Lords Sitting of 17 July 1956

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

  SARAWAK CONSTITUTION
  2.36 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to make in the near future fresh constitutional arrangements for Sarawak and, if so, what they are.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government hope to bring into force new constitutional arrangements for Sarawak in the near future. These will give effect to the proposals put forward in a Resolution moved by an unofficial member and passed unanimously by the Council Negri on September 7, 1955. A copy of the Resolution is in the Library of the House. In brief, the new arrangements will be as follows: the Council Negri (or Legislative Assembly) will have forty-two members of whom twenty-four will be unofficial members; it will thus have an unofficial majority; the unofficial members will be elected by divisional and municipal councils from among their own members. The Supreme (or Executive) Council will consist of ten members, five of whom will be elected by the unofficial members of the Council Negri from among their own number. The Constitution will provide for reserved powers and power of disallowance as is customary for a Legislature with an unofficial majority.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that statement. May I ask whether inquiry was made by the Government of Sarawak from the various
  1064
  bodies of opinion before the new Constitution was formulated? Secondly, may I ask whether it has, on the whole, had a favourable reception in Sarawak?
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, the proposals for the revision of the Constitution have, as a matter of fact, been fully discussed during the last two or three years, and were generally accepted by representative bodies, local authority and divisional councils, municipal councils and individual leaders of the community before being embodied in the Resolution introduced in the Council Negri. Full reports of the debate were published in English, Chinese and Dyak newspapers, and an explanation of the proposals was broadcast by the local Attorney-General over Radio Sarawak, and subsequently repeated in Chinese, Malay and Dyak. To the best of my knowledge the proposals have had a favourable reception. They certainly were unanimously supported by the Council Negri.
  LORD OGMORE: I take it, therefore —perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to confirm this—that there is no truth in the suggestion which has appeared in an English newspaper that the people of Sarawak were not consulted on this important development.
  LORD LLOYD: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I should like to say that, as I understand it, that is the situation, and there is no truth whatsoever in the rumour which he has mentioned.

DOCK LABOUR REPORT
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Committee of Inquiry into dock labour has reported and if the Report will be published during the present Session.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, the Committee's Report is now with the printers, and will be published next week as a Command Paper.

NIGHT FLYING AT KIDLINGTON AERODROME
2.40 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that an application has been made for a licence to permit night flying from a civil aerodrome at Kidlington, Oxfordshire; and whether, as this aerodrome is situated in a built-up area five miles from the centre of the City of Oxford, Her Majesty's Government will see that this encroachment upon the amenities of the people living in that area is prevented.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, Kidlington is a civil aerodrome, belonging to Oxford City Corporation and licensed by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation for use by commercial passenger-carrying aircraft. There is a condition in their licence prohibiting such use at night and the Minister has not so far received an application from the Corporation for the removal of this restriction. I am afraid that I am not in a position to forecast what the Minister's decision would be should such an application be made. I can say that the purpose of the licence and of this particular clause in it is merely to ensure the safety of passengers. Restriction of night flying in the interests of the people living in the area would be a matter for the Corporation of the City of Oxford.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. Would he convey to his right honourable friend that he will have an application, if he has not already received it, and that this aerodrome is situated in a built-up area of 10,000 people, 1,000 houses having been erected in the last two years? Before his right honourable friend gives any permission for night flying, with the disturbance it will cause to these residents, all working-class people, will he hold a local inquiry into the matter?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's question is
1066
somewhat anticipatory. My right honourable friend has not yet received any application. I will certainly see that my right honourable friend will consider the noble Lord's points if he should receive an application. I do not think that I can carry the matter further at the moment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I understand the difficulty of the noble Earl. The application was going to be made and was withdrawn, but it will be renewed within the next two or three days. I do not know whether the Minister has power to appoint a local inquiry to hear the views and protests of the parish council concerned—perhaps the noble Earl would be good enough to tell me. Will he make certain that one of the conditions in the permission given to the City Corporation of Oxford is that there shall be no night flying over the City of Oxford and over the place where all these unfortunate people have built their houses? Has the Minister power under an Act of Parliament to hold a public inquiry?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think I must have notice of that question, but I am pretty certain that he has that power.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I would ask the noble Earl to convey to his right honourable friend the local anxiety that he should hold an inquiry if there is need for him so to do.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will certainly do so.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I am afraid that we have rather a strenuous Report stage of the Road Traffic Bill before us and we have agreed, through the usual channels, to adjourn for dinner at 7 o'clock and resume again at 8.15 p.m., when we shall sit until 10 o'clock. If we have not finished by that hour, we shall conclude the Report stage next Thursday, when we shall meet at 2 o'clock. We hope to finish the Report stage by 3.45 p.m., when the Royal Garden Party, begins. We shall take the Third Reading on Monday next at half-past two, if we do not finish the Report stage to-day.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (WISBECH PORT AND HARBOUR) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
FINANCE (No. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
2.48 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Tests of satisfactory condition of vehicles]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (9), to omit all words after "instrument" and to insert:
"which shall not have effect unless approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said. My Lords, on Committee stage I pressed the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to make statutory instruments by Affirmative Resolution instead of by the Negative Resolution procedure upon any of the regulations to be made by the Minister in respect of Clause 1 of the Bill. I pressed him very hard, because in my view these regulations will be highly controversial and far-reaching. Although
1068
your Lordships agreed to the provisions of Clause 1. I doubt whether they were agreed to with any marked enthusiasm, and I think that these instruments should be tabled by the Government so that we can debate them fully and, if we do not agree with them, try to persuade the Government to take them back and alter them. I am fully aware that, whether the Affirmative or the Negative procedure is used, the regulations must be swallowed whole and cannot be nibbled at. That is the reason I put this Amendment down again. On Committee stage the noble Earl seemed receptive to my suggestion to adopt the Affirmative procedure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 22 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, should like to add my support to this Amendment, because as a rule the Negative procedure in this House is not satisfactory and it is rather unusual to pray by a negative Motion here. I hope Her Majesty's Government will look at this point again and perhaps accept this Amendment.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, as my name is down to this Amendment, I feel I ought to be allowed to say a word on it. There is really a great deal in this Bill which is, as it were, in the air. We have not been given details. Quite likely we could not be given details. But, whichever way it is, I cannot help feeling that Parliament ought to have a chance to know the details of something for which approval is asked before it passes from us. There is much with regard to the examination of vehicles of which we have been told little. We have been told nothing about the nature of the examination and how far it is intended to go.
Then with regard to the parking meters —those being the two principal points of the Bill—again we have been told little. There are other Amendments on the parking meter question raising one or two completely new points, to be considered later. I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to consider seriously whether it would not be more businesslike to have full details of everything that is proposed in connection with parking meters and the testing of vehicles

1069
before we part with the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has already said, with the Negative Resolution procedure we have to swallow the thing whole; we cannot do anything about it. If, on the other hand, the Government would only consent to bring before us their final proposals on each of these subjects, we should then have a chance to consider the questions on their merits.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, used the expression "nibble". If he will forgive my saying so, I did not like that expression. We do not want to nibble at these things; we want to consider them in a businesslike manner, and above all from the point of view of public safety. I submit to your Lordships that from that point of view we have been told by the Government absolutely nothing that matters. If the provision in the Bill had confined itself to the examination of brakes, apart from testing of vehicles as a whole, it might easily have been well worth while. So far as I know, we have not been told that any special attention is to be given to the efficiency of brakes. Without taking the drums off a motor car, no one can tell you whether the brakes are going to work or not. Surely the Government could have told us a little more. That is only one instance of what I mean.
If it is still possible to make an appeal to the Government at a rather late hour in the discussions of this Bill, may I ask them again to consider adopting the Affirmative Resolution procedure instead of the Negative one? It is really only common sense. If we were dealing with a question like this in our private lives, we should at once ask the man we were dealing with to tell us what it was he wanted, and he would do so. But we have nothing of that here. I submit that if only the Government could meet us thus far, it might mean very much and might lead to a much better class of examination of vehicles in the long run. If it did that, it would be well worth while in the interests of public safety. I beg the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to meet us on this point.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: My Lords, as several of your Lordships have supported this Amendment, before the Minister rises I should like to put in one word against it. There is enough bureau-
1070
cracy in the country already. We have a Minister of Transport; he is paid out of public funds; he is put there presumably because he understands the job which he is supposed to tackle on behalf of the country. There is enough traffic restriction on the roads without restricting the traffic Minister.
We ask him in this clause to institute a system of tests for vehicles. It is a perfectly businesslike proposal; it is a constructive proposal. All he has to do under this clause is to make regulations for the efficient carrying out of this task. In any ordinary business one would entrust such a job to an executive officer and leave him to do it. It is quite ridiculous to assume that a man who rises to the dignity of a Minister of the Crown cannot make regulations for the testing of vehicles without coming back to two Houses of Parliament to submit every single detail to them on an Affirmative Resolution. Parliament is completely protected. If the Minister makes a fool of himself and lays down provisions which are entirely inoperable it is up to a Member of either House of Parliament to raise the subject on a Negative Resolution. But surely we can assume that be Minister is competent to carry out his own Bill on a purely technical procedure, without constant interference and the cluttering up of Parliamentary time. Otherwise it is not only the traffic on the roads which will not move; Parliamentary business also will be impeded.
I plead with your Lordships to give the Minister a chance and the Government a chance of improving the conditions on our roads, without hamstringing them at every stage. It is easy to come down here and move an Amendment of this kind; it is done, of course, with completely good intent; but it is not foreseen what enormous additional labour will be laid on the Ministry and on Parliament the Amendment be carried. I therefore hope that the Minister will be given a chance to carry out this reform without let or hindrance.
THE EARL, OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Flare-Belisha, has pointed out the difficulty of Parliamentary time, which is a very real one. But there is a further difficulty. If I understood what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Earl, Lord

