public inquiry?
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, I am advised gnat this is a question of private interest and I am afraid that at the moment I cannot inform the noble Lord further on this particular point.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.50 p.m.
TETE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALIS-BURY): My Lords, before we proceed to the Business of the day perhaps I may say a word about our progress, or what I hope will be our progress, on the Road Traffic Bill. I am afraid that it was necessary to keep your Lordships sitting very late last night, and I am extremely grateful to those who took part in the debate; but we hope that it may not be necessary to do that again. The proposal which I have to put forward, which I understand will be acceptable to all concerned, is that we should sit until seven o'clock this evening, when the debate will be adjourned, and sit again to-morrow until seven o'clock, by which time we hope that the whole of the Committee stage will have been completed. I see no reason why that should not be done. In the unhappy event of our not having finished by seven o'clock to-morrow evening, we may have to sit later; but do no; let us anticipate that.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for that statement. Unfortunately, I was prevented at the last moment from being here yesterday, bat I am grateful to my colleagues on I his side of the House, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for keeping the debate going. I think what the noble Marquess suggests is a good plan, and perhaps we should mark a stage in

331
the remaining Amendments which we ought to reach tonight. We do not want to have to sit very late to-morrow night.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to support the proposal that has been made, and I suggest that if by seven o'clock we are getting near to the end of the Committee stage we might well take that time rather elastically.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I suggest that we should not regard seven o'clock to-day as elastic, but seven o'clock to-morrow evening may have to be elastic.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT YAR-MOUTH PORT AND HAVEN) BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (WISBECH PORT AND HARBOUR) BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

SUGAR BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, who is unavoidably absent on official duties, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.,—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

AGRICULTURE (SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE PROVISIONS) BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

HOTEL PROPRIETORS (LIABILITIES AND RIGHTS) BILL now HOTEL PROPRIETORS BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT (SUPPLEMENTATION) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
2.57 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clause 15:
Provision of parking places where charges made
15.—(l) The Minister may by order made on the application of the local authority in accordance with the provisions of Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act designate parking places on highways in the Metropolitan Police District or the City of London for vehicles or vehicles of any class or description specified in the order, and the local authority may make charges for vehicles left in the parking places of such amount as is hereinafter specified.
(2) The matters to which the Minister shall have regard in determining what parking places are to be designated under this section shall include—

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

(b) the need for maintaining reasonable access to premises, and

(c) the extent to which parking accommodation (whether open or covered) otherwise than on highways is available in the neighbourhood or the provision thereof is likely to he encouraged there by the designation of parking places under this section.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): The first Amendment in my name to-day is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 25, leave out ("the parking places") and insert ("any parking place so designated").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that a parking place shall not be designated under this section unless the Minister is satisfied that there is available for long term parking within a maximum disance of a quarter of a mile adequate parking accommodation (whether open or covered but rot of a temporary nature) otherwise than on highways."
The noble Lord said: This clause and the following three clauses cover the
334
vexed question of parking and parking places, and their regulation. I think your Lordships, whether you agree with the method adopted by the Government on parking meters or not, will agree with me on two propositions. The first is that something must be done to relieve the congestion, not only in London but in other large cities and towns in this country, caused by people who leave cars on the street for a long time. The second, I think, naturally follows: that it is no good, either by parking meters or in any other way, moving these cars out of those streets where they are causing congestion into other streets to cause the same kind of congestion a little way off. In other words, it is no good moving those cars unless there is somewhere to which to move them. That is where I feel the proposals of the Government fail, and in this Amendment I have sought to rectify that position.
The attitude of the Government towards this problem reminds me of a story I was told of a small boy, an apprentice in an engineering shop, who was told by the foreman to sweep the shop. He swept the shop up with great diligence, and he had a huge pile of muck. Then he went to the foreman to ask what he should do with it. 'The foreman said, "You had better sweep it about until you lose it." That is precisely what the Government are doing. As we argued when the earlier Bill was before your Lordships, what is the good of putting parking meters in any area? The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has told your Lordships that the reason why the Government desire to put parking meters in an area is not for the sordid purpose of collecting money—far be it for the Government to want to take any more money out of the pockets of the motorists!—but to push the parker somewhere else. I said that the measure of the success of the Government's scheme for relieving congestion by the method of parking meters will be the extent to which they are used. If all the parking meter areas are entirely devoid of motor cars, then the scheme will be a huge success. The streets will then have been cleared of the motor cars. But where to?
In subsection (2) of this clause, which I seek: to amend, a pious hope is expressed in paragraph (c). Subsection (2) says:
"The matters to which the Minister shall have regard in determining what parking

335
places are to be designated under this section shall include …
(c) the extent to which parking accommodation (whether open or covered) otherwise than on highways is available in the neighbourhood or the provision thereof is likely to be encouraged there by the designation of parking places tinder this section."
Piety is a wonderful thing, but I have never heard so much piety expressed in a few words as in the last lines of paragraph (c).
The Minister is going away from all the expert advice he has received. He has the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee to whom he posed the problem. A Working Party was set up especially to report on parking places and the whole problem of parking. I have the Reports here. Both these bodies dealt with the problem, and their unanimous recommendation was that it was useless to proceed with any scheme of parking meters, or the restriction of parking, until off-street parking was provided for the vehicles that were to be turned off the road. The Government have ignored that recommendation. They have ignored the advice given them by the experts. The London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee is, I suppose, composed of experts—at least, it has been there to advise successive Ministers of Transport. A special subcommittee was set up to deal with this problem, and said, as I say, that it will not be solved by these methods; you are only going to "sweep it about until you lose it." You will sweep the rubbish out of some of the streets of London and put it in other streets outside your experimental area.
I believe that this is the whole crux of the matter of parking meters, and I confess that I do not think the Government have thought out this problem. I do not think the Government have thought out any problem on this Bill. I think this Bill creates a record. This is the fourth House of Parliament before which this Bill has come. It was before your Lordships' House in another guise in 1954–55. It went to the Commons: it was then reintroduced into the Commons and now comes again to your Lordships' House. On the fourth Committee stage of this Bill we have "miles" of Government Amendments, trying to prop up the most rickety structure that I have ever seen put before
336
your Lordships' House. This is a fair sample of it, as Clause 1 was a fair sample in dealing with the examination of vehicles. I have put down this Amendment to try to help the Government solve their problem. I realise that there is a problem to be solved. We cannot continue in London, or in any of the big towns—or, for that matter, in the small towns—with congestion through people parking cars on highways which should be left open for the free flow of traffic.
I would ask your Lordships to couple this Amendment with Amendment No. 37, because they both hang together. By the first Amendment I seek to add the words:
"Provided that a parking place shall not be designated under this section unless the Minister is satisfied that there is available for long term parking within a maximum distance of a quarter of a mile"—
I am not tied to that distance, but a quarter of a mile was the specific figure which was put in the Report of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee—
"adequate parking accommodation (whether open or covered but not of a temporary nature) otherwise than on highways."
I say that that is a prerequisite to the success of any parking scheme in any town, whether in London or anywhere else. It is no good moving cars out of streets until you have somewhere off the streets to move them to. With those words, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 26, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
3.7 p.m.
EARL HOWE: The question of parking in London streets has been underlined by this Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Are we really in earnest about stopping parking in London streets? If we are, does anyone in your Lordships' House think that the mere institution of parking meters is going to do anything at all to help? I submit to your Lordships that where these approved parking places exist it will simply give official permission to parkers to remain there on payment of a certain charge. But they will still be there; and if their presence is an obstruction to traffic, it will still be an obstruction, whether there is a parking meter there or not. It seems to me the most extraordinary idea.

337
Two of the most representative and influential Committees were set up, one a Working Party specially to consider the problem of London traffic, and the other the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. Those Committees included among their members everybody who had anything to contribute on the question of London traffic—experts of every description, the police, the county council, the local authorities and every sort of organisation who knew anything about London traffic at all. They said just one thing, and that is exactly what the noble Lord who has just addressed us said: Have an experimental area for parking meters, if you like, but before you do so you must have off-street parking accommodation available. Simply nothing has been done about that. Nothing is even contemplated.
The trouble, as we all know, is mainly concentrated in the central area, where site values make it impossible for any new scheme to be started unless the Government are prepared to pay large sums of money for them. It is quite impossible to expect that any of these schemes will come to fruition. If they do not, the problem will remain the same. What are we going to do? In the parking problem of London there are upwards or' 100,000 commuters—the number may be more now. My figure is a conservative figure, based on an official figure about three years old; and with due allowance made for the general increase in traffic since then, there are about 100,000 commuters who rush up to London and near London to leave their machinery about in the streets anywhere and then go away again. If any of your Lordships doubts this, he can go to any main road leading in or out of London and see tie problem. These people have to get rear to their businesses, and they find that this is the most convenient way of doing it.
We are really within measurable distance of having London traffic coming to a full stop. I submit to your Lordships that we cannot possibly allow the present situation to continue. My further submission is that the Government are trying to tackle the problem at the wrong end. There is the boy the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, spoke about. Whether or not it was he in the shop I do not know but, if it was he, what is he going to do to remedy this? I submit that there is only one way we can do it.
338
It is not a comfortable, nice or easy way. It is certainly not going to be popular, but I believe it to be the only way. We have to stop the commuters coming into the central area. I have already produced a scheme several times and have spoken about it here, and on the further stages of this Bill I may put down an Amendment so that this point may he definitely considered and debated. But I suggest to your Lordships that the only way in which we, can do anything about it is to see that anybody who wants to come into the central area of London, be it the City of Westminster or the City of London, must have secured from the police a pass which he can put on his windscreen to enable him to do so.
It would not be necessary, in order to get that pass, for the motorist to pay for it, so it will not be a further expense—it is something gained anyway. But having the pass on his windscreen would entitle him to go into the central area. In order to get that pass, I suggest he would have to satisfy the police that he has in the central area off-street parking accommodation, either of his own or available to hint, to which he can go. There are buildings going up in the City and else where there will be garage accommodation in the basements. There are very few garages in the central area, but. other than that, a motorist who was unable to get this pass from the police would have to stay outside the central area and make use, of public transport or whatever other means were available to get to his destination. It is not a good suggestion. I do not like it—in fact, I hate it. But I do not know of a better one. If I could only think of one I would "go for" it. But, in my opinion, unless we do something of that sort we shall find ourselves in a much worse position—and the Government are going in for this expensive show.
This question of parking meters is a sort of "half-baked" scheme which has come to us from America and has been adopted by the Ministry of Transport as a sort of excuse for doing nothing. Let us take the parking meter. Unless the car is parked at an angle to the kerb, the parking meter will make the parking problem worse. You will have to allow the same space for a motor-cycle as for the largest type of modern car. Then again, who is going to supervise the parking meters? Who is going to supervise them at night,

339
when there is nobody about? Is that another burden to be thrown on the overworked police? Do not forget that in New York over 300 of these parking meters were raided in one month. Therefore, it is not just fancy: these things can happen.
There are many other things that I could say about this proposal, but I will put them all away until a later stage of the Bill; but say them I will, if it is the last thing I ever do. Before your Lordships are carried away by enthusiasm for a "half-baked" scheme that has come to us from America and is not really at all applicable to British towns—and I doubt whether it is even applicable to British methods because it means employing people, not policemen, who will go round and report motorists for having overstayed their welcome at one particular place—and before your Lordships give approval to this scheme, I beg you to consider the Report of the Working Party on London Traffic and also the Report of the London Traffic Advisory Committee. If your Lordships will only go that far, I am sure there will be grave doubts in your minds with regard to the efficiency or desirability of this proposal. I beg to support the noble Lord in his Amendment.
3.15 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment which as has been pointed out by two noble Lords, is really bringing the matter again to the Report of the Working Party. I certainly cannot agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that there should be restrictions on cars entering London. That would be a most retrograde step. I understand that the Government's view on this matter—I may be wrong—is that neither private enterprise nor local authorities would build car parks unless parking meters were installed. This may or may not induce the car owner to make use of them—we shall see; but there is something in this point of view. I have never been in favour of parking meters, but I am quite willing that an experiment should be carried out. I feel, however, that this Amendment is really a wrecking Amendment, because I can hardly conceive any parking area which would be within a quarter of a mile of a permanent parking area.
340
On a small point, I should like to take this opportunity of suggesting to Her Majesty's Government that great care should be taken to see that parking meters are installed with due regard to the various amenities in the areas concerned, because these meters will be most unsightly and might well have the effect of ruining some of our attractive Squares and areas in London.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is the first Amendment on this rather big question of parking meters. Perhaps, in view of the fairly wide spread of the discussion. I could make some general remarks as to what our views are on it. First of all, as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has said, this is just an experiment. I am not going to stand here and offer it as a solution to our problems, but I say that we should be very foolish not to try it. That is all we are asking at the present time. We do hot in any way underestimate the difficulty of the problem of putting this into force.
I should like to add this further comment. I hope that your Lordships will look at the Third Schedule, which describes in some detail the elaborate procedure which has to be gone through before any parking meter can be installed. I have no doubt that on other Amendments we shall refer to it again. I think it should be quite clear that the proposal must come, first of all, from the local authority. They must consult the police; they must advertise; they must bring it specifically to the attention of occupiers. The Minister can then take further steps to make it known to everyone. In London it will be referred to the London Traffic Advisory Committee and even then, whether in London or elsewhere, after objections of course, it may end up in public inquiry. When all that has been done, an order will be placed before the House which, of course, the House will be in a position to negative. I emphasise that the procedure is pretty elaborate. I think the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will be closely examined before anything is done.
Whilst I agree very much with the first statement of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that something has to be done, he then went on to say that all we were doing was pushing the cars about from one street to another. That is not the problem. He knows very well that