1071
Howe, said, the passing of this Amendment would not really meet fully the points which they have in mind. As I understand it, there are two points to which they particularly want to draw attention. The first is the point which the noble Earl has so frequently made, that he wants more information. I quite appreciate that this is a new scheme which we are introducing. Moreover, it is something which, to be a success, should have a wide measure of public support and understanding. I recognise that that is very important. If we accepted this Amendment, we should not be much better off than with the provisions already existing in the Bill. First of all, the picture would be no fuller and no less full, because we should have exactly the same regulations, whether laid under a negative form or a positive form. So there is nothing to be gained there. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, obviously wants to amend the proposals. Frankly, it is as difficult to amend regulations laid under positive Resolutions as those under negative Resolutions; indeed, in both cases it is impossible.
I should like to suggest another course which I think would meet the noble Lord's wishes much better, and it is this: that the Minister should undertake—and I am prepared on his behalf to give the undertaking—to lay a White Paper well before any regulations on this subject are published. This White Paper could be debated, if necessary in both Houses. The Government would necessarily listen to any suggestions made as to the way in which it should be worked. A White Paper can be more fully descriptive than regulations, which are often extremely difficult to understand. The White Paper would be considered in full, and I believe the country would understand the nature of what it is here proposed to do. I should be glad if the noble Lord would accept that undertaking, which will, of course, apply to Clauses 1 and 2. That would afford as good a measure of explanation as we can give. We cannot give that explanation now, because until the Minister is authorised to enter into negotiations he cannot fill up the details of the scheme. I would add that if we were considering only this House. I should not mind accepting the Amendment; but I must ask your Lordships to remember
1072
that it means a much more serious matter in the other place. If the House is willing to accept what I have suggested, I am glad to give that undertaking on behalf of my right honourable friend.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his most constructive suggestion, which is far better than mine. There is a precedent for this. We have had a White Paper before a Bill, and now we are having a White Paper before a regulation. That will give us the opportunity of expressing our criticism, and it will give the Government an opportunity to act after we have done so. I am grateful to the noble Earl for having made that suggestion. I gladly accept it, and with great willingness I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2:
Obligatory test certificates
2.—(1) Any person who uses on a road at any time or causes or permits to be so used a motor vehicle to which this section applies and as respects which no test certificate has been issued within the appropriate period before the said time, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.
3.2 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "uses on a road" and insert "sells or transfers". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission. I should like to deal with Amendment Nos. 2 to 9 and Amendment No. 12 together, because they deal with the same subject, and it may save time. I will, of course, speak now on Amendment No. 2. This is an attempt on my part—I do not know whether the noble Earl will appreciate it, but I can assure him that it is—to help the Government. I have no illusions upon the—I was almost going to say ridiculousness, but at any rate upon the futility of the provisions we are trying to make in Clauses 1, 2 and 3. I shall be the happiest but the most surprised man in this country if, after we have gone through all the trouble and discussion we have, after we have had and discussed the White Paper referred to, and after all the efforts of Clauses 1, 2 and 3, we improve the great

1073
road accident problem by any measurable quantity. I have never been optimistic, but I take the course which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack chides me and reminds me—if I may say so, in his usual charming manner—it is my proper duty to take: that is, having lost the battle, I should try to make the scheme work. That is my intention here.
I have a great deal of criticism in regard to Clause 1; I have not much hope of Clause 2; and the Government's own admission is that Clause 3 will be completely inoperable. On the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, made what I thought was a most optimistic speech as to how Clause 3—which deals with spot checking on the roads—was going to work and contribute to an improvement in the road accident problem. I know the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that he found it necessary to write me a letter between the Committee stage and this stage of the Bill, with that usual courtesy which he always displays, rather detracting from quite a lot he had said, and quite confirming my view that the Department and the Government do not intend in any way to amplify the spot check over and above what it is to-day. I believe that it is just a pious hope, and "window-dressing."
The police are not there, we are told; a vehicle cannot be stopped on the road for a spot check except by a policeman; there is to be no check whatsoever that will qualify for a certificate, and the piece of paper to be given to the driver of the vehicle will be just a piece of paper, and nothing more—there will be no follow-up system to see that the man carries out the repairs that have been found to be necessary to his vehicle. I have always said that if we are going to make anything in the nature of a success of this scheme of the checking of vehicles there will have to be a lot of experiment and trial and error. I have pleaded with the Government to start their experiment on a lower scale. This is what I think is the best way of giving the Government the opportunity of checking and finding out what snags there are in the procedure.
The Government have admitted that they cannot tackle any motor car, to start
1074
with, less than ten years old—the numbers are too great; there are about 2 million—and they cannot check any commercial vehicle of whatever age. I have always maintained that the ten year old commercial vehicle is a far more accident-prone vehicle than the ten year old motor car, because the people who buy commercial vehicles habitually over-load them, and overloading is the greatest factor in accidents h which commercial vehicles are involved. What I have sought to do in all these Amendments (I expect the noble Earl will tell me straight away that the drafting is terrible; and I admit that) is to say that every vehicle ten years old and over shall have a certificate when it changes hands on sale for use on the road. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, had an Amendment down which was somewhat similar to this, but he wanted it in respect of motor cars three years old.
I believe that this Amendment would give the Government a good opportunity of experiment. I believe that the car of ten years old and over that is sold, sometimes in an unsafe condition, is one of the biggest factors in accidents, if mechanical fitness is a factor in accidents. We want to stop this trouble at its source, and this will give an opportunity to the Government to have a smaller number of vehicles. I have not been able to find out how many motor cars of ten years old and over change hands in the course of a year, but I am told, with some degree of accuracy, that, taking all the motor cars in the country to-day, about 1½ million change hands during the course of twelve months; that is to say, by sale, in part-exchange for new cars, as between two people in trade, or cars that find their way from trade to the retail buyer. So I should imagine that there may be about 500,000 different cars (it is only a guess on my part, and perhaps the noble Earl knows better) that change hands. Some of these old cars of ten years of age and over, of course, change hands about four or five times in the course of twelve months they turn up with monotonous regularity in dealers' places, being bartered for new motor cars with increasing allowances as the season draws to an end. I need not go into that now.
My thought in putting this proposal to your Lordships on the Report stage was that it might allow the Government to have something upon which to try their teeth before they bring out regulations to

1075
embrace the whole of the country, covering 2 million motor cars, leaving out motor-cycles and commercial vehicles. It might give the Government an opportunity of trying the thing out, of finding the weaknesses and the size of the job, and of getting the machine running before they try it on the British public. That is the only object I have in putting down this Amendment. It is an effort to help the Government, because I believe they will need to have an experimental period and an experimental area. They will have to go about this in precisely the same way as it is proposed to deal with the parking meters. They will not be able to impose it on the whole country. They will have to take out the thinly populated areas and concentrate on the thickly populated areas. They will have to take into consideration how many miles they are to send a motorist to have his car checked. In some of our sparsely populated areas it may involve the wretched motorist in a 50–100 miles journey. I do not think I need say any more. I have explained my purpose to your Lordships and, therefore, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 23, leave out ("uses on a road") and insert ("sells or transfers").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, surely this is a good Amendment, even if it is desired to keep the annual inspection, because I cannot help thinking that it would increase the safeguards against accidents on the roads. Surely, your Lordships are anxious to reduce the appalling rate of accidents on the roads.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and at the same time endeavour to reassure my noble friend Lord Hore-Belisha. My noble friend seems to think that we have come here with the idea of cluttering up the Bill with unnecessary Amendments. We are not doing that at all. Some of us are just as concerned as he is with public safety, and I am supporting this Amendment because I believe that it will make for public safety. It is the old vehicles that we want to watch, and those are the vehicles most subject to resale. If this Bill could deal stringently with that matter, and with examination and testing, I think it would be well worth while.
1076
There are a good many of these old vehicles on the roads—we see them going about day by day—and if the police are to be responsible for spot checks, I am quite certain that a number of them will give the police a great deal of trouble. On the other hand, if we could ensure that we had real bona fide tests of vehicles on resale, I think it would be well worth while. Before I sit down, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for what he said just now.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: My Lords, may I say at once that the last thought in my mind was that any of the noble Lords who have identified themselves with this Amendment had any concern other than the public safety. What I say, however, is that the Minister is responsible for a Bill which is constructive in character, and that this clause is the most constructive clause in the Bill. It prohibits the use on the roads of any vehicle more than ten years old which has not been subjected to an annual test of fitness. That is a proposal which the public, and especially the motorists, will clearly understand—it is precise and definite.
When this Bill has become an Act of Parliament, every person driving a motor car will have been submitted to a test under a provision brought into operation when I was Minister of Transport, and he will also be subject to a test for his vehicle if it is more than ten years old. That seems to me to be a clear and forthright provision. But the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has shown an unequalled mastery of all these problems, has an entirely different idea. If he had been Minister of Transport and had been introducing this Bill, it would have been an entirely different measure. He cannot expect to take the Government's measure and graft into it something which is quite different in principle. His Amendment goes to the whole root of these proposals. It says that, instead of a vehicle being subjected to a test every year, if it is more than ten years old, it shall be subjected to a test on sale or transfer. That is what this Amendment says. I think it is an understandable suggestion, but it is not compatible with the machinery envisaged in this Bill.
The noble Lord introduced the Amendment with laudable candour by saying that it was badly drafted. Of course it is

1077
badly drafted, because it does not set up the machinery by which it could be carried out, whereas this Bill has been conceived with the intention of bringing into operation a particular kind of machinery. How would it work? The sales of motor cars, as the noble Lord has said, are very numerous. They are sometimes extremely spontaneous. People sell their motor cars, and sometimes they conduct negotiations which do not result in a sale. But under the noble Lord's proposal they would have this clause hanging over them; and if twice in their lives they sold a motor car without having an ad hoc certificate for that sale they would go to jail. Surely, that is putting a great restriction upon the fluidity of business transactions.
These certificates are not warranties of the condition of the motor car; they are an endeavour by the Ministry to ensure that the motorist shall pay attention to the condition of his car. The clause therefore says that once a year a man shall take his car in and have it tested. If he cannot sell the car without getting a certificate, then an entirely different kind of organisation must be set up—I do not know what kind of organisation, because the noble Lord has not described it. What he has admitted is that, if this Amendment is carried, about twenty other Amendments —or a large number of other Amendments—would follow, some of which would take away completely the authority which now rests in the Minister to modify the scheme. The scheme is now a flexible scheme which can be brought into effect, and I think the Amendment makes it not only a different scheme but one of great cumbrousness and difficulty of operation.
I know the noble Lord does not intend to press his Amendment, because he admits that it is badly drafted. We are now at the last stage of the Bill. We discussed the matter in Committee fairly thoroughly, and it cannot be expected that, almost having carried the Bill on to the Statute Book, we should be asked to revise its principal clause in so fundamental a particular. I hope it will not be thought that I have approached the Amendment in a negative or destructive spirit. I have tried to help the Bill to get on to the Statute Book in order that we may have greater safety on the roads. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I should be the last person to think that he had any malevolent intentions with
1078
regard to any traffic measure. The fact that he looks at this matter from a different angle from that of the Government may or may not be to his credit, but it certainly does not imply that his intentions are not as constructive as those of the Government. I do hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has been so helpful with his suggestions throughout will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, says that this Amendment would necessitate altering the organisation. The organisation is a matter for Her Majesty's Government when they draft regulations. The organisation of testing stations is exactly the same in any case. The only question is, from the point of view of road safety, which are the best cars to test. I should like to see tests both for ten-year-old cars and for ears on re-sale, but it is clearly impossible for Her Majesty's Government to start by requiring their organisation to do both: there are too many cars, and it would be impossible to organise. All Lord Lucas of Chilworth is saying is that he thinks it would give the Government a better start and would be easier to work, as well as being fairer to everyone and likely to have a better effect on road safety, if, instead of starting on the ten-year-old cars, a start were made on cars on re-sale. If at a later date the others could be included too, then we should have got almost perfection. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is entirely right. I think his proposal would have a more immediate effect on road safety, and I hope that he presses his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for realising that this scheme is not going to be easy to put into operation. But we ourselves have not been entirely oblivious to that fact. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 2 (10) (a), he will see precisely the point about the difficulty of bringing the scheme into operation which he had in mind himself. We had that very clearly in our minds when the Bill was drafted. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, suggested that we should keep the annual inspection but also have the inspection on re-sale.

1079
But does he realise that this would completely "torpedo" the annual inspection altogether? If he wanted to put this test on the sale of second-hand cars he knows quite well that he should have amended Clause 7, which already makes it an offence to sell an unroadworthy car. If the noble Lord wants to add a certificate to that, that is the place where he ought to have done it.
By doing it where he has done, he has not only completely undermined the present scheme but, I think, has greatly weakened and confused the force of Clause 7 (which I have always called Lord Howe's clause, which stands by itself) and to which I think we all attach considerable importance. I am not against having the two systems at all, but we are questioning whether we are to undermine systematic testing or not; whether we are to have it or whether we are not. What is now proposed is wrong in theory, wrong in practice and in places, think, as the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, said, rather curiously drafted. Anyone who runs mechanical machinery of any sort has never suggested that it should be tested or examined when sold. It is tested and examined against hours of running or against miles of running; and that is the almost universal way in which mechanical machinery is maintained. To take an aeroplane, it would be absurd to have a special inspection when an aeroplane is sold. It is done simply on hours of flying.
I must confess that I was rather disturbed to note what Lord Lucas of Chilworth said in Committee. He said that no doubt the vendor of a secondhand car would have a testing station so that he would be able to do this testing in his spare time and could himself issue the certificate. I think that is going a little far, to buy a car fom a man who is obliged to give a certificate—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is precisely what will happen when this Bill becomes law.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Testing somebody else's car is quite a different thing from testing a car which you are seeking to sell. There is only one certificate a vendor should ever give, and that is a continuing certificate, a guarantee lasting months or weeks, as the case may be. But a certificate at the moment of
1080
sale is absolutely and entirely bad. I will not go into the drafting of the Amendment, but I would call your Lordships' attention to the proposed proviso to subsection (4)—
"Provided that no offence shall be committed where it is intended that the vehicle shall not be used on a road before re-sale or until a test certificate has been obtained."
I do not know how it is intended, or who intends, or how the intention is to be expressed, but supposing one goes into a garage and exchanges a car for a new one or a newer one, there are perhaps two test certificates issued by the vendor, but if one did not do that and the purchaser put the car on the road the seller would be liable to a £50 fine. It raises a curious situation. This is only a question of whether we want some form of systematic testing or whether we want it to be haphazard. The sale of cars is really quite haphazard. The point of looking at cars on re-sale is one we have already considered. This Amendment can only wreck the proposals the Government are putting forward, and I hope the noble Lord will not press it.
We are up against a serious situation. I have here reports on four cars received on one day at Hendon—they were four cars out of 70. I should like to read what the technical report says:
"1937, near-side front tyre split to the tube"—
I will not give the name of the car—
"1949, steering nut loose; 1937, brake crankshaft fell out of securing bracket during inspection; 1930, brake link tied to drop arm with wire."
That is in respect of only four cars, and I say that we must submit such cars to some form of systematic inspection. I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, replies to the noble Earl, I should like to ask the noble Earl about the garage which takes a car in part exchange and wishes to sell it again. It must test the car again, must it not? If a garage takes a car in part exchange or buys one for cash and wants to re-sell it, surely it retests the car itself. It does not send it to another place.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I have not the slightest objection to his testing it. What I am objecting to is a

1081
statutory duty imposed in this case. There is not the slightest reason why he should not do it, but it is quite a different thing to make it a condition of sale.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Earl, in trying to wreck my Amendment, only illustrates to your Lordships the point that I have been trying to make now over the months that we have had this Bill before us. The noble Earl knows very well that when this Bill conies into operation there will be 15,000 testing stations—he has admitted it—because the garage of every owner who has the qualifications will become an official testing station. You cannot just make fish of one, flesh of another and fowl of yet another. So these 15,000 testing stations will all be engaged in the retail motor trade and the vast bulk of them will be dealers in motor cars. That is how it will be. Some of these people are big dealers in motor cars, who may have at the end of a year somewhere in the region of 200, 300 and sometimes 1,000 secondhand cars in stock, all of whose licences will have expired. They cannot renew one of those licences until they have subjected the car to a test—at present, if it is ten years old or over, but later probably if it is two or three years old. Any car must have an Excise licence, and, to get an Excise licence, according to Clause 2 it must have a test certificate. Does the noble Earl really think that that dealer with 1,000 motor cars, who wants to get them licensed to enable him to sell them, will go to his competitors and have the cars tested if he himself is an official testing station? That is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Waleran.
Let us be realistic about this matter and come down with our feet on the earth. Every motor car dealer in the country will be an official testing station, so all his own customers will get their cars tested there and all his own vehicles will be tested by himself. He will issue certificates to his customers and to himself. How will he get an Excise licence for any motor car if he does not do that? It is sheer nonsense to try to shoot clown an Amendment when the facts are so blatantly against doing that. It is symbolic of the whole of this Bill. The Government do not know the first thing about the motor trade; they do not know how the motor trade operates. It is no good the noble Earl waxing indignant
1082
about the chicanery which goes on when a dealer, who has taken cars in part exchange for new ones, issues a certificate for a motor car which he himself owns.
In London and the big cities of this country, especially round about the end of December, there are in stock thousands and thousands and thousands of these cars which dealers have taken in part exchange at the back end of the selling season. If the noble Earl does not know, I will tell him how the motor trade works. But I will not waste your Lordships' time now; I could do it in private. So do not listen to the talk about its being almost a crime for any motor dealer who will become an accredited testing station under Clause 1 to do this. It cannot be a crime for him to test the vehicles he owns ready for sale. Otherwise, he will not he able to sell them. Do you think he is going to his next-door neighbour, to pay him £1 every time to have the vehicles which he owns tested? The motor industry does some darned silly things, but nothing quite so silly as that.
May I get back to the Amendment? I never intended this Amendment to oppose the principle it Clause 1. I know the noble Earl will think otherwise. I thought I made myself abundantly clear and the noble Lord, Lord Dement, was quite right: I would rather the Government started off this great crusade by trying it out on about 500,000 (or perhaps fewer) vehicles a year rather than make fools of themselves by trying to test 2 million vehicles a year before they know how the machine will work. Because, if the officials who will have to work this; scheme knew no more about how the motor trade works—and the motor trade will be the testing stations —than the noble Earl and his advisers, heaven knows what will happen! There will be confusion worse confounded. That is all that is in my mind. I believe it is good that cars ten years old or over should be tested more than once a year. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha. I think these are the vehicles that should be tested more than once a year, for they are the ones that cause the trouble. However, I suppose the Ministry and the Minister must learn from bitter experience. I am not going to ask your Lordships to divide on this