341
the real problem is the problem of the long parker. It is not a question of pushing him from one street to another; it is a question of dissuading him from coming into the centre of London and leaving his car all day. I should like to quote the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation in this respect. He said:
"… that to make it possible for everyone who comes into London to work to travel in his own car in the morning and to return in the evening is something which we can never attain."
If that is the meaning of the word "adequate," clearly it is nonsense.
I must emphasise that, while the noble Lord brings out the importance of off-street parking, as at present drafted this Amendment is clearly wrecking— think the noble Lord is aware of that. I regret that the noble Lord did not bring cut the fact that we had linked the whole of this proposal closely with the provision of off-street parking. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 19 which deals with the proceeds of parking meters. We think that we have drawn this clause pretty tightly, and if any noble Lord can show me how the local authority can dispose of their funds otherwise than in maintaining and providing parking meters or providing for off-street parking, I shall be interested to know. It means that all the proceeds of parking meters are quite certain to be dedicated to the provision of off-street parking, which I agree with the noble Lord, is absolutely integrated with the success of the parking meter scheme, if it is going to succeed at all.
The noble Lord has emphasised this point, and I hope that I have gone at least some way to show that I realise the force of his argument and that he is absolutely right in saying that or-street parking must be provided; in so far as it is not provided there is little hope of parking meters being of any benefit. That is the point upon which I am entirely at one with the noble Lord. It is a question, as I have said before, of the chicken and the egg—you must have one first—and we hope, to some extent, that the two will proceed together. That the intention of the Bill and I see no reason why they should not. I do not put this forward as a big solution, but I think it is well worth trying to see how far we can get before we go into the licensing
342
system of which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has spoken. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
EARL HOWE: Before the noble Lord disposes completely of this Amendment may I say that the noble Earl is no doubt aware of paragraph 96 (page 16) of the Report of his Working Party on London Traffic. In case he has not got the reference, I will read it to the Committee.
"There is, therefore, in principle a good case for carrying out the experimental installation of parking meters recommended in the Congestion Report, once the, necessary off-street parking accommodation has been provided. We wish to emphasise that parking meters on their own will not make any useful contribution towards solving the parking problem and relieving congestion."
Then, again, paragraph [10 (page 17) says:
"Parking meters in the first stage of the parking plan may be the subject of the experiment which is recommended in the Congestion Report and should take place as soon as off-street parking accommodation has been provided."
Your most influential committee has told you in each case that you must have off-street parking accommodation first. I submit that the noble. Earl has almost brushed that aside in -his reply. I know that many of us feel that the noble Earl should give an explanation why he is disregarding the Report of his own Working Party.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I assume—at least, I hope—that the noble Lord who moved this Amendment is going to withdraw it. I do so not because I think he is necessarily trying to wreck the Bill; on the contrary, I think he has given a remarkable example of a one-man fight in this Committee. He has moved Amendments one after the other to every clause and shown the most exemplary knowledge and endurance. I should like to congratulate him on what he has done, quite irrespective of the ideas which he has put forward. But the actual Amendment which he proposes does not seem a very good alternative, because he wants the Minister to desist from appointing parking places unless he is satisfied that adequate parking accommodation exists within a quarter of a mile of the place that he is going to appoint. I do not know what "adequate" parking accommodation is, and I do not suppose that

343
he himself knows. It begs the whole question.
We are here, throughout this Bill, dealing with art almost insoluble problem, and I think the best that can be said of the Bill is that it makes a contribution to solving some of the difficulties, more or less in an experimental way; it does not pronounce the last word. The tests for vehicles were an important contribution, and I think that this proposal is a small contribution. But it is not solely concerned with the provision of parking meters: it is concerned with the provision of parking places. We shall tell by experience whether or not the parking meters serve their purpose; but somehow or another we must provide parking places, whether on the roads or off, and I believe that a much greater effort should be made to provide them off the road. I think we have reached the height of impotence when we have to consider a suggestion such as that made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who wants to institute a system of passes and privileges before people can use their own motor cars in London. That is reaching absolute negation and will do a great injury to amenity and to manufacture.
What I think we have to do is to face the problem of providing garages either below or above the ground, and it would be much cheaper to provide these garages than to let our streets become congested, as they are. A valuable highway with a costly surfacing and foundation is used for nothing more nor less than leaving cars upon it all day long. That is a most uneconomic use of the nation's money, whether it is considered as private or public money, that can be devised, and if the streets could be cleared we should save effort and money. Therefore think that the ultimate solution must be the provision of these garages above and below ground, whether by State money or by some other money.
In the meanwhile, I think the clause takes us one step further in endeavouring to regulate this matter. But regulated it must be, and I hope that the last proposal ever to be considered by the Government will be to put a restriction upon the use of private motor cars on the public roads: they are there for that purpose. I hope, still more, that if such regulations were to be made there would
344
not be exemptions in favour of very important persons. It would be a most invidious scheme and one difficult to administer. I therefore hope that the result of the debate on this clause will not be to give currency to that idea, but will be to give currency to the far more constructive idea of providing garages, whether by public money or otherwise; because until we provide these garages there is no solution of the problem and none of us will be able to move upon the highway.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am most grateful to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill for his statement that he did not believe this to be a wrecking Amendment. That was not in the least my intention; but, as the noble Earl has said, the Amendment does face the stark realities. At last the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and I find ourselves riding in the same motor car. The noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, has pinpointed again what I am trying to do here. He has said that the only solution is to find off-street parking, whether above the ground or under the ground. What I am afraid of is that the scheme expounded by the Government in this Bill will delay that solution rather than hasten it. However, we shall see.
I am not going to press this Amendment. What I am going to do is to ask the noble Earl whether he will consider again reviewing the proposals that were very much to the fore when I was in the Ministry of Transport. I have brought all the way from America a little present for the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk: it is information on how they do it. I am going to ask him if he will accept this present. There is an underground garage in Union Square, San Francisco, which holds 1.700 motor cars on the most up-to-date plan. It was built by private enterprise in face of all the difficulties of engineering that had to be overcome. There is a beautiful garden over it, and it has beautified the square. Yet the charge for the motorist, even in the heart of San Francisco, is less than the noble Earl's colleague in another place wants to charge the motorists of this country for standing their car alongside a parking meter. I am told by the proprietors of public companies that it is a money-making proposition. That is where you want to drive the motor cars to: private enterprise garages—I know

345
the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, will agree with me there—or any garages, rather than leave the cars on the road.
I withdraw this Amendment. I have pinpointed the matter. I have warned. And I am sure I have all your Lordships' support in saying that this scheme of parking meters will do what it has done in America. When I was in America I asked everybody I could whether the parking meter system solved the parking problem. They all laughed and said it collects a lot of money: and that is what this will do. With your Lordships' permission I will withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.33 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "to" to insert "and the amenities of". The noble Lord said: In the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. I ventured to draw attention to some of the further provisions which I thought would be required if the interests of the public were to be adequately safeguarded in the carrying out of this new experiment. I have here a series of Amendments, of which I am moving the first, to add some further matters to which the Minister shall have regard is determining what parking places are to be designated.
In the clause as it stands, there are only three matters to which his attention is directed. They have regard to the needs of traffic and to the requirements of motorists. The only allusion to the requirements of the owners or occupiers of the streets which may be involved is in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), in these words:
"the need for maintaining reasonable access to premises."
We all agree that that is very necessary. Speaking in the Second Reading debate, I ventured to point out that I was a little worried about what the Minister might have in mind in drafting these words when I looked at the terms of reference for a new parking survey which he recently set up, when he said:
"The overriding need for a coherert parking plan may well involve some degree of interference with existing doctrines in regard to access."
Those words, I think, are sufficiently alarming to make us wish to know what it is the Minister has in mind and what interference with existing doctrines he is
346
contemplating. But, however that may be, it is very necessary to add to the matters to which his attention is drawn before he designates these places. My first Amendment is to add the words, "and the amenities of" in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), which will then read:
"the need for maintaining reasonable access to and the amenities of premises."
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 32, after ("to") insert ("and the amenities of").—(Lord Conesford.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment help us by coupling with it Amendments Numbers 38 and 39? Would he agree that they all hang together?
LORD CONESFORD: I agree very much with the noble Lord. I think it is necessary to carry all three in order to make this clause at all complete, but I thought it would probably be for the convenience of the Committee that I should deal with them separately. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee and the Lord Chairman. I am prepared to take them together. I wondered which would be more convenient to the Committee.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It would save some of us from making three speeches.
LORD CONESFORD: If it is to the convenience of the Committee I am most happy to adopt the suggestion. I proceed at once to my Amendment No. 38, which I venture to read. It is to insert the following paragraph:
"(c) the extent to which the business, trade or profession carried on in premises abutting on, or adjacent to, the part of the highway proposed to be designated as a parking place will be injuriously affected or interfered with by the use of that part as a parking place, having regard to the nature of the business, trade or profession."
Whatever the conclusion the Minister may reach, I think noble Lords in every quarter of the Committee will agree that at any rate that is a matter which the Minister should consider. There are very important business, trade and professional interests in Central London and in the areas which will be affected, and it is essential that the needs of the business and professional community shall be considered. I think that is so obvious that I can scarcely believe it will be disputed.

347
My noble friend may well say that the Minister would not dream of putting these parking meters in, shall we say, Harley Street or Wimpole Street; but there is nothing in the Bill as it stands which would make that impossible. In any event, I submit to your Lordships that this is an eminently proper matter to which the Minister should have regard.
The third Amendment that I am proposing is No. 39 on the Marshalled List and it is to add the following paragraph:
"(d) the extent to which the value of premises adjacent to the part of the highway proposed to be designated as a parking place will be depreciated by the use of that part as a parking place."
I think it is quite right that the Minister should, in determining these areas, have regard to any depreciation of property which it will cause. I am well aware that, if all my Amendments are adopted, it will not guarantee that the result which we seek will be achieved. It will still depend entirely on the bona fides of the Minister in considering all these matters. But in general in this country we can rely on the bona fides of Ministers if we tell them what matters they shall have regard to. I therefore suggest these additions to the three points already mentioned in the clause. To add "amenities" in paragraph (b), which of course applies to all business premises, professional premises and private residences; to add the needs of the business, professional and trade communities by Amendment 38; and the provision for the Minister to consider in every case the depreciation to the value of property which may be involved in his proposals, are all reasonable proposals.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord because I think he has put his case very concisely and I do not think we need spend a lot of time upon this matter. I feel certain that the Minister is going to say that it will be among the matters to be dealt with in regulations which will be brought before your Lordships' House. There is undoubtedly much difficulty in this connection. The Minister will not be able to allow any parking of motor cars outside any business premises. What happens to-day is that one finds a line of cars down certain streets; then along comes a van belonging to a shop in that street and stops right in the
348
middle of the street to unload or load. There is a line of cars on each side of the street, and as a result the street is completely shut to traffic. Your Lordships can see that sort of thing in St. James's Street any day. Cars are allowed to park in these streets although those cars have no connection whatever with the premises outside which they stand. So the Government will not really be able to improve the situation with parking meters, because the use of meters will only have the result of doing what cars are doing to-day: that is, blocking access to and egress from the premises.
Of course the Government should prohibit free parking during certain hours in these main streets. In that case delivery vans would simply go along them. What it would mean is not parking meters in Bond Street or St. James's or Oxford Street, but complete prohibition of parking. Are you going to allow a man to stand his car outside a club or a shop in St. James's Street and charge him for parking in Berkeley Square? The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has hit upon one of the incongruities of the parking meters scheme. There is only one way of dealing with this problem and I hope that the noble Earl will see it. When parking meters are installed in certain areas, then in adjacent areas which are shopping streets or where there is private property there will have to be total prohibition against the leaving of any vehicle which has not some direct connection with the premises outside which it stands.
I hope that the noble Earl will give the assurances which Lord Conesford wants, because they are essential. We shall have to watch when regulations regarding these parking places are put before your Lordships' House. I have warned the noble Earl already; I have issued many warnings to him. He thinks that he has jumped over some hurdles in the Committee stage of this Bill, but he does not know what is corning to him when the regulations come up for consideration. If he can find a way round some of the problems which Lord Conesford has posed, he is a better man than I think exists in this country to-day.
LORD DERWENT: May I add a few words to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has just said on this particular question of the regulations

349
which will come before us? I think it is most important that these Amendments of Lord Conesford should be passed. We want to be in a position to say, if we think fit, to the Minister of the day: "You were told to take these matters into account and lay regulations before the House." I think it is vital that these Amendments should be passed. I hope that the noble Lord will press them very strongly if the noble Earl does not accept them.
LORD SILKIN: I find some difficulty about the cumulative effect of these three Amendments. I do not accuse the noble Lord of having moved these Amendments because he does not like parking meters, but in fact it strikes me that if the Minister had to take account not only of the things in the clause but of all these additional factors, and had to take account of them seriously, it would, as a result, be very difficult for him to find any place in the centre of London which he could designate. Of course, if the noble Lord wants to make life difficult for the Minister, perhaps I am with him and I might say: "Let us do it"; but, being a supporter of the experiment of parking meters, I think we ought to draw the line at making so many conditions as virtually to rule out everything.
There is another point. If you take this Amendment literally and have to take account of the depreciation of the value of a person's property, are you not to give him a right to make representations? If a person alleges that by reason of the designation of a particular place as a parking place his property has been depreciated, he must have a right to establish his case. There has to be set up the whole paraphernalia of a public inquiry or some method by which he can state that his property has been depreciated; otherwise how is the Minister to know? He can know only as the result of representations made. The same point applies to the question of amenity. Is the Minister himself to go along and see whether it can be suggested that the amenity is likely to be interfered with, and to decide it for himself; or is he to wait until representations are made by the owners or by outside people? All these are factors which will—whether the noble Lord desires it or not—rule out the possibility of making what I regard as a very valuable experiment.
LORD CONESFORD: May I say this to the noble Lord who has just spoken? There are provisions in the Third Schedule for nicking representations and, I think, for proper inquiries. As Lord Derwent has pointed out, unless some indication is given in this clause as to what the Minister shall have regard to, no guidance is given to him on what representations to note. The suggestion in the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat clown seems to be that the Minister should be entitled to disregard entirely all that I have set out in these Amendments—namely, the interests of the business community, interference with professional life and the depreciation of property. If these are not relevant matters for the Minister to consider then I think this experiment—which I also support as an experiment—will be far more dangerous than it need be.
LORD ELTON: The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Conesford and particularly the remarks about it just made by Lord Silkin seem to me to illustrate a fundamental moral problem which is continually facing us in these discussions of transport problems and which it is very easy to forget. The state of the roads presents us with such formidable problems that, in grappling with them, before we know where we are we find ourselves thinking of every citizen as a user of transport, and we forget that citizens have many other even more important activities. Some of us feel—for example, I think that many of your Lordships were feeling yesterday evening—that it might happen that when motor cycles indulge in scrambles over footpaths the rights of pedestrians or country lovers would be unduly invaded.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is reminding us, in effect, that in grappling with the transport problem we are forgetting that citizens are also property owners and, I would add, what is more important, dwellers in houses, because your Lordships are thinking in terms of London. I am thinking more of a provincial city, not of a place where you designate some parking area and everybody streams out into the country at six o'clock. Think, for example, of Oxford. Many of your Lordships were educated there and you may remember John Street, which leads out of Beaumont Street. That is not designated as a parking street, but it is used as a parking