1083
Amendment. All I ask the noble Earl to believe, quite sincerely, is that this was a real effort to help him. The trouble is that some people who get wildly enthusiastic about schemes like this think that they know everything about it. What they do not know is not knowledge until the hard dawn of experience teaches them. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.38 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after subsection (6) to insert:
"(7) Where a vehicle is used on a road solely for the purpose of proceeding to or returning from an examination to obtain a test certificate, it shall not be necessary for a current test certificate or excise licence to be held in respect of such vehicle."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is probably only a minor point, but it seems to me one that needs explaining. The Amendment is designed to enable untaxed vehicles to be taken to a testing station. Under Clause 2 it will be an offence to use a motor vehicle on a road if no test certificate has been issued within the previous twelve months, and it will not be possible to obtain an Excise licence for a vehicle without production of a test certificate issued within the previous twelve months. This will cause difficulties where the owner of a vehicle has not used it on the road for a considerable period. For instance, where a vehicle has been laid up, as many are, for the winter months, it will not be possible to obtain a test certificate without taking the vehicle to an authorised examiner or testing station; but, in order to do this, it will be necessary to tax the vehicle. And yet one cannot get the tax because one has not a certificate. It will, presumably, be possible to have a vehicle taken to an authorised examiner or testing station by a motor trader or repairer using trade plates. This, however, would necessitate unreasonable additional expense and very often inconvenience. The Amendment would avoid these difficulties. If it is not accepted, perhaps the Government will be able to say what should be done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 23, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Earl has a real point here. I recognise it absolutely. But we propose to meet the situation in a different way. I should like to explain to him what we have in mind. There are two points, the unlicensed car and the untested car, and the noble Earl wants to cover both. So far as driving the untested car to the testing station is concerned, if the noble Earl will be good enough to look at Clause 2 (4) he will see that it states:
"the use of vehicles for such purposes as may be prescribed."
That covers driving the car to the testing station. There is the second point: driving a car without an Excise licence. I am informed that it is proposed in due course to include a provision in a Finance Bill to cover that matter. I am told it is better that it should be done in that way than to put it in a Bill of this character. In the circumstances, I hope the noble Earl will withdraw this Amendment.
EARL HOWE: May I ask the noble Earl what is going to happen in the meantime?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This provision is not going to come into operation for a long time—it will certainly be over twelve months—so the noble Earl need not be in any wild hurry. There will be at least one Finance Bill introduced before this provision is introduced—perhaps more.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the noble Earl is meeting the principle of this Amendment. I do not wish to intervene in a domestic quarrel, but what has struck me is that it is odd that the Government have never thought of the point—it is such an elementary one—that you cannot take your car to be tested without a licence and you cannot get your licence until you can produce a test certificate. There is therefore a complete impasse. Why have the Government allowed this Bill to go through the Commons and to reach this House never having thought of this elementary point?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I have never suggested that we did not think of it. I have pointed to a clause in which it is dealt with.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, could the noble Earl deal with the question of

1085
insurance? I do not mean third party insurance; I mean ordinary insurance, which the insurance companies are not prepared to grant until a car has been licensed.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not think that that will present any great difficulty. One way in which it can be met is for there to be a temporary Excise licence. That can easily be done. There are many ways in which it can be done. I do not think the noble Lord need feel apprehensive.
EARL HOWE: Having regard to what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.42 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice of an Amendment in subsection (8) to leave out "subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution", and to insert:
"which shall not have effect unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I take it that the undertaking that the noble Earl gave me on the first Amendment, with reference to the production of a White Paper, holds good in this case also.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Earl says that that is quite correct. In that case, I do not move this Amendment.
Clause 4 [Speed limit in built-up areas to be permanent]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved an Amendment to transfer Clause 43 to form subsections (2) to (9) of Clause 4. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is purely editorial. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, wishes to bring the extension of the thirty miles per hour speed limit or the new regulations into Clause 4, which makes the thirty miles per hour speed limit permanent. I hope the House will be willing to accept this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Am I right in thinking that Clause 43 deals with the forty miles per hour speed limit?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is right.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: So what the noble Earl is saying is that he
1086
wants to bring in here Clause 43, in whatever form it is eventually passed by your Lordships this afternoon?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is so.
Amendment moved—
Transfer Clause 43 to form subsections (2) to (9) of Clause 4.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (1), after "Minister" to insert
"or, in relation to Scotland, the Secretary of State or the Minister".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the third of a large number of Scottish adapt ion clauses which come from time to time through the Bill. They were not put into the Bill in the first place because the Bill was introduced in June, 1955, and in April, 1956, certain functions of the Ministry of Transport were transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland. We have waited until this stage in order to see what form the Bill would eventually take. There is one peculiarity about this particular Amendment which in fact does not apply anywhere else—namely, that in road safety information there may be cases in which certain centralised supplies of information would be supplied both by the Secretary of State and by the Ministry of Transport. Your Lordships will accordingly see in the Amendment the words,
"in relation to Scotland, the Secretary of Slate or the Minister"—
—that is to say, in this clause, and in this clause only, the Minister and the Secretary of State may assist with the provision of propaganda. I think that is correct. In no other case is there an overlap of that character. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 5 after ("Minister") insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I think I ought to offer Her Majesty's Government a word of congratulation, that even at this fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour they have realised that this Bill might, by some chance, apply to the native land of the noble Earl. It would have been ghastly if the noble Earl's country had been not adequately covered. But why leave it until this stage? I must

1087
enter at least a modest protest. This is the fourth time that this Bill has been through a House of Parliament, and it is not very different from the Bill which was presented to Parliament in 1954. The noble Earl, the Government Chief Whip, has told the House that we shall very likely sit late tonight. One reason for that is that on every successive stage of this Bill the Government have come along with new Amendments, sometimes moving the insertion of new clauses. The same applied on the Committee stage. It was the same in another place.
When the Bill arrived here it was a pretty shabby garment. At present it is in shreds and patches. Some of us have to try as hard as we can to do our duty to your Lordships' House by critically examining all these matters and providing an opposition, so that this House can at least function in its natural fashion—namely, as a revising Chamber. We have an almost intolerable burden put on us here. I am not going to delay the House by talking on all these fifteen Amendments, but I should have thought they could be put in at an earlier stage of the Bill, just as I think many other matters could have been put in earlier. However, I congratulate the Government that Scotland is included.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is another Scottish adaption. I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that it is far more sensible to wait until you see the final shape of the Bill before putting in adaptions of this character. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 13, after ("Minister") insert ("or in relation to Scotland, the Secretary of State or the Minister.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Amendment of s. 59 (1) of Act of 1930
6.—(1) In paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section fifty-nine of the Act of 1930 as amended by section twenty-two of the Act of 1934 (which paragraph empowers the Minister by regulations to provide among other things for the removal from roads, and safe custody, of vehicles which have been allowed to remain at rest on a road so as to be likely to cause danger to other persons using the road or to appear to have been abandoned) after the word "custody" there shall be inserted the words "or for the moving from one position on a
1088
road to another position on that or another road", and for the words "or to" there shall be substituted the words "or as to cause obstruction to such persons or as to".
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this again is a Scottish adaption. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 45, after ("Minister") insert ("or the Secretary of State").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, are we talking about the same Secretary of State?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord knows that there is only one Secretary of State put into this Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have the point.
LORD CONESFORD: Is "adaption" in Scotland what in this country is normally called "adaptation"?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.50 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1), after "after the" to insert:
"words 'a road' there shall be inserted the words 'in contravention of any statutory prohibition or restriction or' and after the".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put this Amendment down because when I moved a precisely similar Amendment on the Committee stage I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, gave me a rather warming answer, one which made me think that if I put this Amendment down at the Report stage he would be prepared to accept it. Not relying upon my own poor powers as a draftsman, I have had it drafted properly, and I hope that the noble Lord will now feel able to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 4, at end insert the said words, —(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I am glad that my first meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, this afternoon should be on such an affable basis, because I am very pleased to accept this Amendment—particularly so in view

1089
of the fact that this is a point which I have been arguing strongly at all stages of the Bill. I fear that what I have said may not always have met with your Lordships' approval; I am not even sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, himself was my ally during the earlier stages. I am certain that he realises the full effect of this Amendment, but I wonder whether everyone else in your Lordships' House does. I can assure your Lordships that the effect of this Amendment will be quite drastic.
We have not gone quite so far as the Americans, who in places have a law which enables the police to tow away a car as a disciplinary traffice measure and take it right across town to a depôt:, with the result that the owner has to redeem it later at the cost of a considerable sum. We are putting into the Bill, however, something which means that if you infringe legitimate parking regulations you are liable to have your car compulsorily removed by the police to some place from which you have to collect it later. I think that some people are going to get a considerable jolt when they discover that that is the law. I must hasten to say, however, that we intend, to use this power only in extreme cases—as, for instance, where fire engines or police cars or ambulances are jammed in consequence of vehicles being left on the road in contravention of "No waiting" orders. I do not want your Lordships to be under any misapprehension about what we are now putting into the Bill. I am grateful to Lord Lucas of Chilworth for moving this Amendment, and I gladly accept it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I do not think I am going against the Rules of Order of your Lordships' House if I reply shortly. I hope that the noble Lord is not going to be quite so "thin-skinned" as he suggests. One of the greatest difficulties which can confront any authoritative body, including the police, in trying to keep our streets free from congestion, arises from the parking of cars and other vehicles, hour after hour, right under "No waiting" signs. Why have a law if it is not going to be strictly enforced? I know that the Home Office must have had cold shudders when it was decided to accept this Amendment. I hope that it is not proposed to wait for the fire engine or
1090
the ambulance to be held up before the power given by this Amendment is exercised. If the Government are not going to stop this parking at "No waiting" signs I suggest that they had better clear away such signs. It is a farce to have "No waiting" signs along a street and to allow motor cars to park there, hour after hour, throughout the day. As I say, I hope, that the noble Lord is not going to be so "thin-skinned" as to wait for the lire engine and the ambulance to be delayed by congestion before he thinks about enforcing the law.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Variation of minimum age for driving motor cycles on roads]:
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) After the passing of this Act no person shall be granted a provisional licence for driving a motor cycle until such person shall have satisfied an examiner appointed by the Minister (or appointed in a manner prescribed by regulation made by the Minister) that he or she has adequate knowledge of the Highway Code."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put this Amendment down again partly so that I might apologise to your Lordships' House for being unable to be present when it was called in the Committee stage and partly so that I may thank my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworlh for having moved it on my behalf. I am also actuated by the feeling that the reply which was given on the Committee stage was a very unsatisfactory one. If I may say so, I think that the reply indicated some lack of appreciation as to what is involved here.
It is an extremely simple Amendment, and its objective is one which we all have very much at heart—the reduction of accidents and the increase of road safety. The noble Lord who replied on the Committee stage said that there was no evidence that learner-drivers were more dangerous than others who had graduated and passed their driving tests. I suggest, however, that the lack of evidence is a lack of evidence in either direction, because statistics are not kept in a way which makes it possible to prove or disprove that particular point. I think we all know from personal observation that the learner-driver on a motor cycle can be a very dangerous person on the road at the present time. At the age of sixteen he can go and pay his few shillings for a provisional driving licence and then get

1091
on his motor cycle and roar off down the road. All that is suggested in the Amendment is that, before he is able to do that, he should satisfy an examiner that he has knowledge of the Highway Code. It is not merely a matter of his answering a few questions: it will be for the novice to satisfy the examiner that he has a knowledge of the Highway Code.
May I point out that this is not putting up another "bureaucratic hurdle", to use Lord Hawke's rather inelegant description: it is, if I may borrow his words, moving a bureaucratic hurdle to a more effective place. At the present time, the rider of the motor cycle, when he feels that his period of learning is over, and that he is sufficiently competent, presents himself for a test. At that stage he has to satisfy the examiner that he has a knowledge of the Highway Code. Would it not be more sensible to have that test of knowledge made at the very beginning? It seems to me to be only common sense, and it would not, I suggest, throw a further burden on the examining staff. It would leave the burden exactly where it is now, but it would split it into two sections—one section, the examination as to the Highway Code, arising when the provisional licence is issued, and the other, the driving test, when the driver thinks that he is competent to offer himself for that test. I am not suggesting that this Amendment will make a tremendous contribution to road safety, but I do think that it would make a modest contribution and that it is worth while trying out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Archibald.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am sure we are all very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, back with us again and looking fit as usual. If the noble Lord could convince me that the Amendment would help in the field of accidents I would willingly accept it. But I cannot say that his remarks have convinced me. He made the suggestion—and it was interesting to me, for I confess that I had not thought of it—that the driving test should be split into two parts: a theoretical part and a practical one. I am bound to say that I query how valuable a detailed knowledge of the
1092
Highway Code is until you have actually driven on the road yourself. I think that the significance of the Highway Code is not fully appreciated until you have had practical experience. I am bound to say that I thought the noble Lord wanted to double the amount of work which has to be done in this connection. Certainly I feel that it would mean a certain amount of extra work.
It must be recognised, too, that some people are very much better examinees than others. They can state a few facts in terse clear-cut phrases and present a formidable appearance to any examiner. Others are rather dumb, thick-headed and slow to answer questions, yet very competent when it comes to the practical side. A detailed knowledge of the theory of a subject is not always necessarily a good basis for practical application. A friend of mine, a man who had a great knowledge of cricket, spoke with such authority and detailed knowledge that one day he was invited to play for the Gentlemen of Yorkshire and he had great difficulty in persuading his inviter that it was not just unaccustomed modesty which made him refuse, but the fact that he did not play at all. I suggest that it is quite possible to pass a detailed examination on knowledge of the Highway Code without being capable of putting it into practice.
If the noble Lord thinks that the Highway Code should be better known, perhaps we should call people up every three years and put them all through an examination. I should be inclined to start with the older, rather than with the younger, though I do not know whether the noble Lord would agree with me. I agree with the noble Lord that there is no real evidence that young people are better or worse than older. What I can say is that there is no evidence that immediate beginners on motor bicycles are particularly bad. I suspect that in their early stages they are probably more careful than daring. I feel that it would be more valuable to have a re-examination on the Highway Code after a time of practice. I do not know whether I have convinced the noble Lord, but I suggest that his proposal would be a mistake and I hope that he will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I feel that the noble Earl has managed to

1093
throw considerable doubt on the value of any examination of knowledge of the Highway Code rather than on the value of an examination at the time when common sense suggests that it might most reasonably be taken; but as this is not a major point, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(4) After the passing of this Act no person shall be granted a licence (including a provisional licence) or the renewal of a licence for the driving of a motor cycle unless such person has produced to the licensing authority a current road licence for the motor cycle which the applicant for a driving licence proposes to use or, in the case of an applicant who drives a motor cycle in the course of his employment and the motor cycle is provided by the employer, has produced a certificate from, the employer that the motor cycle is duly licensed."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is also a simple one. In watching the proceedings in certain magistrates' courts, I have been struck by the number of young people, owners of motor bicycles, who come up charged with failing to have road licences and, as generally happens in these cases, with failing to have valid certificates of insurance. I recognise that the Amendment makes a clear distinction between the procedure for getting a driving licence for a car and one for a motor bicycle, but I think that that is inherent in the situation. A motor car may have many authorised drivers, but, as a rule, the possession and driving of a motor bicycle, except in the course of employment, is an extremely personal thing. I have watched young men of my staff saving up from the time they were sixteen to buy a secondhand motor bicycle for £20 or £25, and going and getting provisional licences. In some cases they have to be reminded that they must also have road licences, being blissfully unaware of that. Therefore, I suggest that it is possible to tie up the driving of a motor bicycle with the ownership and the licensing of the bicycle, except in the case of these who do it for their employer and the employer provides the machine.
The necessity of producing a road licence is intended, from my point of view, to ensure that there is a valid certificate of insurance. If we cannot make the road safer in respect of motor vehicles, we can, at least, try to ensure that the victims of accidents are not left stranded because there is no insurance to cover them. I think that this is a simple and reasonable suggestion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Archibald.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am sure that we all have considerable sympathy with the object the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, is seeking to obtain. Anything that can strengthen the sense of discipline and sobriety and knowledge of law and order in motor cyclists is obviously highly praiseworthy, but the difficulty I find with the Amendment is that it is going to be almost impossible to enforce it against the one type of person whom the noble Lord is trying to catch. The legitimate motor cyclist would be able to comply with this requirement without much difficulty. What the Amendment really means is that you could not get a licence to ride a motor cycle unless you had a motor cycle. I can cast my mind back to the days when, in my own opinion, I was a very brilliant motor cyclist; but I never had a motor bicycle because my parents did not share my view. I rode a friend's machine, on which I attained the brilliance of which I now speak. Under this Amendment I could not have got—probably in the noble Lord's opinion quite rightly—a licence for driving a motor cycle. A dishonest fellow who wanted to get a licence could acquire one illicitly for the occasion with the greatest of ease, and hand it back to the proper owner, who may or may not have missed it, when he got his own licence. Therefore, I think it would fail to attack and catch the one type of motor cyclist with whom the Amendment is designed to deal.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after Clause 11 to insert the following new clause:
Control of use of footpaths and bridleways for motor-vehicle trials
" .—(1) No person shall promote or take part in a trial of any description between motor vehicles on a footpath or bridleway unless the holding of the trial has been authorised under this section by the local authority.
(2) A local authority shall not give an authorisation under this section unless satisfied that consent in writing to the use of any length of footpath or bridleway for the purposes of the trial has been given by the owner and by the occupier of the land over which that length of footpath or bridleway runs, and any such authorisation may be given subject to compliance with such conditions as the authority think fit.
(3) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section, or fails to comply with any conditions subject to which an authorisation under this section has been granted, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(4) No statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of footpaths or bridleways, or any specified footpath or bridleway, shall affect the holding of any trial authorised under this section; but this section shall not prejudice any right or remedy of a person as having an interest in any land.
(5) In this section the expression 'local authority' means the council of a county or county borough, or in Scotland a county council or town council:
Provided that in relation to a footpath or bridleway in England or Wales for which the council of a borough, not being a county borough, or of an urban district is the highway authority, the said expression means that council."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it will be in your Lordships' recollection that we tried before a clause dealing with this subject and it was received with little enthusiasm by your Lordships. We have tried our hand again and I hope that we have something which will meet with more general approval, because there is a problem here which needs to be resolved. We have started on the hypothesis that the using of a bridle path or footpath for a trial requires strong control and, at the same time, no absolute prohibition. Accordingly, we have put in a £50 fine on anyone who promotes such a trial without authorisation. Authorisation can be given only by the local authority, who will previously have received authority in writing from the owner and from the occupier. I submit to your Lordships that that is sufficiently strong control. It means that any one of three people can
1096
object. I take it that there are some places where none of these people is likely to object, and these requirements would be reasonably suitable. Your Lordships will have noticed that we have taken out the appeal, the adoption clause and the declaration in regard to Section 13 of the 1930 Act. I do not think that I need say anything more. I suggest that there is a problem here to resolve and I sincerely hope that we have succeeded in doing so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 11, insert the said new clause. —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords. I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment. I speak with sonic feeling, because I am President of the Auto Cycle Union, which is a considerable body, with 800 affiliated clubs. I notice that the Amendment has changed. It is now not adoptive but compulsory on county councils, and the appeal to the Minister has gone. I have read with some interest the debate that took place last time. There seemed to be a certain confusion of thought, because it was said by several noble Lords that racing was taking place on these particular places; but, of course, racing is not held anywhere else but in a perfectly private, controlled ground. These are trials and nothing else, and we must discriminate between the trial and the race. It is true to say that a trial goes off the highway and on to bad ground, but there is no question of speed involved, particularly up these difficult passes, or wherever the motor cyclists are asked to go. The control is a low one, generally about 25 miles an hour from point to point, so there is no question of racing at all.
I read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, with some interest and some astonishment. I was interested to see that he was speaking to a brief—I am sorry; I was going to excuse him a good deal for his speech because it was a brief, but I cannot let him off on that. I still think, however, that he is speaking rather from the Middle Ages, because you will notice that pedestrians in these open spaces are protected as well as the horseman, and of course the horseman was the sportsman of that time. I should not like to say anything in your Lordships' House against the horse, but I have