351
place constantly. No doubt under this Bill it will be designated as such. It is not so much an invasion of the rights of property owners as an intolerable invasion in some respects of the amenities of the dwellers, because of the theatregoers who come into that street at eleven o'clock, "rev up" their engines and rush off, waking perhaps 90 per cent. of the occupants of the street. That is the sort of problem we are up against. It seems to me that it is so easy to forget that we are constantly invading the rights of the citizens to carry on activities even more important than that of getting from one place to another. So I hope that the Minister will be able to give attention to my noble friend's Amendment.
EARL HOWE: I do not know much about these things, and I should like to ask the Minister for information. Is there not a problem of access here? Is not a property owner entitled to get to his house or place of business; and, if he is, what is he to do if he finds a parking meter outside and a car standing by it, legalised under this Bill?
3.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has raised a number of important issues under this head which will certainly arise in the course of preparing a scheme. The only question which I think we need to ask ourselves is: what is the best way of dealing with it? The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the question of access. Of course, it is fundamental in all parking meter schemes that there must be reasonable assurance of access to premises. If the noble Earl will look at Clause 15 (2) (b), he will see that emphasis is placed on this point. One thing runs through all that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said—that the Minister will consider nothing at all except what appears under these heads of free movement, access and parking accommodation. The whole object of parking meters, if they are to be successful, is to improve traffic regulation, to improve the flow of traffic and to raise the value of business premises. They are intended to enable people to get to work more easily and to make better use of our roads. I am told that in some parts of London shops are already going to the outskirts because
352
people cannot get access to them. The improvement of access is germane to the whole proposal, and if the scheme does not achieve that object it will not be worth doing at all.
On the second Amendment the noble Lord said that it was so obvious that it could not be disputed. If the words are so obvious that they cannot be disputed, I think that they are hardly worth while putting into the Bill. If I thought that the insertion of the word "amenity" into the Bill would do something to improve amenity in our great cities, I should be only too delighted to do so, but I wonder whether, in these circumstances, amenity has quite the force it has in other circumstances. After all, almost all the places where parking meters will be installed will be places where cars already park to-day. That means to say that they will be places where parking meters will be entirely covered by the cars, except possibly on Sundays and in the evenings. It is a matter to which the Minister has already drawn attention.
EARL HOWE: Could the noble Earl explain this point? If parking meters are to be put where parking places are now, how will it improve the position in London?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am afraid that that is a red herring.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: A very good one.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is not a good one. The difference lies, first of all, in maintaining the flow of traffic. Instead of having a car sitting there the whole day, it will go there, take its place, so that the motorist can do his business, and go out again. Undoubtedy the success of the scheme depends on a much more rigid enforcement of the parking regulations outside parking meter areas. That is germane to the whole scheme. If there is a parking meter in one place, clearly the idea will be to keep the area outside it entirely free and without parking meters there; and in the immediate areas outside the parking meter areas, the parking regulations must be fully enforced. I think that that meets the point the noble Earl has in mind.
If I may return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, I wonder whether it is of such importance as to be

353
worth emphasising amenity here. The noble Lord is aware of the considerations which have to be taken under the Third Schedule. Everybody interested is going to have a thorough examination of the proposals which come forward. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has properly said, if we make things more difficult, it will make it impossible even to try this experiment. The third point the noble Lord raised was that of compensation for lost values. It would be an interesting task for a clever valuer to find whether the value of property rights have fallen or risen as the result of a parking meter scheme. Where it rises, there may well be a further question of planning and development charge. This is a difficult question to take into consideration, except in so far as it is the intention of the Bill to improve the whole business areas of our cities. If it does not do that, it is clearly not in the interests of business to do it. I have tried to answer the noble Lord's questions, but I think that his points are probably not best brought out by drawing them to the attention of the Minister at this place.
LORD CONESFORD: I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. I still press my Amendments to his attention, for this reason. I am well aware that what this clause says is that
"the matters to which the Minister shall have regard … shall include,"
and therefore the noble Earl is quite right in saying that the list is not necessarily exhaustive. But I know that he will realise—and if he does not his noble and learned friend on his right will point it out—the legal principle that if three specific considerations are named there is a danger of its being thought that a number of other things which are not mentioned are impliedly excluded.
I cannot think of a better example of the importance of the addition of the word "amenity" than that given by my noble friend Lord Elton. Take a beautiful street in what is, architecturally, the best part of Oxford. It is true, as my noble friend said in his reply, that if parking meters are put in that street it will be in a street which is at present being used for parking. But it is at present being used for parking only so long as the police do not remove the obstruction. There is always the hope among the inhabitants that one day the police might enforce the
354
law. But, if parking meters are to be in the street, then parking becomes legitimate and the amenities of that street are gone beyond recall. I have not gone so far as to try to limit the Minister as to what his conclusions must be on this matter, when he has taken these matters into consideration. I wonder whether the noble Earl who replied for the Government realises what a dangerous dilemma he is in and even his contradiction. He uttered these two propositions: first, that my Amendments were unnecessary—which seemed to imply that the Minister would have regard to these matters even if we did not put them in the Bill; and secondly, that, if they were put in the Bill, it would make the Minister's task impossible. Which does the noble Earl mean?—because these two arguments do not go very well in double harness.
As regards my second Amendment, about the interests of the professional and business community, I quite agree with the noble Earl that traffic movement may sometimes help them. But these parking meters, if erected in the wrong place, may actually injure them. Again, all I am asking is that the Minister shall take these matters into consideration. On my last point, about the depreciation of property, I am not seeking to give any remedy for depreciation of property if the properly is depreciated; but that make; it all the more important that the Minister should consider whether, in fact, property is being depreciated when there will be no remedy for such depreciation, if is suffered.
For those reasons, I suggest seriously to the Committee that all these Amendments have merit. They have been carefully considered, and they are not put down as wrecking Amendments. My noble friend, in replying for the Government, although he has disputed the necessity for the Amendments, has not, so far as I can see, given a single reason why their inclusion would be harmful, and I hope that, on reconsideration, he will agree to accept the Amendments.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Would the noble Lord accept an offer to discuss the matter between now and the Report stage? I would rather not accept one of the Amendments, and perhaps not the others. What I should like to do is to look through these three Amendments to see whether we can and something to meet the noble Lord's point. I do

355
not think it is as easy as he suggests, but none the less I shall be glad to try and meet him if I can.
LORD CONESFORD: My noble friend has made a most reasonable proposal, and I am happy to accept it. I hope that we shall come to an agreement, but if we cannot, I shall again bring the matter before the House on the Report stage. As I say, I am happy to accept the suggestion, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE: This Amendment raises the same point that I raised yesterday in relation to an Affirmative Resolution as against a Negative Resolution. I do not think there is any more to be said about the Amendment, and I shall not press it if the Committee do not wish to adopt it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 26, at end insert ("An order under this subsection shall not have effect unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament").—(Earl Howe.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Could we have from the noble Earl the same undertaking on this that we had on the other? The same point arises, and I feel that it should be an Affirmative Resolution.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is not quite the same, but I will gladly discuss the point. There are many more of these cases, and I should feel less willing to have an Affirmative Resolution where there are a large number of them. However, we can discuss the matter further.
EARL HOWE: As I said, I do not wish to press this Amendment, and I ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.6 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved to add to the clause:
"(9) An order made under this section shall be construed as authorising only the use in accordance with the provisions of the order of a highway as a parking place for vehicles and nothing in any such order or in any of the four next following sections shall be construed as authorising the disregard by any person of any other enactment or of any rule of law which is not inconsistent with such use."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to prevent an order under the clause leading to the disregard of all sorts of other rights. To give what may seem a rather fanciful example, a large number of cars may be parked in the parking place, and those inside the cars may arm themselves with musical instruments and start up as a band, to the inconvenience of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. That is perhaps an unlikely example, but there might be an attempt to trade from these parking places. There are all sorts of possibilities that I do not think we want to deal with by specific prohibitions. What we wish to ensure is that the effect of the Minister's action in choosing one of these places is to provide a place where parking meters can be used, but not to authorise the disregard of various other enactments or rules of law; and, in particular, that apart from what is involved in having this lawful parking place, the inhabitants should have their remedies under the law of nuisance, and so forth.
The Government may say that I have not got the wording of this new subsection quite right, or in the best form. It is roughly modelled on a precedent in Section 1 (9) of the Gas Act, 1948. The Government themselves have, on various occasions, provided that, while some invasion of rights is inevitably involved in achieving the object of the clause—in this case the making of the parking place—there should be some safeguard against granting a general licence to disregard other enactments and rules of law. I think that something on these lines is clearly desirable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Conesford.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining what his Amendment is intended to achieve, because I confess that it was not entirely clear to me in the first place. So far as the special examples which he gives are concerned, I think he will find that they are fully covered already by Clause 17 (8), which says:
"The Minister may by order make such incidental or consequential provision …
(a) for prohibiting or restricting the carrying on of trades or other activities, or the doing of any other thing, at the parking places."
However, the noble Lord probably has in mind a general picture of a broad

357
principle. If that is so, then I would ask him to say what exactly he feels could be done. We do not think there is anything which could be done under these clauses and which would not be allowed in any other circumstances. I find it difficult to say whether such a provision is necessary. If the noble Lord could give us details of cases that might infringe the point he has in mind, we should be glad to consider putting in a clause of that sort. But I think the special points he has in mind are fully covered. If there are others, perhaps he will be good enough to let us know what they are.
LORD CONESFORD: I take that as an invitation to discuss this matter further with my noble friend, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.10 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE had given notice of an Amendment to move to leave out Clause 15. The noble Earl said: The more I have heard of this discussion about parking places, the more unrealistic do I think it is. We are proposing to do something which is, to my mind, quite absurd. It is not going to solve the traffic problem of London, and everybody on the Front Bench, not only in this House but in another place as well, knows that. It seems to me fantastic that we should go to all the expense and trouble of providing parking meters and the like when we know perfectly well that it is not going to do the least bit of good. The recommendations of the Working Party and the London Traffic Advisory Committee have been completely disregarded. The responsibility must be entirely that of the Government and the Front Bench. We know perfectly well what is going to happen. It is another device for looting the motorist and making him pay a lot of money. Everybody is agreed that it will bring in some money. In fact, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill referred to the fact that quite a lot of money would be brought in. That is the Government's hope for dealing with the traffic problem of the future.
There is only one way to deal with these all-day parkers, whom we are told are the principal problem, and that is in the way that I have suggested. For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, may I say that I did not suggest
358
that motor cars should be prevented from coming into London. The noble Lord tried to say that I did. I never said anything of the sort. If he had given his, attention to what I said, he would have heard me say that the prohibition should apply to the central area of London, which is a different proposition—the City of London and the City of Westminster. I believe it was done by the police at the time of the Coronation, and I do not remember that his Lordship was very annoyed about it on that occasion.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: Does my noble friend wish to put a complete prohibition on motorists entering the City of Westminster and the City of London?
EARL HOWE: May I explain it again to the noble Lord, who apparently did not hear what I said before? There should be a pass which you could obtain from the police and which you could put on your windscreen. The condition of getting that pass would be that you had garage accommodation available to you in the central area of London. It would either be garage accommodation, previously booked, of course, the underground garage of some big business premises, or a private garage. If you could prove that you had garage accommodation available to you, then yeti would be allowed to go into the central area of London. But if you could not prove that you had that accommodation ready and available for you, you would have to stay outside the central area. That is all I said. I justified that by the fact that site values are so excessive in the central area that the erection of garage accommodation is almost impossible. You may be able to dig under a square at enormous cost, and probably spoil the square in doing so, but that is about all you could do in the central area. But outside the central area, the problem becomes easier; site values are not so excessive and may be available for erecting garage accommodation. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, will now understand what my proposal is. I am considering putting it down officially for the Report stage of the Bill.
With regard to this particular Amendment, I do not propose to move it at the present stage. I shall wait to hear what transpires as a result of the important discussions which are to take place between the noble Earl and the noble

359
Lord, Lord Conesford. The three Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, go to the heart of one aspect of the problem, and I think we should know the answer to that before pressing this Amendment to leave out the clause.
On Question, Whether Clause 15, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SILKIN: I wanted to say a word about the general question of parking in London. I think this is the right place at which to say a word or two on the general position. Her Majesty's Government are about to embark upon an experiment. I am all in favour of trying anything which may alleviate the problem, which we all accept is a grave problem, but I am bound to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I do not believe that this scheme in itself, or in combination with anything else that Her Majesty's Government may have in mind, will seriously affect the problem of parking. It is getting worse. London is becoming gradually strangulated, and it may well be that eventually the only solution will be to do something of the kind the noble Earl has in mind.
I should like to refer briefly to what are the possibilities. One is what is suggested in this Bill—designating certain places as parking places. Although the noble Earl has agreed to consider the various Amendments that have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—each one of which. I am bound to say, has merits—I still think that the cumulative effect of accepting all of them is bound to be to nullify the possibility of carrying out the experiment. Therefore, as regards the dilemma in which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, put the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I believe that the Amendments are serious Amendments and will have an effect, and are not just verbiage; but at their best they cannot have much effect. Not in this Bill, but in general, we have been talking about street widening, providing better facilities for cars, and so on. I have always taken the view that it is a two-edged sword. The more you improve transport facilities, the more you attract cars. At the present time there are still many cars which come to the suburbs and stay there and the drivers come in by public transport. If the roads were to be improved the cars would come right in. While I do not say that
360
that is a conclusive argument, I think it is a factor which has to be taken into account. Mere street widening at very great expense, and particularly in the centre of London, will not have all the advantages that are claimed for it. It will have certain disadvantages.
Moreover, if that is done and if cars are also prevented from coming into the centre of London—a course which is repugnant to most people; it may be a necessity but there is not a single noble Lord who would support it unless it were absolutely essential; it is repugnant to all of us—has the noble Earl faced the problem of the public transport that would be required and the availability of that public transport? To-day, the position of persons who have to travel by public transport is becoming almost intolerable. For the good of my soul, I sometimes stand in a queue at about six o'clock and try to get on a bus. I talk to some of the people who are waiting in the queue. Bus after bus arrives at Westminster full up, and one cannot get on. Some of the people who are standing in that queue tell me that day after day, every working day of their lives, they are liable to wait anything from half an hour to three-quarters of an hour before they can get on a bus.
If you are fortunate enough to live by the underground railway and can stand the physical strain, which I no longer can, of getting into a tube train at six o'clock, you may manage—provided you can get into a tube train at that hour. But to add the 100,000 (as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, says) people who come into the centre of London by car to the people who are already travelling by public transport would be to put our public transport to a strain which I think would be unbearable and might equally well tend to congest the streets of London. Instead of the cars congesting the streets, the buses would do so.
I do not suggest that that would be an entire loss: the cars that come into London take up much more space than public transport. But a problem which has to be faced is that of getting the necessary additional public transport, not only for those who are coming in but for those who are already suffering under present conditions. It seems to me that, looking at the problem broadly and not merely under this Bill, there is only one solution—perhaps I should not say "only

361
one solution"; it is one factor; a lot of factors may constitute a partial solution. One of the main factors that we shall have to consider is the possibility of reducing substantially the large number of people who come into the centre of London every day. It is stated that one million people come from outside London into London every day—the one Trillion commuters who work in the centre of London. They are, of course, the people who are causing the congestion. As the noble Earl says, 100,000 of them come by car and 900,000 come by public transport.
Ought we not, in conjunction with other methods, seriously to consider ways and means of making these journeys unnecessary by providing additional accommodation in the central areas of London itself? Of course, it is no part of the business of the Road Traffic Bill to consider that aspect, but I feel it is worth while asking whether, while we are thinking in terms of catering for the people who come in and are assuming that for all time one million people or thereabouts must come into the centre of London, is not one of the most effective ways of dealing with the problem to reduce substantially the number of people who have to come into London by enabling them to live close to their work, so that all this travelling will become unnecessary?
4.26 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: I should like to deal with one point raised by the noble Lord who has just sat down. He mentioned the probability that widening the streets in London would induce more cars to come into the centre of London. In fact, that has not been found to be so in New York. There, a very large number of cars are in fact being parked outside the city, the reason being that the parking restrictions are very much greater there than here. This Bill will, of course, make parking more restricted. For that reason alone, we may find that the parking outside London will increase.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I think it is clear from this discussion that there are two ways of approaching this problem. One is to approach it positively, with constructive proposals, such as for the provision of garages, and the other is to approach it negatively. I cannot help feeling that these suggestions, of which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has been
362
the chief sponsor, are full of the spirit of reaction. I cannot conceive in practice a scheme such as he describes operating to the general satisfaction of the public. I do not think that f misrepresent him. He says that he wishes to prevent people from coming into the centre of London, into the City of Westminster and into the City of London, unless they are provided with a special pass upon their motor cars. Such a scheme seems to me to imply the most invidious distinctions.
Who are the people who will get these passes? I suppose Ministers of the Crown will get them. They always get every advantage. I do not know whether noble Lords who are Members of this House will get them.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Oh, yes.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I do not know whether my noble friend has thought of that aspect of the problem. I do not know whether doctors or invalids will get them. Many people have weak hearts and suffer from other infirmities. Have they to go to a doctor every time they wish to bring their motor cars to the City of Westminster or the City of London? Are traders or Ambassadors to have them? Are visitors from the provinces to have them? Where are they to apply for their passes? It does not seem to me that a scheme of that kind is workable. I submit to your Lordships that it is conceived in entirely the wrong spirit. The duty of the State and of the local authorities is to provide highways for the public, and the most economical way is to provide highways through which clear passage can be made. If we are prepared to spend millions of pounds upon those highways, we ought to keep them clear aid provide garages, whether below or above the ground, and charge for the facilities which are there provided.
I think that the solution provided by these clauses is an interim solution and all that any Government could be expected to do Otherwise, nothing at all would be done. But, ultimately, the solution must be to undertake a really bold programme of construction. If it were a question of war, we should put up all the accommodation that might be required for the soldiers. This is an urgent national problem, and millions of pounds

363
are being wasted every day by the delays in traffic. Our nerves are being exacerbated and amenities are being denied, as my noble friend Lord Conesford has so well argued—and all because cars are blocking the road two and three deep. The only way to approach this problem is in a constructive spirit, and in a wholehearted determination to clear these roads once and for all, by providing off the-street garages, charging for their use and making their use compulsory. Then anybody who wishes can bring his car into the City of Westminster or into the City of London without let or hindrance, without any necessity of applying to my noble friend for a special permit.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not think it is necessary for me to say much in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has broadened this debate in an immense sphere, except simply to say that these are two-edged weapons. Not only would an enormous number of additional cars come in if they could, but the car population is, of course, rising quite rapidly—and we are all glad it is. But the solution, whether it be licensing, staggered hours or reducing the size of London, is one which is not readily and happily taken to by the public. The very modest proposals which we make in this Bill are not absolutely welcomed by certain Members of your Lordships' House. So that any movement of this character will, I am afraid, find difficulty in reaching a wide measure of popular support.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Amount of charges for parking and method of payment
16.—(1) The amount of the charge for a vehicle left in a parking place designated under this Act shall be calculated as follows.
(2) There shall be a prescribed standard period for each parking place, and subject as hereinafter provided the amount of the charge for a vehicle left in the parking place for a time not exceeding the standard period (hereinafter referred to as the "initial charge") shall be such amount (hereinafter referred to as the "standard amount") as may be prescribed and the initial charge shall be payable on the leaving of the vehicle in the parking place:
Provided that—

(a) if it is so prescribed, the initial charge for a vehicle left for a time not exceeding one half of the standard period shall be one half of the standard amount, and

364

(b) where the last foregoing paragraph has effect, and it is further so prescribed, then if before the end of the prescribed time a further payment of one half of the standard amount is made the two payments shall be treated as a single payment of an initial charge of the standard amount made on the leaving of the vehicle.

(3) If a vehicle is left in the parking place for longer than the period for which payment was made by the initial charge, the amount of the charge shall be the amount of the initial charge together with such additional amount (hereinafter referred to as the "excess charge") as may be prescribed, and the excess charge shall be payable in such manner and at such time as may he prescribed.
4.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2), to omit all words from the beginning down to the end of paragraph (a), and to insert:
"(2) There shall be a prescribed standard charge for each parking place, applicable to a prescribed standard period. At the end of the prescribed period, additional charges at the same standard rate shall be payable for each additional period, of the same length, or part thereof:
Provided that—
(a) if it is so prescribed, the charge for a vehicle left for a time not exceeding half any standard period shall be one half the standard charge, and"
The noble Viscount said: We come now to the details of any parking meter system which may be installed, and I have put down this Amendment—my other Amendments are consequential to it—in a protest against the Government scheme of excess charges, which are, I would submit, too complicated, undesirable and impracticable. I have put down this Amendment in the hope that it may provide a more simple and practical scheme. What I have in mind is, that there should be a standard charge at each particular parking place for a standard length of time which does not depend on the time which a car stands in that parking place. The driver of the car should pay into his meter the amount due—perhaps 2s. for two hours. If he wants to leave his car for a further two hours at the end of that time, he comes back and puts in another 2s., and so on.
This sum of 2s. could, of course, be varied, according, might I say, to the popularity of the area, so that the busier and more central districts would have a correspondingly higher charge. But the principle is the same—namely, that the motorist would keep the red flag

365
down on his meter. There would be no question of his getting into trouble at all unless he failed to pay his money and the red flag went up. If it did go up, there should be, I think, an excess charge of, say, one pound. Let me say at once that this would not be a spot fine, but would be payable in the same way as the Government excess charge scheme at present envisaged—in other words, the parking attendant would put a ticket on the windscreen to the effect that El was due to the local authority. Only if that £1 was not paid would an offence he committed and would the police have to step in.
I will compare that with the Government scheme. Under the Government scheme, the motorist can leave his car for two hours by paying in the money. If he leaves the car for a longer period than that he has to go to the time and trouble of paying his excess charge to the local authority, with the corresponding time and trouble at the receiving end. With my scheme all he has to do is to feed his meter. Admittedly, he may have to come back, or he can send back his agent to do so. I may point out that if he should take his car away, my scheme does not by any means rule out short-term park ing. In fact, there is just as much likelihood—or some, at any rate —that there will be space left under my scheme as there will be under any other. If Her Majesty's Government's scheme is brought into action I maintain that it will be open to abuse. It will not be at: all difficult for the motorist to come back and put more money in at the rate of a further initial charge and to keep the red flag down, and the excess charge would not then be payable because he would not be caught. It is true that he might go on doing this for a certain time and in the end be caught. But if the scheme is as easy to avoid as that, it cannot be anything but fairly ridiculous in the eyes of the people using it; and that, I maintain, should not be. My scheme, on the other hand, is at least more or less foolproof.
On the police side, Her Majesty's Government have a scheme by which if the car is left for more than four hours—I say four hours because that is the suggested period—an offence is committed. The policeman will not, in fact, have to stay beside the car and issue a summons
366
to the driver when he comes back. But, none the less, an offence is committed and it will have to be dealt with in court, which will require police time. Under my scheme no police work at all is required unless the £1 excess charge is not paid in, and that is the same as in the Government scheme. In other words, for my scheme there is simplicity for the motorist and very little work required. There will he no more work on the local authority side, to say the least. as all they would have to do would be to receive the £1 instead of a lot of excess charges for cars left for over two hours, as is the case under the Government scheme.
Against my scheme there is the argument of long-term parking. We have already heard this afternoon that it is contemplated that where a parking scheme with parking meters is in existence, it is intended that cars shall not be allowed to park anywhere else. If a car is parked at a parking meter, and there is no room anywhere else, then no cars can park haphazardly in the surrounding streets because they will not be allowed to do so. The very success of any parking meter scheme depends on this being so. Therefore, as the cars at parking meters will cause the same obstruction whether they are long-term parkers or short-term parkers, the whole matter comes clown to the fact that What we are considering is the convenience of the short-term parker, who will net be able so easily to get into the parking meter space. I wonder whether it is worth weighing the convenience of the short-term parker against the amount of police work involved in the Government scheme, and the time and trouble that that scheme will cause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 34, leave out lines 34 to 45 and insert the said new worts.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I believe that this is the first occasion upon which the noble Viscount has moved an Amendment on the Committee stage of any Bill in your Lordships' rouse. He made his maiden speech only a week or so ago. May I congratulate him on the way he put his points, and on his clarity and brevity. Perhaps some of us should follow his example more often. I only hope that the noble Viscount will

367
not fall into our bad ways when he is as old as we are.
I support the noble Viscount in this Amendment, and, to save time, perhaps I may speak also to the Amendments standing in my name and to the others which he has following. The gist of the present Amendment is that the only charge for parking, as registered by a parking meter, shall be the charge which the motorist can register, without any extraneous or excess charge. That is what I think the noble Viscount means by his Amendment. I support him because I have an Amendment following designed to leave out the excess charge. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would like to make the standard charge less than that suggested by the noble Viscount—I think it is a matter of about sixpence. What I am against is the excess charge proposals of the Government for any period over the standard period. I have heard it mentioned that there may be a charge for anything over two hours of 7s. 6d. for the next hour. Ten shillings has been mentioned. I say that is unfair—it is wrong; it is vicious.
It has been said that this has been suggested in order to let the price mechanism work. A shudder goes down my back when I hear that expression, because I know that the rich are going to gain and that the not so rich are going to suffer. Why should it be? Why should the little man, with his little motor car, who brings his wife to London to go to a theatre matinee or something like that, have to pay 7s. 6d. for the third hour of his parking, when 7s. 6d. is about half of what his entire day out is going to cost him? It is a vicious thing, and, as the noble Viscount has said, in very restrained language, it is open to all the corruption that the present parking system allows.
What happens? What will happen? Immediately we get away from the meter registration the human element comes in. There will have to be a car park attendant to put "stickers" on the windscreen, or to rush up and down the car park like a frightened rabbit, trying to collect 7s. 6d. from people who will put half a crown in his hand and drive the car away. That is what happens to-day. If you want to exceed the statutory limit in a car park you always come across
368
an accommodating car park attendant who will not note the time you put your car in the car park until he sees a policeman in sight. It happens every day in the week. This is what the Government will encourage by this provision. I support the noble Viscount's Amendment on two counts: first, because the Government's proposal is unfair, and secondly, because it is open to, and an incitement to, corruption, which it should not be. If an army of car park attendants are to be engaged to collect the excess fees, or to stick the notices on the windscreen, or give the drivers notice that their cars have been there an excess time, they will have to be employed whole-time. If that is done, why are parking meters needed at all? Why not let the car park attendants do the job? This seems to me to be an ill-thought-out scheme.
There is one other point, which I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, made very well. We are supposed to be saying that we want to relieve congestion by seeing that the longterm car parker is not allowed to remain. I maintain that one car in a parking place for eight hours will cause far less congestion than eight cars going out and in a parking place every hour, or one car every hour for eight hours. So there is nothing in that argument. I maintain that the proper course is to have one charge for an hour, if you like, if the meter can be so arranged; that the driver should put in another shilling, or whatever it is, for the next hour, and that that should be the limit of the charge. He should be able to keep on putting a shilling in, or whatever it may be, if he cares to come back every hour to do it. That would be the most simple thing. It would not require any policeman. It is not open to corruption, and it is fair. I do not believe the argument that, if an excess charge of 7s. 6d. is made for parking over two hours, it will be in the interests of the short-term parker. It will not. It will be in the interests of the very wealthy motorist who does not care what it costs to put his car on the parking places. And there are not so many wealthy motorists who can afford something like 7s. 6d. to park their cars.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I should like very much to support the noble Viscount in this Amendment. If he goes to a Division—I do not often take part

369
in a Division—I shall certainly support him. The noble Lord, Lord Bore-Belisha, said that in our approach to this Bill we were divided: those who are constructive and those who are obstructive. I am bound to say that I have heard in the speech of the noble Viscount who introduced this Amendment a short, clear and one of the most constructive speeches that I have heard on this Bill, either on Second Reading or in Committee.
This scheme is an experiment. Incidentally, I believe that what the noble Viscount is proposing is much more in line with American practice than what the Government are proposing. I have an open mind on whether the charge should be one shilling for an hour, and a shilling for another hour, and then a sudden jump to half-a-crown. That seems to me rather odd. If I take my car into a garage I pay something for leaving it there, and I should be rather surprised if I were given an increase on a quantity, so to speak—I should rather expect a reduction on a quantity. At any rate, it seems to me very arbitrary. If I have to visit my dentist and he takes rather a long time with what is left of my teeth, it seems a little unfair if, in addition, I have to pay an excess charge to park. But I must have a car, because I may not be so well when I come out. It does seem a little hard if, in addition to all the pain the dentist is going to inflict upon me, I have to suffer an excess charge. Indeed, if the dentist is held up by some old lady before I can get in to him, and he keeps me a long time, not only have I to pay a lot of money but I am likely to be arrested by the police and persecuted. That seems to me the height of absurdity.
I agree with Lord Lucas of Chilworth that the object of this scheme is to discourage people from long-term parking. But, of course, if there is only a "penny in the slot" charge, with parking only for an hour, I know exactly what is going to happen. Everybody will come in and say, "I must rush to the parking place", and we shall have a sort of "musical chairs" going on round every parking place in London while people are trying to get in. They will go on driving round and round, because they know that somebody will have to play "musical chairs" when the hour is up. People will be going "round and
370
round the mulberry bush" in the hope of getting into a vacant spot.
Why should the police have to prosecute? I have some little experience of America. I know that if I commit an offence of crossing the road against the lights when I am a pedestrian, or get out of the line in the driving of a motor car, a "cop" gongs me and I pay two dollars. If I argue about it, I pay five. It seems to me very sensible. The Bill proposes that if somebody has committed an offence, one of those synthetic offences manufactured by the Government under this Bill, then a policeman shall go round and haul him up in court and come and give evidence in court. We cannot get enough people into the police force, and those who are in the police force ought to be engaged in coping with gangsters and not in doing this fort of job. The noble Viscount has provided a perfectly simple way by which A notice is affixed to the windscreen of the car to make people pay, like the income tax, and if you do not pay then you are "had up." It seems to me that he has provided us with about three excellent things that can 'be done and three excellent arguments for doing them, and I shall most certainly support him it he presses this Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I entirely agree with the noble Earl who has just spoken. As the clause is drawn at present, it is an incitement to corruption. Moreover, the Government procedure, as drawn in the clause, for collection of excess charges will involve many practical difficulties. If the excess charge is to be 7s. 6d. or 10s., or anything like that, its effect will be penal. I would ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether he cannot look at this matter again. I cannot believe that the Government really want to have the scheme in the form in which it is at present drawn.
4.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on the clear and simple way in which he has moved this Amendment. Whether he has, in fact, been supported by noble friend Lord Swinton I do not know. Indeed, I doubt whether the noble Earl has read the Bill with very great care. One thing is clear: the Bill as drafted does