1097
maintained all my life that the bicycle was a nobler animal than the horse; and if that is true then the motor bicycle is still nobler.
I should like to point out to my noble friend that whereas fifty years ago the conversation of young men was of hocks and spavines, it is now all "blown Bugs." and "V.P props."—and if noble Lords do not know what that means then they are not in touch with the younger generation. I should like to show a little disappointment, if I may, and if it will not make my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth give us another long speech, and say that I am somewhat surprised that he should take up such a kill-joy attitude over motor sport in general. He knows, of course, the history of the motor car, how it was born of racing and of trials and how it has reached its present state of, not perfection, but of advance through these particular contests. I think he has risen to his eminent state to-day on the backs of motor cars and his words will be somewhat resented by the younger generation.
I ask your Lordships, who are these young men who ride motor bicycles and of whom this House disapproves so much? It is quite true that they go too fast, not only with the girls they carry at the backs of their bicycles but on the roads. But they are the new generation of mechanically-minded sportsmen, and I ask you, when you are in a little trouble and you want people to fly your jet aeroplanes, who are you going to get except these young men? I think the clause is perfectly satisfactory. I look upon these people, although many people may not, as the salt of the earth, and I shall be very discouraged if this clause is not carried.
We have in the past done all we can to provide safeguards. Let me quote one of our competition rules:
"Permission to use ground:"—
this has been going on for fifty years—
"No competition shall be promoted on either a public or private road or elsewhere until such permission as may legally be necessary is first obtained from the appropriate public authority or private individual as the case may be. Failure to do such shall render the permit for the meeting null and void."
I do not think one can say for a moment that the Auto Cycle Union has tried to
1098
do anything else but be co-operative and legal in the matter. I think these regulations are ample and clear, although stringent, and I hope this House will support them.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am sorry my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara was not here on the previous occasion, but I should like to assure him that I spoke from conviction; I prepared my own speech; though several people had written to me about this clause, I prepared it before I received a single letter from them. Let me tell Lord Brabazon that I have nothing at all against motor cyclists. Neither, curiously, have I against pedestrians or riders of horse. I do not know how my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara rides his motor cycle, but I take it he does not control it with a bridle. If he will examine what this clause deals with, he will find it deals with footpaths, and the very name "footpath" conjures up a pedestrian, and "bridleways" the animal controlled by a bridle—the horse. "Footpath" is that on which pedestrians and no-one else, have a right of passing, and "bridleways" are ways on which the horseman has a tight of passing. It is not inappropriate that these rights to footpaths and bridleways should be preserved accordingly.
Now let me relieve both my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara and the noble Earl who introduced this clause by saying that I certainly do not propose to oppose it. I opposed most vigorously, as did noble Lords in every quarter of the House, the clause that was introduced on July 2. But, true to his promise on that occasion, my noble friend, the noble Earl in whose name this clause has been set down, has made the greatest effort, by discussion and consultation with us, to produce a very much better clause, and I think he has succeeded in doing so. I admit, of course, that it has not gone as far as, in certain respects, I should have liked, or as far as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would have liked, or the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who is unable to be here en this occasion. Because it did not go quite as far in some respects as I should have liked, I have carefully considered whether I should ask for any further Amendment or offer any further opposition. Perhaps I might say in passing that

1099
I have wondered whether I owed anything to loyalty to my old friend, the late Sir Lawrence Chubb, who will have been known to so many of your Lordships in all quarters of the House and who for so many years was Secretary of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society. I have also considered very carefully the admirable leader that appeared in the Manchester Guardian last Saturday. I think that I echo the feelings of noble Lords in many quarters of the House when I say how glad I am that that great journal always keeps its eye on amenities and their preservation.
What is quite clear is that what was wanted by those who spoke in the Commons on this matter, and what was wanted by noble Lords who spoke on July 2, was a strengthening of the existing law and additional control in the interests of amenities. That the clause as now drafted gives us. The county council, if minded to do its duty, can under this clause exercise complete control to preserve footpaths and bridle paths to their proper use. I have no doubt that there are many footpaths and bridle paths on which no trials of any description should be allowed; but it may be that there are some somewhere on which they could be allowed without detriment to the public. This clause allows that control to vest in the county council.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara that, though I agree with him that the motoring organisations do not normally put the speed section of their trials on these footpaths and bridle paths, the words "trial of any description" in subsection (1) of the new clause are wide enough to cover even a speed trial. For the reasons I have given, I make no apology whatever for having vigorously opposed the former clause, which was wholly contrary to the public interest; but I think we should be unwise to offer opposition to the present clause, even if it does not give us everything for which we ask, because it offers a compromise which gives the county council complete control to exercise for the public good, and undoubtedly it strengthens the existing law.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I should be much indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, if he could give us an authoritative view as to
1100
whether this clause does in fact strengthen the existing law in this direction. I think there is a serious objection to motor cycles roaring up bridle paths and footpaths on the sides of our downs and common land; and I believe I am right in saying that, when the original Act was passing through another place, I took part in helping to strengthen the law in the direction of prohibiting the use of motor vehicles upon bridle paths and footpaths. I should have thought that there was no case at all in what has happened since for permitting that abuse of some of the few quiet places that are left to us. After all, there is an animal perhaps no more ignoble than the motor cycle, and that animal is man. Man to-day is continually harassed by noise, and to get away from noise is becoming a preoccupation with many people. One of the nastiest noises, in my view, is the noise of the exhaust of a motor cycle, particularly when it has been stripped down for the purpose of taking part in these trials. Surely, at this time, with an ever-shrinking area of quiet for contemplation, we do not want to make it easier for people to rend the silence with these hideous noises.
I am sorry to have heard the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, speak as he did, because, if I may say so, he is a very wise man, and I like to feel that I am normally in agreement with him on most things. However, I think he is wrong here. We do not depend upon this kind of sacrilege to produce the pilots of the future. There should be some special places set aside for this kind of sport (if sport it be) test, or engineering performance. I ask the noble Earl to give us an assurance, if he can, that this new clause does not make it any easier for people to do this on the slopes of our quiet places than it was before. If it does make it easier, then I hope that the clause will be rejected.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I certainly accept this clause, and I cannot help feeling that it is strong enough already. I also have an idea that the noble Lord who has just spoken did not ride a motor cycle in his young days.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Yes, he did.
LORD TEYNHAM: In that case, I am surprised that he spoke as he did. However, I hope that the powers under this

1101
proposed new clause will be exercised carefully. There are many green lanes and bridle paths used by motorists who go off the main traffic routes to enable their children and elderly persons to enjoy the peace and quiet of the countryside. If cars are prevented from driving into these bridle paths and green lanes, they may be parked on the main traffic routes, which will not be in the best interests of road safety.
LORD BENNETT OF EDGBASTON: My Lords, I am not sure that noble Lords who have spoken really understand the trials that we are discussing. These trials do not take place over well-trodden paths, frequented by school children and used by pedestrians. If you have watched them, you will have seen that the most difficult parts of the country are chosen for these trials. I suggest to a number of noble Lords that if they saw the course they would not be able to walk up it at all; they would go the other way round, because these courses are selected for their difficulty. In addition, so far as I know, the trials take place in mid-winter under the most awful conditions. I do not think there is any great complaint from the countryside where these trials take place—at any rate, I have not heard of any.
I listen to the accounts of these trials on the radio on a Saturday night, and I have the greatest admiration for the young men who take part in them. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, that they are the men on whom we shall have to rely if ever we have to go into action again. I do not think your Lordships need have any great fear over this matter. The county councils have full control, and the courses are not frequented paths, but are specially selected for their difficulty and their awkwardness. I cannot see any difficulty about passing this clause and allowing these contests to take place. They have produced, not only machines which have been of great service and have sold largely in the export market, but also some tough young men who have been of use to us in the past.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I opposed this clause so strongly that I want to say a few words—and I may add that, whatever I say, I shall get into trouble. I am a landowner and have tenants; I am the president of the local branch of the
1102
Council for the Preservation of Rural England; and I was, until recently, the President of our local motor cycling club, so that anything I say is bound to be wrong. However, I feel that it is very important, in so far as one can, to fit in with the amenities of the countryside—and I use that word in its widest sense, as meaning quiet and everything else—but, at the same time, to try to encourage these motor cycle clubs. I take a slightly different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. I believe that, by their skill in being trained on these scrambles, members of these motor cycling clubs are far safer on the road than those who do not belong to clubs. I am convinced of that, and, therefore, I feel that they ought to be helped.
I am completely satisfied, too, that there are enough people now who have control of this business, both on the local authority landowner side and on the motor cycle side. There is, however, one thing that I would ask of the noble Earl. I would ask him to see the Minister with a view to his approaching the County Councils Association (I do not want them to be given any powers) to ask them whether they will, on all occasions, seek an opinion from the local rural district council. I do not suggest that they should be unduly swayed by that opinion, but rural district councils often know more about the particular bridle paths and particular amenities—whether a path is close to the church and so on—than the county councils do.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, describes the motor cycle as "a noble animal." I am sure that in a good many parts of the country the inhabitants would be extremely gratified if someone could invent a myxomatosis with which to infect that noble animal. I cannot agree with him that the so-called trials are in any way as harmless as he tends to make out. He alleges that the average speed is, perhaps 25 m.p.h. but I can assure him that on many occasions I have seen a procession of motor cycles, at intervals of, possibly, thirty seconds to two minutes, travelling at speeds, I think, in excess of 60 m.p.h., and certainly in excess of 50 m.p.h.
Many of the paths over which they go are not by any means completely free from pedestrian traffic. In my own part of the country the trials are, I believe,