371
not include any of the terrible situations which the noble Earl so vividly portrayed to your Lordships. So far as I am aware, the procedure which we have adopted here is, in certain aspects, much nearer the procedure in America than that suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. With regard to the matter of meter-feeding, whether we want meter-feeding or whether we do not is a matter of principle. Meter-feeding means that a motorist can park his car by meter and then send out the office boy every hour or two to put in a coin; and the car can stay there for as long as eight hours, if he wishes. Americans have had a good deal of experience of this sort of thing and they have always regarded that as illegal. My advisers from the Department take the view that it would be a great mistake to introduce it into this country.
The noble Viscount's proposal, it seems to me, is twofold. First, as I understand it, it is that a motorist should be allowed to leave his car indefinitely at a car parking meter, provided that payments are continually fed into the meter. Secondly, in as far as I understand it, it is that he is guilty of a criminal offence as soon as the flag goes up and he over-stays a period without renewing payment. That is what I understand.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Will the noble Earl forgive me? That is not at all what I intended. I intended that, far from there being an offence or a "spot" fine if he over-stayed his period, the red flag should go up and he would then pay an excess charge, in exactly the same way as under the Government scheme, to the local authority. The police do not come into it at all unless the excess fee for which a ticket has to be put on the windscreen is not paid. There is no question of a "spot" fine.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: How does that differ from the Government proposal? The only difference I see is that, whereas we have suggested a rather smaller figure than £1, the noble Viscount wants a larger one. We maintain that when the period is exceeded the motorist should not immediately be guilty of a criminal offence. We think it would be most undesirable that people who do not pay the amount due for meter parking
372
should immediately come into the sphere where the criminal law applies. The Bill has avoided that by having an intermediate period and what is called an "excess charge." The police do not come into this scheme at all; it is run by the local authorities. One of the advantages is that it does not involve in any way the use of police personnel in looking after it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There must be someone who will be the equivalent of a car park attendant.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not know what the noble Lord would call "the equivalent of a car park attendant," but clearly an attendant could cover a much larger number of car parks with these meters than he can at the present time. And the scheme avoids the difficulty of bringing in the police or putting people into the law courts. I was slightly at a loss, on the second point which the noble Viscount emphasised, to see the difference between his scheme and the scheme which we have drawn up here. In regard to the first one, the indefinite feeding of meters, I think it would be wrong. I believe that the noble Lord has experience of British Columbia. Would he tell us whether they feed meters there, or is that illegal?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It is illegal.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is illegal, I understand, in nearly all places in North America. I think it would be wrong to accept feeding of meters as a normal way of using parking meters. I suggest that if the Committee wish to take a decision upon this, they can do so; but perhaps we might consider it.
With regard to the other point, I am slightly at a loss to understand the difference between the noble Viscount's suggestion and what is in the Bill. We have called it "excess charge" and the noble Lord suggests payment to the local authority—which is exactly the same as excess charge. It is only when the motorist fails to make payment, or stays beyond a certain length of time, that the criminal law comes into it.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I understood Lord Colville of Culross proposed continued charges at the standard rate.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: In regard to the same standard rate, it applied only

373
if the money was constantly fed into the parking meter. It is after the arm gees up and the attendant goes round and a ticket is put on to a car that a certain fee is due to the local authority. The noble Lord suggested £1. I would say substantially less. It is only on failure to pay that, and after staying at the parking meter for an additional period—it may be two or three hours—that any criminal charge will come in.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: With all due respect, the point is not quite that. Under the noble Earl's scheme, after a car has been there four hours, the police automatically come in, and the owner of any car left in a parking area more than four hours would be prosecuted in a court, with all the waste of time that that involves. Under my system there will be no question of magistrates' courts at all, unless the excess fee of £1, or whatever it might be, is not paid. There will he no police prosecution for leaving the car unless it is left for a very long period after the meter period had run out—not immediately after four hours. I do not know whether that makes the matter clear to the noble Earl.
Tim EARL OF SELKIRK: What happens if the car is left for 24 hours? I should have thought that the police must come in eventually, and take the car away if it has been there too long. The only difference, it seems to me, is that the noble Viscount would charge a much bigger fee when the arm goes up. He suggests that the car should remain for quite a long time—perhaps for four or five or six hours—and that no one should he able to say anything until it has remained for perhaps six hours. It strikes me as leaving slightly vague what is to be the position at the end of that time. We have left the matter uncertain because it will have to be covered by regulations. I cannot see that the police will not have to come in at some point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think we should like to take advantage of the noble Earl's suggestion that this matter might be considered further between now and the next stage of the Bill. It is clear to me that what the Committee are against is this excessive excess charge, which has been proposed to stop long-term parking. When you talk about "nickel-feeding" I should like to know what it means. I suggest that
374
all it really means is that the motorist goes on paying the standard ate for as long as he wants to keep the car at that particular place. I am not at all satisfied that that is such a criminal thing to do. If anyone wants to keep his car at a parking place hour after hour at 2s. an hour, or 1s. or 1s. 6d., or whatever it may be, it seems to me that he needs his head seen to. I should think that the only person who would leave a car over an excess period would be someone who had just stolen it and wanted to get rid of it. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, would not be agreeable to paying out time after time while he was seeing his dentist if it so happened that he was detained there far an unexpectedly long time.
We are against this excess charge. We are against the system where car parking attendants will have to be employed to collect the excess charge. We say that the first: is unfair and that the second is open to corruption. If the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, withdraws his Amendment. I am prepared not to move mine, which proposes to delete the subsection which imposes an excess charge, and to allow the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, to have another look at this provision. If not, I am afraid that we on this side would go into tie Division Lobby on any Amendment which sought to delete from this clause the evils of an excess charge and the personal collection of that charge by car park attendants for any time over that which the mechanical meter collects. If I dare advise the noble Viscount, I suggest that he should accept the noble Earl's offer to look at the whole problem.
Loma GIFFORD: What has impressed me during the last few minutes is this question of corruption. The noble Earl said that the money would be collected by the local authorities, but in fact it will be collected by the same car park attendants one sees in the streets to-day; and we all know what happens at car parks to-day—you give the man a good tip. But if meter-feeding is allowed, it will do away with any temptation to corruption. I do not think there is any other way of avoiding corruption except by this feeding method.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The present car park attendants are not paid any

375
thing. I think they would certainly have to be paid properly; then the possibility of corruption might not arise.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I express my gratitude to the noble Lords who have congratulated me, both for their encouragement and for their contributions to this Amendment? I am afraid that I am not altogether satisfied, but in view of the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the general feeling of the Committee, and with the proviso that, if satisfactory results are not reached before Report stage, I can put down a further Amendment or assist in one, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.3 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to add to subsection (2):
"(c) The standard period shall not be less than two hours and the standard amount shall not exceed one shilling."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is clear. Whether it is adopted on the Government figures or not, noble Lords will have gathered from the discussion on the previous Amendment what an exciting life we are going to have in London in the future. We are going to arrive at some parking place with our pockets full of money. We shall find it full and drive round once or twice, hoping to see somebody move off; but if they do not, what happens? Any one of us may have this happen to him if these infernal machines ever do come into operation. We are not allowed to stop and we cannot park because there is no room. What is going to happen? It will be lovely fun! I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, has gone. I cannot help feeling that he would have a solution for this—a constructive solution—but he is not here and we cannot do anything about it.
Is it really necessary to have the amount of 2s. proposed in the Bill? The Government are already taking over £400 million off motorists in taxation and giving them back the barest minimum of some £60 to £70 million, or whatever it is that the road programme involves; and every move in this Bill has been to make the motorist pay again and again for this and for that. My humble pro-
376
posal for solving the parking problem in London was not going to cost anybody anything, but we shall have to pay more for coming into the central area if anything like this scheme goes through. I consider that the sum laid down is too high. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 6, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I listened with interest to the noble Earl's racy speech, dealing with a variety of subjects except the Amendment. I should be glad to know the strength of his argument. He said that "the figures" are too high, and therefore I suppose that the figures in the Amendment are too high. I do not know. My own view would be that the figures he has put here are probably about right. I would ask the noble Earl not to press this Amendment, because it is too rigid to fix figures of this sort. There may be different figures and different circumstances. For instance, I understand that there are places where a lower figure is charged for a shorter period. In some places in America one can pay 5 cents for fifteen minutes outside a post office. I would much rather that the noble Earl did not press this Amendment and I am sure he will find himself in agreement for once with me when I say that our whole object is to see that the initial charge is low enough to encourage people to use parking meters as much as possible. I hope that he will take that assurance and withdraw his Amendment.
EARL HOWE: I could not bear to say "No" to such a heartbreaking appeal, and naturally I shall not press this Amendment at the present moment. But I ask the noble Earl whether between now and Report stage he will indicate in some way what the charge is going to be. I do not know what it will be after this discussion, because there is an Amendment by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and other noble Lords have spoken on the subject. Could the Minister let us know roughly what the fee is going to be, because it is of some importance? We are not all extremely wealthy people and we should like to know. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice of his intention to move to omit subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I will not move this Amendment because of the noble Earl's undertaking. I agree with him that there is this difficulty. I do not think we can expect him to come to the House with a whole scale of charges; that must be done by regulations. But I think that the Committee is really interested in laying down in the Bill the principle of the charges, More than ever are we against the introduction of excess charges that will be outside the meter collection. I feel that if the noble Earl works on these lines, he will have the support of the whole Committee—certainly of noble Lords on this side. I not move this Amendment, but leave it to the noble Earl to bring forward his proposals.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is not much more than redrafting. It extends the words of the Bill in regard to what one has to do when one puts a coin in the meter slot. In paragraph (b) it is presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the initial charge has been duly paid in cases where the flag has gone up. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 14, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"(4) If it is so provided in the order designating the parking place, there shall be apparatus of the prescribed description for indicating in the prescribed manner, as respects each space provided for the leaving of vehicles, whether the initial charge has been paid and whether the period for which payment was made by the initial charge has expired; and—

(a) payment of the initial charge shall be made by the insertion of coins in the apparatus and the doing of any other thing prescribed for the purpose of operating; the apparatus;

(b) subject to the next following paragraph, if at any time while a vehicle is left in the parking place the apparatus relating to the space in which it is left gives the prescribed indication, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the initial charge has been duly paid and that the period for which payment was made by the initial charge has already expired;

(c) if it is proved that the time for which the vehicle has been left in the parking place is less than the standard period, or, where paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (2) of this section has effect, less than half the standard period, paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not have effect but it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the initial charge has not been duly paid for the vehicle."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The only question I have to ask the noble Earl is this. If there is anything in this Amendment which cuts across what he is going to do when he comes to implement the undertaking he has already given to the Committee, I take it that he will have this new subsection amended. I am not certain whether he will not come up against paragraph (c) when he tries to meet the wishes of the Committee in regard to the Amendments we have just withdrawn. Perhaps he can give the Committee an assurance that if this new subsection cuts across that undertaking, he will have the Amendment which is now going into the Bill amended.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I readily give the noble Lord the assurance that if we amend the Bill we will see that the drafting is as good as it can be.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 43, after ("prescribed") insert ("and the doing of any other thing prescribed for the purpose of operating the apparatus").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This, too, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 45, leave out from ("been") to ("paid") and insert ("duly paid or not to have been duly").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE: The reason why I put: down my next Amendment to omit Clause 16 is that the excess charge of 7s. 6d. or 10s, that has been mentioned as the, amount the Government have in mind is, in my view, too high. The procedure required for the collection of the excess charge will produce the maximum amount of practical difficulty; and, moreover, if there is no off-street parking accommodation in the vicinity, the excess charge will be unreasonable. I. submit, again, that if a motorist goes to a parking place and is lucky enough to get in it is most unreasonable to demand 7s. 6d. or 10s, as an excess charge. This has all been, covered, to a certain extent, by the discussion on the previous clause, but I should be glad if this matter could receive

379
the consideration of the Government. All the time it means a steady imposition on the motor world, which is already paying too much in taxation to-day. I hope that the Government will be able to give this matter further consideration. I gather, from the discussion which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, had just now, that they will. In the circumstances, I do not propose to move the Amendment.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [General provisions for regulation of parking places]:
5 14 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is not much more than clarification to make it quite clear that in designating parking areas the Minister has power to keep clear the area immediately outside, which is obviously necessary, whether it be for unloading, or to allow the free movement of traffic. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 42, leave out from ("provision") to end of line 44 and insert ("for determining by or under the order the positions in which vehicles left in a parking place shall stand in, and the manner in which such vehicles shall be driven into or out of, the parking place, may prohibit or restrict the waiting in a parking place, whether in the said positions or elsewhere, of other vehicles, and may contain provision for determining as aforesaid the positions in which other vehicles permitted by the order to wait in the parking place, or to wait there for any purpose specified in the order, shall wait there.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL. OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is a little more than drafting, and I should like to explain its object. This concerns the case of the removal of a car from a parking meter area. As the Bill is drafted at the present time, it is possible to remove cars only if they overstay the period which they are entitled to stay. This rather widens the power of local authorities to remove cars. For instance, they may remove cars for any contravention of the provisions under the order—which contraventions may be such things as parking in a loading bay, or in some place where they are not entitled to park, such as in a position where they are across two meters, or something of that character. It does slightly widen
380
the power of local authorities to remove cars, and I thought I ought to draw the attention of your Lordships to that fact. However, it does not widen them a great deal, except in so far as it includes contraventions made under the regulations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 38, leave out from ("order") to ("and") in line 39.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We shall know more about this matter when we see the regulations. This is one of the peculiarities of this Bill. If there is obstruction of traffic by some wilful parking of a car where no waiting is allowed and where parking is prohibited, I am not against giving powers for the removal of that vehicle. I am prepared to allow this Amendment to go through, with the proviso that when I see the regulations which this is going to enforce I may change my mind. I do not think the noble Earl can expect me to say anything else.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Offences relating to parking places]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The next Amendment in my name concerns the same point that I was drawing to the attention of your Lordships before, and I do not wish to move this Amendment. All I want to say is that if I did not thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for his courtesy in saying that he would discuss the matter, I meant to, and I do so now.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): This Amendment is little more than drafting and is intended to cover the case where payment involves not only the insertion of coins in a meter but doing something else to make the meter, or any other apparatus used at a parking place, start working, such as pulling or turning a handle. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 12, leave out ("to pay when it is due") and insert ("duly to pay").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 34, after ("been") insert ("duly").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is little more than drafting. It is a neat little legal point. What it amounts to is that if a person finds himself under this clause being proceeded against for failing to pay an excess charge, and it is not proved that the excess charge has become due, but it is proved that the initial charge has not been paid, then he can be convicted of an offence for failing to pay the initial charge. It is a little subtle, I am afraid, but I think it is necessary to have it that way. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 40, at end insert ("(5) Where in arty proceedings for an offence under this section of failing to pay art excess charge it is not proved that the excess charge had become due, but is proved that the initial charge has not been paid, the defendant may be convicted of an offence under this section of failing to pay the initial charge.").—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Had not the noble Lord better withdraw his Amendment to see how his noble friend gets on about the excess charge? This is all to do with the excess charge. If there is going to be no excess charge in the if I sense the feeling of the Committee correctly, there will not he—then this will not be necessary.
LORD MANCROFT: I grasped this point, and I am not at all surprised to hear the noble Lord make it. If it is all the same to him, I would rather leave it so that any Amendment can come the other way round. This does not go quite to the principle in the same way as the other Amendments; it is a procedural point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: As the noble Lord enjoys a reputation for honesty in this House I am prepared to trust him on this. I know he will take care to see that if this excess charge is removed from this Bill, this provision also will be removed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Parking places: financial provisions]:
LORD MANCROFT: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 18, leave out ("payments made out of") and insert ("amounts charged to").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 33, at end insert ("and the Common Council of the City of London").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This and the subsequent Amendment are both drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 35, after ("references") insert ("respectively").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 35, at end insert ("and the general rate of the City").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to leave out Clause 19. The noble Earl said: Apparently the whole of this clause makes provision for the financial arrangements for providing parking places. Could the noble Lord say what the policy of Her Majesty's Government is going to be with regard to providing parking places? We have had many allusions to it during the course of the debate. What are you going to do with regard to the central area of London and the provision of parking places? Are you going to have it alone and do nothing, or are you going to do what the Working Party and the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee said you should do? I think we might be told what is going to happen and what policy the Government are going to adopt about this matter. It might help many of us who are doubtful about the provisions of this Bill or are even opposed to it, as I am. I hope the noble Lord can give some information, if not on this particular Ante Raiment, then on a succeeding one. If the policy of the Government with regard to providing garage accommodation and parking