1103
quite well conducted, but I know that on various occasions these so-called trials have been held over roads going through moorland occupied by sheep. Gates have been left open, often with unpleasant, if not serious, consequences. At other times motor cyclists have careered along paths through woods, the result being that for weeks, if not months, afterwards the paths have been completely unfit for passage by the people of neighbouring farms, who usually use them to take a short cut to a main road. It is quite impossible for anyone to go along them with a pedal cycle or a perambulator. I think this clause is one for which Her Majesty's Government deserve our best thanks. It is not by any means an extreme clause, and it makes it possible for county councils to allow trials to take place under such conditions as they may regard as satisfactory for the rest of the community. I have driven motor vehicles now, unfortunately, for close on forty years, but I deprecate the attitude of a certain number of motor vehicle owners who appear to think that the roads, footpaths and the country as a whole exists only for them.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, at the risk of getting still further into the bad books of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, may I say that I am unrepentant in my opposition to the use of bridlepaths and footways by vehicles of any description engaged in a trial, either of endurance or speed. I am not against motor racing, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said. If he had listened to some of the speeches I have made on this subject, he would be better informed as to my attitude. I am against motor racing on the public roads of this country when their use is denied, through that racing, to ordinary people. I am not opposed to motor racing on tracks. We have plenty of tracks in this country where motor racing can take place with complete safety to the public. There are Silverstone, Goodwood, and I could mention many others. It is a fact, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has said, that these trials have been held on bridlepaths. I agree with my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston that, if we are going to have the whole countryside torn up and desecrated by the fumes of petrol and oil, we should do something to stop it. It is not
1104
that we are spoilsports but that we have a sense of values; and that is very necessary.
I want to ask the noble Earl this question. Under the clause as it now stands, there is no power to close a bridleway or footpath when one of these trials is taking place. What will happen if consent is given and a motor cycle scramble or trial is taking place up one of these bridlepaths when a body of ramblers are coming down? Who has the right of way? At the present time, I take it that the foot passenger and the horseman have the right of way. The thing that surprises me in this clause is that the Government are doing everything they can, short of prohibition. I should have thought that the right place to hold these scrambles was on the hillside in rough country, where the public have no access, and where, therefore, there is no danger. If they are held on any bridleway or footpath where a foot passenger has access, is that not contravening the whole purpose of this Bill and contributing to the accident factor, as well as to the loss of amenity? I should like the noble Earl to answer this question. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said that this goes about 98 per cent. of the way, but, with all the hurdles they have to get over, I should say that there would be practically a cessation of these scrambles held on bridle ways. I cannot understand why the Government do not take their courage in their hands and prohibit them altogether except on private land hired from the owners.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the care with which this clause has been examined, and I am fortified to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, whom we are always glad to welcome; the noble Lord, Lord Bennett of Edgbaston, speaking as he does, and, curiously enough, the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, not differing greatly from either of them. It gives me great encouragement in thinking that it is worth while trying to find a solution by careful consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said that he is not a spoilsport. But all he wants to do is to stop it!
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, I do not.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is exactly what I call a spoilsport.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Earl is completely wrong, and that is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. I said I wanted to stop these scrambles on bridleways and footpaths— but they can be held somewhere else. You might as well say that, because I do my best to stop motor cars racing on roads in the Peak District, I am against motor racing. I am not.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said—he is a pretty severe critic—that there should be places where these trials are allowed. May I answer the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston? He asked whether we are not making it more easy for them to be held. I can assure him of that. I believe the controlling paragraph is paragraph 14 of the 1930 Act, the maximum fine in which we have multiplied by ten. Moreover, we make it clear who is the lawful authority who can give permission. That authority is a tripartite one—the owner, the occupier and the local authority.
LORD WILMOT OF SiELMESTON: All, not any one of the three?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: All. The authority is given by the local authority after written agreement by the owner and the occupier. It is a pretty stiff hurdle. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked about closing the paths. He will find that permission may be given on certain conditions. In other words, there will have to be a notice that a trial will be held, say, on June 23, so that anyone approaching it knows that he may run into the trial.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: He walks down at his own risk.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Of course he does. On the whole, I should have thought that the pedestrian could always beat the motor cyclist. My noble friend Lord Derwent asked whether the Minister would approach the County Councils Association and see that they took carefully into consideration the views of local authorities. I shall be glad to undertake, on behalf of my right honourable friend, that he will do that—
LORD DERWENT: I referred to approaching the rural district councils.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, rural district councils—because I think a detailed knowledge of the particular locality should be obtainable. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, speaking from a different part of the country, for saying that he is generally in agreement.
LORD WILMOT of SELMESTON: May I ask one question? Would it be competent on the part of the local authority to impose conditions?
Tint EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes, I did say that. If the noble Lord will look at subsection (2) he will see it says:
"… may be given subject to compliance with such conditions as the authority thinks fit."
We take the view that those words can be extremely widely interpreted.
4.40 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to say one word on this matter. I feel very sad at the idea that these footpaths and bridlepaths over which many of us have fought in the interests of pedestrians, should possibly be used for motor racing. Like my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I am not against racing at the right place and in the right conditions. The noble Earl will remember that The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act was passed in 1949. The purpose of that was to restore to the public the use and enjoyment of these footpaths and bridle-paths which had been lost to them, particularly during the war. The noble Earl will remember that elaborate machinery was set up for marking them out afresh. The whole purpose of that Act was to enable the general public to have access to the countryside. It is rather saddening that having done that, having got that measure by general consent, to-day we should be giving rights to another set of people to frustrate the use which we intended.
If that is the will of the House, I suppose it is not much good seeking to oppose it, but would ask this question. The noble Earl has said that he will discuss with the County Councils Association the possibility of consultations between the county councils and the district councils. Would it not be possible to put in this clause an Amendment, which could be inserted at a later stage, making it mandatory on the county

1107
council, which is a remote authority, to get the consent of the rural district council? I admit that would put one more hurdle in the way, but if the council agreed, if the rural district council agreed, and if the owner of the land were in agreement, then I think if there were any great dissatisfaction one could perhaps leave it to the general public to make sufficient fuss to prevent the path from being used for any particular purpose. I am rather frightened at the idea of the county council having supreme authority without being under any obligation to get the approval of the people who are directly and immediately concerned. I do not know whether the noble Lord meant to go as far as I want to go, but I feel that it should be for the rural council to give their approval before the county council agree. If that were done, speaking for myself, though reluctantly, I should be prepared to let the clause go.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I should not have intervened except for the repeated references by Lord Lucas of Chilworth to motor racing. There is no question of motor racing in this; it is simply a question of trials, trials for motor cycles and trials for four-wheeled vehicles. The use they make of bridle paths and the like is very limited, and the trials are nearly always organised by responsible bodies, who take good care to see that no excess is committed because they know perfectly well that, if it is, they will not get the consent of landowners in other areas for these trials. There is no question of motor racing in any shape or form.
LORD SILKIN: Would the noble Earl explain what is meant by trial between motor vehicles—not a trial of motor vehicles?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I say two words? I think the noble Lord is much too despondent about this clause. We are not in fact increasing this activity; we are reducing or controlling it, as Lord Mansfield, I thought, said very clearly. I have said already that we will take steps to see that rural district councils are consulted. I think to have a formal decision is taking it rather too far. They are not, in many cases, highway authorities. However, I will look at it to see whether anything can be done.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12:
Regulation of cycle racing on highways
12.—(1) Any person who promotes or takes part in a race or trial of speed on a public highway between bicycles or tricycles, not being motor vehicles, shall, unless the race or trial is authorised, and is conducted in accordance with any conditions imposed, by or under regulations under this section, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham who has been reluctantly compelled by public business to leave the House. He has told me that he does not expect me to do anything more than move it formally. He would have made, I know, a picturesque speech, since he is the champion cyclist in your Lordships' House. I have no such advantage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 14, at end insert—
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply to an individually started time trial, that is any organised competitive cycling event in which each individual competitor starts at a different time of the day separated from that at which the last competitor in the same event started by a lapse of not less than one minute, and the placings are determined entirely by elapsed times."—(Lord Conesford.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I trust that this Amendment will not meet with your Lordships' approval. I have no objection whatever to road trials, or even road races, when proper precautions are taken, but the noble Viscount, in his Amendment, talks of placings being determined entirely by elapsed times. That, put into plain English, means, I suppose, that the winner is the pedal cyclist who goes from X to Y in the shortest time. Even if he is competing against the clock and not fellow competitors he is obviously going to go from X to Y in the shortest possible time. I think your Lordships will have seen this process taking place on the roads at various times—young men on cycles going at a very high speed, sometimes considerably in excess of 20 miles an hour. I have seen them going through villages at a speed and in a fashion by no means safe for themselves or for the inhabitants of the villages, particularly in regard to small children. There is no reason why such trials should not take place when the conditions are favourable and approved by the local authority.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I, too, hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment, and for much the same reasons as the noble Earl as just spoken of. I would ask your Lordships, at the risk of being again called a spoilsport, to appreciate that here we are, in Clause 11, bringing 11 to 12 million cyclists for the first time within the scope of the law. To-day they can be prosecuted for careless and dangerous riding. While the noble Viscount's Amendment seeks to get over the difficulty at the start of one of these trials there is no way in which one can prevent bunching and crowding. I want to ask the noble Lord. Lord Mancroft, who I assume is to reply on this Amendment, what is going to happen when the police want to take action against three cyclists on ordinary bicycles, in ordinary clothes, riding three abreast and "haring" along the road, if I may use that expression, for all they are worth and causing danger to pedestrians, to themselves and to others? What is the difference between those three cyclists and the three cyclists engaged in one of these trials, riding their machines, with their heads right down and another part of their anatomy right up, and in a far more dangerous posture than the ordinary cyclist? I do not think it is putting a fair task on the police to expect them to stop these trials when there are two or three or four of the cyclists in a bunch, if they interpret their duties under Clause 11 in a proper manner. I am sorry, but I hope the Government will stick to their clause as it stands at the present time.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to the second line of this Amendment where it says:
"any organised competitive cycling event".
Does that not provide in itself a safeguard? I submit that it does—for this reason. If the permission were granted and abused, it is quite certain that it would not be granted again. This is an organised event, by organised clubs, and the organisation is pretty good. I submit that an organised competitive event is altogether different from a haphazard "tuppenny-ha'penny" club event. You have good organisation and if the privilege is abused it will not be granted again. That is the cure.
4.50 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Hailsham has had to leave your Lordships' House and was not able himself to move this Amendment, because we should have heard the problem in some detail. He revealed to us last time, to our astonishment, that he was the distinguished patron of a cycling club. Indeed, he is the President of one of the major clubs in the country. It is a sport in which he appears to have been joined in his patronage by Miss Marilyn Monroe. I must again draw as clear a distinction as I can between massed start events, which have developed only during the past fifteen years, and individual time trials, which we are now talking about and which have been held on public roads over the last sixty years. About 15,000 individual time trial events are now held annually, and, so far as I can find out, no serious complaint has been made against them. The Departmental Committee on Road Safety in their Report of 1954 did not recommend control over individual time trials, though they did draw attention to the development of "team time trials" in which a number of riders start together and race against the clock.
We are of one mind that the bunched mass race round the roads, rather like the Tour de France, which is much more popular in that country, can be a real menace. Your Lordships may have read in the papers recently of an accident in the North Country where the leading cyclist of one of these mass races came to grief and brought fifteen cyclists down with him, crashing into a Morris Minor and a milk float. It caused a serious accident. We have already taken such powers as we think fit to control that, but we do not want to penalise these individual tests which, so far as we can see, are not causing very much trouble at the moment. It appears to be a perfectly respectable and well-organised sport and we do not want to do anything against it unless it is called for. But them is no getting away from the fact that traffic is getting worse. Circumstances may change, and even these well-organised competitions may have to come under some control.
I can give the noble Viscount, Lord Haitsham, this assurance, which I shall