383
places generally in the central area could be explained, it would be welcomed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 19.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD MANCROFT: I am grateful to my noble friend for having explained why he wants to leave out this clause. I was a little uncertain, from reading the Bill, what it was in this clause which was worrying him. Now that I see that it is the general matter of the whole policy of providing parking places, I am in a slightly easier position. Without giving the matter a little more thought, I do not think I could give a final answer. But, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk and I have more than once pointed out, the principal purpose of collecting this money by local authorities through parking meters is to encourage the authorities themselves to use that money for providing the extra parking facilities which the noble Earl so rightly wants. That we hope will be done. But there must be a communal effort as well. It is not just the building of garages or the providing of parking facilities by local authorities which will solve the problem; private enterprise must play its part, and I believe that at the moment there are in fact garages being built by private enterprise in the centre of London. I will look again at what the noble Earl has said and see whether there is any more information I can give him, other than those three general observations. That is the policy we have elaborated at different stages of this Bill.
EARL HOWE: Did I understand the noble Lord to say that garage accommodation is being erected in the central area of London—in the City of London and the City of Westminster?
LORD MANCROFT: If my memory serves me aright, a garage is being built near Selfridge's. I think that is being done by private enterprise.
EARL HOWE: That is not in the City of Westminster.
LORD MANCROFT: It is in the central area.
EARL HOWE: That is different.
LORD DERWENT: Before we decide what to do about this Amendment. may I
384
ask whether it is a general policy of the Government—never mind how vaguely they reply, so long as the noble Earl gets some reply—that at some future date financial help will be given by Her Majesty's Government to local authorities and/or private enterprise?
LORD MANCROFT: That is going further than the noble Earl's question goes. I think we ought to stick to the immediate point in this Bill, which is that the financial arrangements will come from the local authorities in the first place.
LORD DERWENT: In fact, is it the case as regards this clause that there is no Government policy?
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord has no right whatever to say that. There is a perfectly clear Government policy which was expressed by my noble friend on Second Reading, and which is tied up with the matter of parking meters which we are now discussing. It is that the money shall be put at the disposal of local authorities so that they may provide more permanent parking facilities.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I emphasise the importance of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, from the point of view of London? So far as London is concerned—and, of course, the problem in Central London is a matter causing great anxiety to all of us—the local authorities are perfectly clear that these multi-storey garages, which are obviously required, cannot be run without financial assistance from the Government. That is a matter which deserves serious consideration (I am not asking for an answer to that question now) on the part of the Government.
LORD MANCROFT: I quite appreciate that point. If I remember aright, the noble Earl and I had discussions about it on a stage of the previous Bill. I am well aware of the point; but if the noble Earl does not mind I should not like to get involved in a detailed discussion about financing multi-storey garages—a very complex matter. As a Londoner, living in the central area all my life, I am fully conversant with the parking problem there and I can assure the noble Earl that I will bear it closely in mind.
EARL HOWE: When we come to the next stage of the Bill, will the noble Lord or the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, be in

385
a position to make a full and comprehensive statement as to exactly what is the intention of the Government with regard to garages, with special reference to the central area of London? I agree that the problem is just as bad in many of our other big cities, but the problem of London is a vital one, and how it is to be dealt with I have simply no idea, I am perfectly certain that what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said just now is absolutely right, and that nothing effective will be done unless the Government are prepared to give assistance to the erection of garage accommodation in the central area of London. That is the chief problem, and the chief reason for the whole of this Bill. I will put down an Amendment on the Report stage of the Bill—or anybody else can do so—if the noble Lord will be prepared to make a considered statement. If he will tell me that he can do that, I shall be quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT: I am, of course, quite prepared to do anything I can to help the noble Earl on this point. I am not laying down an authoritative exposition of the whole of the Government's garage policy. Again, I may say we are discussing here an Amendment to leave out Clause 19. My difficulty was that I had to guess in advance what aspects of the problem the noble Earl wished to raise. I imagined that he wished to discuss the proceeds of parking meters and their relationship to local government expenditure. I hope I have given the noble Earl a clear answer on that point. He has now ranged over a much wider field, and I will certainly do anything I can to make the Government's policy as clear as possible at the right stage. I will discuss this matter with my noble friend Lord Selkirk and see in what particular we can oblige the noble Earl.
EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Lord. Having regard to that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
5.31 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, after Clause 20 to insert the following new clause:
Charges for parking vehicles in Royal Parks
"21. Regulations under section two of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1926, may
386
make provision for imposing and recovering charges for the leaving of vehicles, or vehicles of any class or description, in any park to which that Act applies; and regulations made by virtue of this section may make, as respects charges and penalties recoverable under the regulations, provision corresponding with the provisions of subsection (3) of section eighteen of this Act:"
The noble Lord said: We now move to a slightly different matter. As your Lordships know, two years ago the Government took power to allow parking in the Royal Parks. The effect is perfectly obvious to anyone who drives through a Royal Park. It was a controversial decision at the time and caused some misgivings, but I am afraid that most people came to the conclusion that it was inevitable. What this new Amendment seeks to do is to give the Government power, if needs be, to charge for parking in the Royal Parks. At the moment, parking is free. I do not see any reason why the Government should not have the right to charge, if circumstances require. I wish to add that there is no intention at the moment to put up parking meters in the Royal Parks or to change any of the present regulations, or to extend the areas in which parking is permitted. For the benefit of noble Lords who are worried on this particular point, I may add that the authority given by the new clause can be exercised only by the making of regulations under the Parks Regulation Act by my right honourable friend the Minister of Works. Those regulations must lie before Parliament for forty days and can be challenged during that period. I think that that safeguard is obviously necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 20, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Of course, the first question that the noble Lord will expect me to ask is: Who receives the plunder?
LORD MANCROFT: The Minister of Works.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Why?
LORD MANCROFT: Why not?
LORD LUCAS OF CHELWORTH: I thought the object of charging for parking was to swell the coffers of the local authorities so that they could build

387
garages. For what purpose is this charge being made—to increase the amenities of the Royal Parks?
LORD MANCROFT: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think the amenities of the Royal Parks are very well looked after now. Where do the funds come from now? Do they need augmenting? Why should they be augmented in this way?
LORD MANCROFT: Why not?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Why? I am not proposing to augment them and surely the onus of proof that this charge is just and proper falls upon the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment, and not upon me. Will the noble Lord please tell us why this money is being charged when right the way through this Bill the principle on which the Government seek powers to impose charges for parking on the public highway is to enable off-street parking facilities to be brought about? That may be a vain hope, but that is the principle of the Bill. For the purpose of parking cars on the roads in the parks, roads are highways. They are subject to normal traffic control. They have speed limits. I can only assume—I do not know; perhaps the noble Lord can tell me—that they are maintained out of the public purse. Why, then, should this charge be made if the charge is not going into precisely the same fund as the charge made for parking on any highway under this Bill? That is the first question I should like to ask the noble Lord. If the parking meter system is so good, why are you not going to have it in the Royal Parks? I am not going to pretend that it would increase the amenity of the parks in any way, but neither will the parking meter increase the amenity of a lot of our London streets. Would the noble Lord answer those two questions before the House gives its consent to this proposal?
LORD MANCROFT: As I began by telling the noble Lord, this is quite a different matter. I will point out again that it is divorced from the questions we have been discussing. It is incidental, because the Royal Parks, as we all know, are a law unto themselves. The revenue collected would go to the Appropriations in Aid of the Ministry's Vote—that is, the Ministry of Works' Vote—for the
388
Royal Parks, from which the cost of the upkeep of the Parks, including the Park roads, is met. It is quite a different matter. Let me emphasise, in case the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, did not fully understand me, that it is not intended to do this now. The Minister is merely taking the power, which he has not got, to charge in the future if he wants to. There is no question of setting up parking meters at the moment, quite apart from the point of view of amenities. A charge could be easily collected without setting up parking meters, which would not be at all appropriate to the Royal Parks, so far as I can see. I beg the noble Lord not to try to associate this subject with the previous argument. It is quite a separate matter. It is purely permissive, with Parliament permitting a power to be taken which might well one day be advantageous to all concerned, particularly to the users of the Parks.
EARL HOWE: It seems to me, from what the Minister has said, that this is a minor experiment of a toll road. You are going to charge a certain sum of money for the upkeep of the roads in the Royal Parks. It is really the same principle as a toll road. I do not necessarily object to the toll road, but I feel that there is a good deal in what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the subject. There is another aspect. Fortunately, you are not going to have parking meters in the Royal Parks, but if you were there would be the question of the supervision of parking meters there at night. It would just be wonderful if you were able to solve it. I am certain that you would find that it would give rise to a whole new industry in the Metropolitan Police Area. I hope that this matter will be considered. What is the motorist who leaves his car there going to get for it? You are going to ask him to pay 6d. or a ls., or whatever the sum is. What is he going to get out of it in the long run beyond a minute proportion of a reduction of Government taxation—income tax or whatever it is? I appreciate that this is only a contingent power that the Minister is seeking, but, at the same time, such experience as we have had through the years teaches us how dangerous it is when Ministers get power to do these things. They are apt to go ahead with it and we find that in the

389
long run we have gone a great deal further than the Minister ever contemplated when the power was first introduced.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I want to help the noble Lord; but, when he says "We do not intend to do it, but we want power to do it if we want to", what crimes have been committed in legislation under that excuse! All Departments of State want to accumulate all the power they can in case at some future date they may want to use it; and, when they have it, invariably they use it. I would contest this, and the only thing that really makes me give way is my kindness of heart. The noble Lord has been obliging to me; he accepted the only Amendment I have got through, so I should like to give a quid pro quo. Do I understand that these charges cannot be imposed without agreement to a regulation?
LORD MANCROFT: That is so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: So that I can at least give way; but the House wants to contest this charge it can do so at some future date. I do not like giving way. I think: that this is one of those sneaky little things that are brought into a Bill. Now is the opportunity, I suppose, as we shall not have another Road Traffic Bill for another twenty years—I hope to goodness we never get one like this in my lifetime—to put this further imposition upon the motor owner in this country, and we had better let you have the opportunity. But I tell the noble Lord that he will have far more difficulty in getting through his regulation than he has this clause.
LORD MANCROFT: I am slightly grateful to the noble Lord for his rather queer response—his allegation that we are taking powers of a sneaky kind that we do not really need and which will lead to great evil and much iniquity. At some late hour last night he was tryin2, to obtain power for the policeman on traffic duty which I assured him we did not want. I cannot help thinking that that has slipped his memory. But he is quite right that these powers that we are seeking under this Bill cannot be put into effect without Parliamentary approval. I should like to remind the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as we have reminded him often
390
previously, that the highway is not automatically the correct place to park vehicles. Some people seem to regard themselves as having an inalienable right to put their cars on the highway. They may realise from this proposal (if it ever conies into effect) that they have no such right; and the finance that will come from the no doubt modest fee which will be levied will obviously go towards a good cause in the parks that they use and enjoy.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.43 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 20, to insert the following new clause:
Extension of powers to make advances for certain purposes
("The powers of the Minister under section seventeen of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, to make advances for certain purposes shall include a power to make advances for the provision of parking places by a local authority under section 63 of the Public Health Act, 1925, as extended by section sixteen of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, and for the purposes of this section the expression 'local authority' shall include county councils.")
The noble Lord said: Here I try to follow what I consider to be the general tenor of the discussion in your Lordships' House this afternoon about providing for off-street parking. I think the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said that ultimately that must be the aim. That is right. It has been truly said that you cannot run a railway service unless you have sidings. Without sidings a railway would be unworkable. And you cannot run roads without sidings; you must have off-street parking for vehicles when they want to get off the main line—or for that matter any other line. Under Section 17 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, the Minister has powers to make advances for certain purposes. I agree with the noble Lord that the provision of parking places is a duty of the local authority which they have neglected for years and years. Every local authority that I know has neglected it, and the Government, foolishly in my view, say that they will not give the local authorities loans at the present time because it might be thought to be favouring the motorist. It would be nothing of the kind. It would stimulate the local authority to do their duty by their shopkeeper ratepayers, a duty they have neglected for years and years.

391
Some day the more enlightened local authorities will come to the conclusion that unless they provide car parks for the incoming potential customer—it is only by the influx of good money into a town that the local shopkeeper can pay the present much enhanced rates—they will not prosper. The only towns in the future that will prosper will be those who provide these facilities.
The same applies, I believe, in regard to the branches of big stores. In every town one goes to in America, even the small town, the big store includes as one of its first projects the provision of a big car park, because everybody, even the domestic servant, goes to shop in a motor car. I want the county councils to have this power. Under the present legislation the county council does not benefit. Amendment No. 59 and Amendment No. 60 are designed to extend the power to make advances to the county council, and also to extend the power to the county council to provide parking places. These Amendments must be old friends to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: They are.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: They are very old friends and I felt sure that they would be recognised. They were put down in regard to the 1954 Bill, and I think it is appropriate that they should be put down in regard to this Bill. Whether or not the Treasury are going to loosen their purse-strings to provide the money is neither here nor there for the purposes of this Amendment: in other words, if they ever do, the county councils should have the right to benefit and should have the right to provide car parks, if they are necessary, on roads in regard to which they are the highway authority. I have dealt with the two Amendments together and I hope that the noble Earl will accept both of them. I now beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 20 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is the Amendment which was moved last time by the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, and I am afraid I have absolutely nothing to add to what I said on that occasion.
392
I appreciate the point that the noble Lord has made, but we regard this as essentially a local responsibility. In principle, I do not see that, as such, it should be taken as a national responsibility. I would emphasise that this Bill gives a source from which funds can be drawn for the provision of off-street parking, and to accept this Amendment, which the noble Lord puts in a most disarming way—he says that the Government are taking only powers and that it involves no finance—would, I am afraid, be quite wrong on the part of the Government, because at the present time they have no intention whatsoever of using such powers. I am sorry, but. much as I should like to think that the important purpose which the noble Lord has in mind is one about which I could help him, I am afraid that it would be quite illusory to suggest that there is any chance of that happening at the present time. I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. I feel seriously that it is not fair to say that the Treasury has always got the money. The suggestion behind the Amendment is that this is a matter upon which the Treasury can easily be approached. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment.
EARL ATTLEE: Might I ask the noble Earl this question? He says that this is purely a local charge. Suppose that cars are coming into London and the drivers think it right not to come to the central area but proceed to leave their cars in the area of local authorities outside the main area. Why is that a local charge? Surely the noble Lord is rather out of date in this regard. So often we have had the idea that "the poor" and everything else is a local charge. In a transport matter it cannot be a local charge.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think the noble Earl would agree that in the majority of cases the cars which would use a local car park belong to the people engaged in local business, or to people engaged in local shopping. It is the shopkeepers and the business people of the area who are interested in the car parks. If the noble Earl had taken the argument a step further I should have been inclined to agree with him, in this sense. If he had said that in certain cases

393
the provision of car parks would ensure that through-traffic would have a better chance of getting through, I could see readily that there would then be a stronger case for saying that car parks are not a local business. But I feel, with respect, that they are a matter for the people in the area, the business and commercial people; and that is why I suggest it is wise to regard them as such. To-day we are very willing, and sometimes too willing, to take from local authorities powers which they should properly hold.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Earl does himself less than justice with that argument. Has he forgotten that the Treasury, via the Ministry of Transport, pay 100 per cent. out of the National Exchequer for the construction of trunk roads; that for class A roads they contribute 75 per cent.; for class II roads, 60 per cent., for class III roads, 50 per cent.? What is the difference between paying out of national funds a percentage of the cost of making roads and paying the same percentage towards the cost of a car park to prevent congestion on the roads for the construction of which they have just made a 75 per cent. or 60 per cent. grant? What is the difference? Accepting the noble Earl's argument, it would be the duty of the county council or any other local authority to build and maintain all the roads of this country. That is the noble Earl's argument—that it should licit be paid out of the national Exchequer.
I opened my remarks by saying—it has been said by a well-known authority—that you cannot run railways without sidings. You cannot run a network of roads without off-road parking. Is not one the natural corollary of the other? The reason why we have so much congestion on the roads is because the Government have ignored that first principle. Why do the Government say that the lay-by shall be paid for in the same proportion as the road? What is the difference? A lay-by is a one-vehicle park or a two-vehicle park. What is the difference, in principle, between a two-vehicle park and a twenty-two vehicle park? Why does the State pay 75 per cent., 60 per cent., 50 per cent. or 100 per cert. of the construction of the lay-by?
The noble Earl thought he was going to "get away with" this argument. He
394
really cannot, because it is not true. Therefore I do ask him to realise that the only up-to-date method of road construction in the future for these roads—which we hope are not merely a pipe dream, but something we shall see all over the country—is to see that they have, at certain strategic points, off-the-road parking. One of the secrets of good road control is never to let a vehicle come to a standstill on the highway. Who is going to pay for parks? If these car parks are to be provided on the new main road from London to Birmingham, is every local authority to pay for the off-highway parks or will they come within the total cost of the road?
Really the noble Earl has not a leg to stand on on this matter. I hope he will accept the Amendment. I do not want him at the present time to undertake to give all this money. But, after all, the noble Earl must realise that the people who use these roads are paying £400 million a year, which is not an insignificant sum of money. Some of it is now to be used for the building of these roads. No road of the future will be a proper highway until it has these facilities. Do your Lordships not think I have convinced the noble Earl of the justice of my case?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not propose to say much more, but I have, in fact, made the point on which the noble Lord sought to base his argument. Of course through-traffic is not a local problem. That is the basis of large trunk road running, class I road running, class II road running; and the percentage of the grant is supposed to represent, very roughly, what 'is through-traffic and what is not through-traffic. Lay-bys are there for through-traffic, but nearly all these off-street car parks will be in towns, and will be used by people who are going there to buy or sell or work. That is why we consider it a local matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I would remind the noble Earl that this clause is only permissive: it is a permissive power. Where occasion arises I say that the cost of these parks should come out of public funds. That is all I am asking. I am not asking the State to pay for every car park which any local authority throughout the length and breadth of the country wants to put up. I think that if I divided the Committee at the present time the Government would lose on this—I am certain they would.

395
But if the noble Earl will give me an assurance that he will discuss this matter with his colleague—this is not a lighthearted Amendment—between now and the next stage, to see whether my arguments will impress them a little more than they impress him, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment.
EARL HOWE: Before the Amendment is withdrawn may I just say this? Take the central area of London again. Is that purely a local problem? What about all the Government offices and the vehicles of hundreds of Government employees that come into work every day? Surely that is not a local problem? Perhaps the noble Earl would give that point his attention for a moment. It seems to me that the population of Government offices is in no way a local problem. The Government put their offices up all over the central area of London. It seems to me that is a responsibility that should be shared by the country.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would just say this. First of all, the drafting of the new clause is bad secondly it involves a Money Resolution; thirdly, whilst I should be very happy to discuss it, I really cannot hold out any hope that we can do anything.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In that case I think there is only one thing, we can do and that is test the feeling of the Committee on a matter of great principle. In view of the very fair way in which my noble friend has approached this matter on an important question. I think all we can do is divide.
6.0 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether the noble Viscount realised what my noble friend said about the Money Resolution. There is that difficulty with the Bill. We are dealing with it coming from the Commons, and the effect of the new clause would be to authorise expenditure out of public funds
towards the provision of off-street parking places. This is outside the terms of the Money Resolution passed in the House of Commons for the purposes of the Bill. It would be unusual for us to do it. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has raised an important point of principle, but not a point that can easily be dealt with at this stage. We shall all be glad to consider it. Her Majesty's Government, as my noble friend has said, have treated parking as a local matter. I think the important point which Lord Lucas of Chilworth has raised is whether it ought to be a local matter. That raises the other aspect, which I am sure the noble Lord has in mind, that relevant matters for consideration might well be different in some provincial centres from what they are in London. These are [natters of great interest, and I think they might well be taken up as a general point. But I do not want noble Lords to divide the House on a kind of point upon which they do not usually divide it, a point which involves amendment of a Financial Resolution in another place. I do not mind if they do divide the House, but I want to be clear that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, understands the situation the Bill is in.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I understand fully. It would not be the first occasion on which Members of your Lordships' House, in order to press a point of great principle, have divided the House, leaving it to the other place to agree or not. Of course, we know that the final word lies with Her Majesty's Commons. In view of the quite rigid attitude which the Government have adopted when the matter has been put so reasonably by my noble friend, we feel that all we can do is to show our complete disagreement with the Government by dividing the Committee.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—
Contents 12: Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Crook. L. [Teller.]

Kershaw, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Derwent, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Hall, V.

Hampton, L.

Silkin, L.

Waleran, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Goschen, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.[Teller.]

Hailsham, V.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Margesson, V.

Gifford, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Monsell, V.

Gridley, L.

Templewood, V.

Hawke, L.

Albemarle, E.

Hore-Belisha, L.

Gosford, E.

Aberdare, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Howe,E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Lloyd, L.

Morley, E.

Barnby, L.

Luke, L.

Munster, E.

Bennett of Edgbaston, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Selborne, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Monson, L.

Selkirk, E.

Conesford, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Swinton, E).

Craigmyle, L.

Salter, L.

Denham L.

Sandford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Dovercourt, L.

Strang, L.

Colville, of Culross, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Teviot, L.

Falmouth, V.

Elton, L.

Teynham, L.

Furness, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 21:
Penalties and disqualifications.
21.—(1) The following provisions, shall have effect as respects penalties and disqualifications which a person is liable to incur on a conviction for an offence under section eleven (reckless or dangerous driving), section twelve (careless driving) or section fifteen (driving under the influence of drink or a drug) of the Act of 1930 in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle, that is to say:—
(a) a fine imposed on summary conviction for a first offence under the said section eleven may be of an amount not exceeding one hundred pounds and may be imposed in addition to any imprisonment awarded by the court; and any imprisonment awarded on summary conviction for a second subsequent offence under that section may be for a term not exceeding six months;
6.12 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "pounds," to insert:
"and shall not be less than fifty pounds except for special reasons which may be special to the facts of the case or to the circumstances of the offender."
The noble Lord said: I do not know whether it is in order to refer to the recent Division, but all I can do is to remind your Lordships that according to Biblical history—at least I was so taught—twelve good men, perhaps, laid the foundations of a lot of good work. We have now finished that part of the Bill which deals with the controversial issues of vehicle inspection, and we come to the important part of the Bill which deals with penalties for offences against the traffic laws. With your Lordships' permission, I should like
398
to deal with Amendments 61, 63, 64 and 65, which run together. I have always held the view, ever since I can remember, that one fundamental principle governs our social life—that is, that as a people we believe that punishment is a deterrent to wrong doing. If that is so, and I believe it to be true, then that punishment should really be a deterrent. But all the evidence that is available on the question of road accidents and the punishments which Parliament in its wisdom degrees shall be inflicted, has not proved that these punishments are a deterrent. Unfortunately, the number of accidents increases.
Through the courtesy of the Ministry of Transport, I have here the latest figures for road accidents, and they are appalling, This year there is a substantial increase in the number of people killed on the roads. The total for five months from January to May is 2,001, as against 1,841 for the corresponding period last year. The number of seriously injured has gone up from 20,996 to 22,601. The number of slightly injured has gone up from 67,919 to 74,424. So that the total has gone up from 90,756 to 99,026—or 10 per cent. We cannot look at these figures without an added sense of responsibility. When at the Ministry of Transport, it was one of my duties to act as Chairman of the National Road Safety Committee, and the problem confronting us all the time was how we could make the punishment fit the crime. I believe that the failure to do that is one of the greatest contributory factors to road accidents.
I have prepared some data and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me while I read out these figures, because

399
in my view they are absolutely conclusive. They may be difficult to follow, but I want to read them in order to have them published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, SO that your Lordships can study them at leisure and noble Lords who are not present in the Chamber can also study them. These are the official figures prepared annually by the Home Office. In 1952, prosecutions for exceeding the speed limit numbered 89,799, in which there were 87,345 conviction with an average fine of £2 3s., when the maximum penalties then in force, as they are now, were £20 for a first offence and £50 for a second offence. In 1954, the number of convictions went up to 89,714 and the average fine went up to £2 8s. In 1952, the number of convictions for careless driving was 22,305 and the average fine was £3 17s., whereas the maximum penalty that could be inflicted was £20 for a first offence and £50 for a second. In 1954, the number of convictions went up to 29,614 and the average fine went down to £3 16s. In 1952, the number of convictions for dangerous driving was 3,237 and the average fine £10 10s., with maximum penalties for the first offence of £50 and for a second offence £100. In 1954, the convictions were 4,202 and the average fine went down to £10. In 1952, the number of convictions for driving under the influence of drink—may I interpose that in my view this is the worst crime ever to be committed on the roads—was 2,099, and the average fine £19 15s., where the maximum penalty for a first offence was £50 and for a second £100. In 1954, the number of convictions was 2,806 and the average fine went down to £16 4s. Disqualification has always been a matter for the discretion of the magistrates, and in 1952 it was invoked in only 3 per cent. of the total of convictions for an offence where disqualification was within the discretion of the magistrates. In 1954 the percentage of disqualifications remained precisely the same.
This is the conflict—and I want to put it fairly. Parliament, in its wisdom, said that the maximum penalty for any of these offences I have read out was a certain sum. I think logic would then dictate that the average penalty one would expect to see imposed is about halfway between the maximum and nothing. But it was not. The averages
400
that I have read out amount to about 10 per cent. So there is a conflict, in my view, between Parliament and the magistrates' bench. Parliament lays down what the maximum fine shall be, and the fines are 10 per cent. of the maximum. The other place, in its wisdom, has doubled the maximum fine in this Bill, and that, in my view, betokens the seriousness with which they view these offences. I maintain that the magistrates have another view, judged by the penalties they have imposed in the past. Whose view is going to prevail? If Parliament is right—and, after all, Parliament is supposed to represent the will of the people—the magistrates must be wrong; and if the magistrates are right. then Parliament must be wrong.
So what I have tried to do in this Amendment and those that follow is a modified version of what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor tried to do under Clause 8. I have tried to find out why magistrates do not convict, and I have discussed this matter with various magistrates all over the country. They say: "Well, we think the reason is that nearly every magistrate is a motorist, and when they sit on the bench, going through their minds all the time is the thought, 'There, but for the grace of God, stand I'". That may be so. If that logic is correct, since the biggest drop in the average fine is in relation to motorists who are found guilty of being drunk in charge, does the same thing apply to the benches: "There but for the grace of God stand I"? I should not like to say that for a moment; but I cannot find out the reason why there is such a disparity between the view of the bench and that of Parliament as to the seriousness of these offences. What I have tried to do, therefore, is to retain the discretion of the magistrates—which I think is the right thing to do—and to bring in the psychological aspect which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor so well described yesterday afternoon. And, if I may say so, he quite convinced me of the justice of what he was saying.
While I am mentioning the noble and learned Viscount, I hope he will not think I am taking an unfair advantage of him by quoting to your Lordships something that he said in a speech that he made

401
when he was addressing magistrates. He said this:
"Magistrates must be very careful to consider whether the penalties which they are in the practice of imposing on motorists who handle that instrument which endangers other people are sufficient to impress on the motorists the seriousness of this offence."
The Lord Chancellor then mentioned this Bill, and he went on to say:
"I do not know in what form the Bill will finally emerge from Parliament, but I can at least say that the terms of the Bill as introduced are indicative of the grave concern of the Government about road casualties."
He then concluded this section of his address to the magistrates with these words, quoting some of the figures that I have quoted, which he no doubt obtained from the same source as I did —the Home Office. He said:
"These figures obviously provide a good deal of food for thought, and I suggest that some courts, at any rate, should consider whether their practice is appropriate when Judged by present standards and in the light of current conditions."
The accident rate is going up; we are not keeping pace with the times. So I have put down these Amendments, and what I have clone is to take the new maximum monetary fines as they appear in this Bill, and divide them by half. I am not tied to these figures, and have done this only as an illustration to your Lordships. Then I have said—arid I will take the first Amendment that I am now moving:
"after pounds 'insert and shall not be less than fifty pounds except…."
Perhaps I had better read the clause, so that your Lordships can see how it goes. Subsection (1) (a) says:
"A fine imposed on summary conviction for a first offence under section eleven may be of an amount not exceeding one hundred pounds"—
and it is here that I propose to insert the words,
"and shall not be less than fifty pounds except for special reasons which may be special to the facts of the case or to the circumstances of the offender'".
That does not put a minimum fine, as I am against minimum fines. Nor does it take away the discretion of the magistrates. The bench, or the court, can impose a smaller fine, but if they do then they must give their reasons, which may be
"special to the facts of the case or to the circumstances of the offender."
402
They can take in all considerations such as income, position, past record and so on. This does not tie them at all. Bu: what it does—which it; not available now —is to allow the prosecution, if they are not satisfied that justice has been met,. to go to the divisional court to appeal upon those special reasons. I believe, that would be a good thing, because we should then get some uniformity over the country.
I put this matter before your Lordships with some temerity, but I am really concerned at the leniency of the benches. I have read out these average fines—those are facts—and, with the value of money as it is to-day, they are merely nothing If I had my way, anybody who was convicted of driving a car or any vehicle ore the roads of this country when he was drunk and incapable would never drive a motor vehicle again It is a ghastly crime. But the average fine for that offence—for which the maximum fine on a first offence is £50, and for a second offence £100—has been £16 4s. It has gone down, and the value of money has gone down at the same time. I do not think I have been harsh. I do not think I have done anything to which the magistrates' benches could object. As I have said, I shall welcome expressions of opinion by noble Lords, but I firmly believe that we have got to do something to give the magistrates' courts of this country a guide as to the serious view that Parliament takes of these offences. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 19 after ("pounds") insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
6.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure that, all your Lordships are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for bringing up one of the most difficult problems we have to consider. I am personally grateful, because he was good enough to give me the figures that he quoted, some time before the debate commenced. Undoubtedly, these figures show that there is a real and serious problem which we have to consider in Parliament. I appreciate that the noble Lord has tried to find a fair and equitable via media between the difficulty of a fixed fine, which he himself repudiates, and the question of too much discretion. He must be conscious, as I

403
am—and I have considered it with great sympathy—that that is a difficult thing to find.
The fixed fine is as repugnant to me as it is to him, because it must be possible for a court to take all the circumstances of the particular case into account. The noble Lord has dealt with that with full consideration of the point by altering the existing statutory provision so that the discretion of the court applies to the circumstances of the case as well as to the offence—to the offender as well as to the offence. But, of course, he will realise that as soon as that is done it makes it more difficult, on an appeal to the higher court, for the higher court to interfere with the justices on that point. The noble Lord will appreciate that I am not blaming him at all; I entirely agree, and I do not think he could have left it the other way. That immediately raises that difficulty, and it is one which naturally we have had very much in mind.
There is one other general point. When I was Home Secretary I was constantly pressed in another place, as Home Secretary, to issue an instruction. I always refused, because I think there is another aspect that we must consider—namely, whatever Parliament may do, the Executive must never interfere with the Judiciary in the exercise of their work. These are principles with which I am sure the noble Lord will agree. Of course, the position of Parliament is a different matter, and what the noble Lord has sought to do, when one comes down to it in the end, is to give a pointer, and a serious pointer, to magistrates as to what Parliament would like them to do.
There is only one aspect of that which I should like to put to him, because I have given this matter grave thought since his Amendment first came before me for consideration. I have said that the problem is a genuine one. It is recognised by everyone who has considered it that some courts do not impose adequate penalties for motoring offences. There is another point that I should like to add (and I do not think the noble Lord will disagree), which is that magistrates' courts do not make as much use as they might of the powerful weapon of disqualification.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Three per cent.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the point the noble Lord was making by quoting these figures at the end of his statement. He would agree that disqualification serves a double purpose in that it is, first, the punishment most feared by motorists and, therefore, the most effective deterrent; and, secondly—the practical point—that it keeps a careless or dangerous driver off the road for a period and does that practical amount of good. In most cases of serious motoring offences it is probably the most useful penalty that magistrates have at their command. I say that with the utmost seriousness, because I think it should go out from your Lordships' House that it is a matter to be considered. Nothing that I say, or the noble Lord says, will derogate—we are both careful about that —from consideration of the particular facts of a particular case. But that general matter should go out. I was, and am, rather worried that the attention which the noble Lord's series of Amendments gives to the question of fines might have the effect, on those who did not read our debates in full, of deflecting their attention from disqualification. I think that would be a bad thing. They might feel: "Well, if Parliament says that in the absence of special circumstances you have got to fine somebody at least half the maximum amount, that is obviously what they want us to look at." I think that is a serious point.
With regard to the noble Lord's objective of giving a pointer to magistrates, I want to repeat what he has already said, because it is most relevant on this point. The Government have revised the current penalties for motoring offences, and have embodied their conclusions in Clause 21 of the Bill. This clause increases the fines and terms of imprisonment which may be imposed for some of the more serious offences; it removes the present limitation of three months on the period of disqualification for a second conviction of careless driving and it requires that the disqualification which has to be imposed, in default of special circumstances, for a second or subsequent comviction of dangerous driving, shall be for not less than nine months unless more than three years have elapsed since the offender's last conviction for that offence.

405
I have repeated that summary because I want—and I am sure everyone wants—these increased provisions to be regarded, not merely as a maximum which is not afterwards regarded, but as a sign of the seriousness which is felt in Parliament with regard to this matter. We have tried, as a Government, to keep the balance between the motorist and the public; and, as has been pointed out countless times, these are not exclusive terms. Therefore, in considering the public we must always try to ensure that the public, as motorists, will regard the public in their other capacities. But we have tried to keep a balance, and the last thing that we want—for the very reason that motor transport is so basic in our society to-day—is that anyone should think that this Bill is an attack on motorists. That has been repudiated from both sides, but, while the Bill is not an attack on motorists, that does not exclude the fact that the Government consider that magistrates' courts might be well advised to review the scale of the penalties which they customarily impose in motoring cases and decide, in the light of the gravity of the problem of road safety and of the fall in the value of money, whether these are adequate.
I have tried to say again, in the most serious terms, what the noble Lord was good enough to quote from my speech in Sussex. I hope that it will go out in that way and that it will be understood by magistrates. I think it is right for me to pose to them the seriousness of the problem. I say again that it would be wrong, and no-one in this House would desire me to infringe in any way their right to give full effect to the circumstances of each case. But the gravity of the prob1,ein is of national importance. It is a matter which everyone must consider to-day, and especially those who are in that responsible position of magistrates. I hope that, in view of what I have said, and of the gravity with which I have dealt with the problem which the noble Lord has raised, he will not press the Amendment. I have not gone into any details; I have tried to deal with the Amendment in a broad way which I thought would be appreciated by everyone. But it has undoubtedly had the result that it goes out from Parliament that this is a grave and serious problem. I hope the noble Lord will he content with that in the spirit in
406
which I have tried to answer his Amendment.
6.43 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I ant sure that the whole Home shares with me gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount for his careful and serious pronouncement. Of course, I would not dream of pressing these Amendments in view of what he has said. I here are only two doubts in my mind. We are asked in this Bill to double the maximum fines. Frankly, I think it is useless. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that there are some extensions of disqualification in the Bill. I hope that that will have an effect: but, if I may be frank with your Lordships, having been through all this matter from the inside I am not at all optimistic that all the labours we have spent on the first part of this Bill will influence our problem to a worthwhile degree. I am serious. I believe that Parliament has to find some way of influencing the conduct of the public—that goes for motorises, pedestrians and all other members of society. They all have to be influenced. Tinkering about with the fitness of motor cars nay do something; but our serious problem, even with motor cars far 'Defter than they have ever been in the history of the automobile industry—although admittedly there are more vehicles on the reads—is that accidents go up.
However, I will be optimistic in hoping that perhaps the noble and learned Viscount has found the way of impressing upon the benches of the country the seriousness of this matter, because that alone may prove the answer to many of our problems. We have the police to think of. I have discussed this question in and out of season with the police, and they say, "What good is it for us to waste our officers' time clicking their heels in the waiting rooms of magistrates' courts in this country, when some people get off with a fine which, for a serious offence, we think is no deterrent at all?" That is one of the prime reasons why the traffic laws of this country are being brought into disrepute. None of your Lordships will contest the accuracy of that statement. These law s are really in disrepute. There are even some that have never been used. I will not waste any more of your Lordships' time. I will withdraw not only this Amendment but

407
the others, with my thanks to the noble and learned Viscount for the care which he always takes with serious questions of this sort. I hope this will have a good effect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.47 p.m.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON moved, in subsection (1), to add to paragraph (a):
"and a disqualification for a period not exceeding three months may be imposed on conviction for a first offence under the said section eleven;"
The noble Lord said: I want to be brief—in fact, I have to be brief. I am all the more grateful for much that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said in moving his last Amendment. I am also grateful for much that the Lord Chancellor said in replying to him. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, reminded us that road accidents are still steadily going up. They are rising, and they are rising from a level to which a civilised and Christian country should never have allowed them to rise. We all of us at intervals in this House say that we are anxious to abate the road massacre. We frequently protest—and I sometimes think that, like the Queen in Hamlet, we protest too much, for, as the noble Lord. Lord Hore-Belisha, was reminding us yesterday afternoon, when a particular measure comes before us we usually find that somebody has discovered some insurmountable and practical objection to it. I cannot believe that anyone who wishes this Bill to save lives can find any insurmountable objection to the Amendment which I am now putting before your Lordships.
Very simply, if in their wisdom they so desire—there is no compulsion—it seeks to give benches the power to suspend a licence, though not for longer than three months as a maximum, on a first conviction for reckless or dangerous driving, instead of, as at present, only after a second conviction. I would stress that this is permissive, not mandatory, and the maximum suspension of licence possible under it would be three months. We all know that there is a certain number of obstinately reckless, selfish and accident-prone drivers who are usually pretty easily recognisable and who, in their own interests as well as in the interests of the community, should be
408
taught this comparatively moderate lesson at the outset of their motoring career.
A friend of mine who, besides being a celebrated and learned legal luminary also chairman of a bench of magistrates, frequently laments that his bench has had to convict for the first time an obvious potential killer and has been unable to impose the suspension of the licence for three months, well knowing that humanly speaking it is certain that before long that man will have killed or maimed either himself or some innocent stranger. Surely it is not asking too much that benches should have the power, if in their wisdom they so decide, to suspend the licence of one of these potential killers at the outset. Even if it is for only a brief period, it is long enough to warn him that, if he does not drive with more circumspection and unselfishness, he is likely to get himself and others into much graver trouble. Surely it cannot be said that that is a sentimental or unpractical or excessive demand. I am inclined to feel that I deserve to say of myself the words which Lord Clive of India used—namely:
"I stand astonished at my own moderation."
I am greatly fortified in this view by what has happened since I put this Amendment down early last week. On Friday I received a communication from the Magistrates' Association informing me that their council had adopted the following resolution:
"That any person convicted of reckless or dangerous driving should automatically be disqualified, the period of disqualification to be decided by the court, but in any case to be of not less than one month."
That is much more extreme than what I am asking the Minister to agree to this evening. Here the Magistrates' Association are asking that the power to suspend a licence after a first conviction for reckless or dangerous driving should be mandatory and not permissive. There is no mention in the resolution of a maximum period; it merely says "of not less than one month". My Amendment lays down that there should be a maximum of three months.
The Magistrates' Association is an important and influential body, the President of which is no less a person than the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, who is about to reply to my Amendment. Surely it is unthinkable

409
that he should now rise and tell me that I am asking for too much, when I am asking for less than is demanded by the resolution of the body of which he himself is President. In the circumstances, I feel that I need hardly detain the Committee longer. I greatly hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is going to be kind to me, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 24, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Elton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that my noble friend will think that I am going to be kind to him, because I am going to point out to him that the existing law is more severe than his Amendment proposes it should be. These things are rather tricky to find; therefore, may I ask the noble Lord to follow me on the point, and I think he will see that I am right. Section 11 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, relates to the offence of reckless or dangerous driving of a motor vehicle, and subsection (3) of that section provides that on a second or subsequent conviction under the section the convicting court shall, except in certain circumstances, exercise the power conferred by Part I of the Act and order that the offender shall be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence for such period as the court thinks fit. I think that is what must have misled my noble friend Lord Elton, because I do not think he had in mind that in fact the court has power to disqualify for a first offence under Section 6 of the Act of 1930. That is frequently exercised and is not limited as the Amendment is, but is a matter which the court can and does apply. Therefore, the noble Lord's Amendment, which is that disqualification may be imposed on conviction for a first offence, is already the law and is put into effect. I think that fully meets the point of the noble Lord.
I was speculating deeply as to who was the legal authority on the bench—I think I have a fairly good idea. In this case it is not a question of law and order, but it is a question of a provision in a different section of the Statute. But may I say to my noble friend that I am glad he has moved this Amendment, because it has given me the opportunity of pointing out that there is that power under Section 6 of the Act of 1930. It is a power which magistrates ought to have
410
in mind; and the very fact that his friend thought he had not that power shows that the noble Lord has done a service in giving publicity to the fact by his Amendment and giving me the opportunity of making it clear that the power does exist. I need not go into the facts of the enlargement of the penalties and the powers of disqualification which occur in the Bill, because I answered the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in my views as to the importance of disqualification. I am glad to be able to reassure my noble friend that this point is covered and to thank him for having given me the chance of making that quite clear.
LORD ELTON: Is this not an example of one of the difficulties of legislation by reference? I was aware of Section 6 in the Act of 1930 and of Section 11. I consulted an eminent legal authority who gave me exactly the opposite view to that of the supreme authority, the Lord Chancellor. He said that in his view this did not empower the bench to convict on a first offence. And the legal luminary to whom I was referring, who shall remain anonymous, who had been a professor of law as well as chairman of a bench, considers, too, that these sections do not give this power. And where exactly are we with the Magistrates' Association? The Magistrates' Association, of which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is President, is demanding the passing of a formal resolution claiming the powers which the noble and learned Viscount its President says it already possesses.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With the greatest respect to my noble friend, if I heard the resolution aright, they were asking for an automatic disqualification. Under Section 6 it is a discretionary disqualification. An automatic disqualification is quite different.
LORD ELTON: That is so; it is automatic. But subject to correction, as I read this resolution, they were under the impression that the "firstness" of the conviction as well as the "automaticness" of the penalty would be a novelty. Of course, I bow to the Lord Chancellor, but I hope that this will go out to the public, because I am sure that there are large numbers of magistrates and distinguished lawyers who are not aware that this is the state of the law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I take it that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD ELTON: No. I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend the Leader of the House announced earlier. I would suggest to your Lordships that the House do now resume.
House resumed.