1111
be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, will pass on to him. We particularly want him and his friends to realise that we have not got anything against them at the moment. We are sure that their conduct in the past means that they will behave themselves as admirably in the future, as they have always done. Can we therefore give them this undertaking: that, when the regulations are made, special attention will be paid to these individual time trials and, subject only to the minimum amount of restriction, we will let their sport go on in the organised and decent way that it has done in the past. I am afraid that we cannot give them a completely free hand because a change in conditions on the road may one day make it necessary for some slight control to be imposed. With that very minor consideration, I hope the noble Viscount and his friends will be relieved to hear that there is no intention to penalise their sport.
LORD CONESFORD: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I am certain that I shall be interpreting correctly the wishes of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham if I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg leave to move this Scottish Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 15, after ("Minister") insert ("or, in relation to Scotland, the Secretary of State").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13:
Duty of pedestrians to comply with traffic directions given by constables
13.—(1) Where a police constable in uniform is for the time being engaged in the regulation of vehicular traffic in a road, any person on foot who proceeds across or along the carriageway in contravention of a direction to stop given by the constable, in the execution of his duty, either to persons on foot or to persons on foot and other traffic shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in the regulation of vehicular traffic in
1112
a road" and insert "on police duty". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put down this Amendment once again because I rather gathered on the Committee stage when I argued it that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft—in fact I think he said he would—would give it some consideration or reconsideration and see what he could do. What I seek to do is to extend the power which Clause 13 gives to a police constable engaged in the regulation of vehicular traffic to enable him to guide the behaviour of people on foot who proceed across or along a carriageway. That is all. That is the width of my Amendment. We have to try by influence to stop a lot of the jaywalking that goes on, because, if the Ministry of Transport's figures are worth anything, they show that 36 per cent. of the accidents on the highway are the fault of pedestrians who carelessly step off the pavement either behind vehicles or without looking which way they are going. My simple purpose is to try by influence, so that, when anyone walks along the pavement and wants to cross, a constable shall have the power to hold up traffic and not allow people, if he can influence them, to rush across the road and step off the pavement at any time their desire prompts them to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 44, leave out ("in the regulation of vehicular traffic in a road") and insert ("on police duty").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. If your Lordships think of Piccadilly Circus, there is no policeman employed there on point duty to regulate the traffic; it is all done by lights. Yet one frequently sees people launch out from the pavement in Piccadilly Circus into that maelstrom of traffic in the hope of walking across. Why they do it I cannot understand. It is quite inexcusable, because there is a perfectly good underground system, and they can walk from one side of it to the other. The same thing happens in other places. I cannot help feeling that it should be within the power of a policeman standing by the side of the road at Piccadilly Circus Oxford Circus or any other traffic concentration controlled by lights, to be able to come forward to restrain the potential suicide.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has a good point here, and I hope the noble Lord at present in charge of the Bill will accept it. It is not only in places like Piccadilly Circus that a constable, by using his initiative, may prevent a serious accident. I remember one case in Perthshire in which the local constable, when there was a large flood and a bridge had become seriously undermined, to the annoyance of certain pedestrians refused to allow them to cross the bridge and directed them round by a detour of about half a mile. His wisdom was entirely justified by the fact that that bridge collapsed shortly afterwards. To limit the powers of the police as is done in the clause as it stands would be, I submit, a mistake.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. Quite close to your Lordships' House, in fact in Parliament Square, time and time again I have seen people waiting to cross the road but standing in the road to do so; and yet the policemen on point duty do not do anything. It is quite easy to brush them back on to the pavement or tell them what a stupid thing they are doing. It happens day after day. One sees it all over the town and in other towns as well. I heartily support this Amendment.
4.59 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I do not think there is really as much between us as might have appeared from the battles we have had over this matter in the past. We are all at one in wanting to stop jay-walking; we are also at one in not wanting to give the police more powers than are necessary, or powers which they do not want. That has been my answer to this all along. The police, who have examined this matter carefully, have said that they do not want the powers that this Amendment would give them. I think we ought to solve this problem by looking at it on the ground. There is the policeman on point duty in the middle of the road—he is on traffic duty. There is the policeman standing on the kerb and beckoning pedestrians forward or holding them back. He will consider himself "in regulation of vehicular traffic on the road" and the difference may be so fine as not to be worth arguing about. He would have these powers. What we do net want to
1114
do is to give powers to a policeman who is nowhere near the scene, and who has his back turned and is not participating at all in the affair, although he would have different powers in the long run, for instance, under the obstruction laws and so on.
I honestly think that all the circumstances which your Lordships have envisaged—such as jay-walking, running out into the road and so on, although they frequently happen, are entirely covered and that the police have all the powers of control that they want. I think that it would be unwise to give more power in circumstances which are not likely to arise, when we are quite satisfied that there are all the powers to do the things which the noble Lord quite rightly wants the police to do.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I think I can speak again only with the leave of your Lordships, but I should like to put this point to the noble Lord. I have tested this out in Parliament Square. There is a policeman standing outside the Treasury building at the northwest corner of Parliament Square, and every day for one week when I was attending your Lordships' House, I walked across the road and the policeman stood there and saw me do it, but he never held up the traffic for me to go across; nor did he stop me. If it had not been for my youthful agility I should have been run over. If the police have the power to do this, why do they not use it? Outside St. Stephen's entrance, your Lordships will generally see two policemen standing on the pathway of the pedestrian crossing by Westminster Abbey, in the last two days probably discussing the Test Match, the only interesting subject worth discussing. They see people hurrying backwards and forwards across the pedestrian crossings and not one little finger do they lift to interfere. If they have this power, why should not this Amendment be accepted? It does not increase their powers one iota. After all, what is a policeman for but to prevent accident, crime or anything else that he can prevent? Why should he not have these powers? I think the Government are stretching the patience of your Lordships' House in not accepting this Amendment which has received universal acclaim. It is no good saying that the police have these powers and just do not use them.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, may I support the noble Lord who moved this Amendment? In the past few days in walking around London, I have seen policemen in twos and threes at all times of the day. I know that the West End Central Police Station has been brought up to full strength for certain other reasons. This morning I waited at the pedestrian crossing opposite the bottom end of Sackville Street, and there were two policemen standing at the south side of Piccadilly and three at the north side. Pedestrians could not get a foot on the pedestrian crossing, but the police did nothing to help them. I hope that the noble Lord who moved this Amendment will press it to a Division.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, there was one point that I did not understand in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Mancroft. He implied, although I do not think he meant to, that a policeman not on point duty could not interfere with the flow of traffic. That is what I understood him to mean.
LORD MANCROFT: No.
LORD DERWENT: I am glad to know that I am wrong. I only hope that they will interfere more frequently.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that if this matter is to be tackled, it should be tackled in a scientific manner. It relates to the proper use of the roads. The institution of pedestrian crossings was intended—although, in fact, it has not proved to be the case—to give pedestrians a proper means of crossing the carriageway. It was always intended that these crossings should be at stated intervals and that, by means of propaganda, subsequently to be enforced by legislation, the pedestrians should cross at these points and at no other points. It is quite useless to have a sporadic scattering of pedestrian crossings at indeterminate intervals and to expect pedestrians to get accustomed to using them. Naturally, your Lordships are shocked at the undisciplined use of the roads, but I think the problem should be tackled from the angle of the pedestrian crossing and that, wherever possible, there should be guard rails between one pedestrian crossing and another, so that people cannot cross the roads indiscriminately. Failing that, I think it is a little perilous to give constables who are
1116
not on point duty and not on duty at these particular places the distracting duty of stopping people from crossing the roads and taking their names and addresses.
I think that something should be put in a Bill—if that is what we want to do —and that pedestrians should be required to cross at the proper place, with the means of so doing provided. I see the force of the Government's case that it is important to keep the good relations between the public and the police and not indiscriminately to extend the police powers. I think this is the only country where the police cannot order you "out of the blue" to do something that seems to them to be right. While the object of noble Lords in wishing to stop the undisciplined use of the roads is right, I think the Government should meet their case in another manner by making an adequate provision of pedestrian crossings and requiring their use.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I am really surprised that the Government do not accept this Amendment. All it does is to ensure that if a policeman who is not technically on traffic duties helps to stop public inconvenience and danger, and helps the flow of traffic, by telling pedestrians, "You cannot cross now; wait one moment", then people should do what he suggests.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: It is to stop the individual crossing.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: All well-intentioned people would naturally do so. If there are some bad-tempered and unco-operative people who disregard the constable's helping hand, then I think we ought to make them do what they are asked to do. I am surprised that the Government do not accept this Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I hope Her Majesty's Government accept this Amendment. I cannot understand their reluctance to do so. Is it that the police themselves do not wish to have this power?
LORD MANCROFT: They do not.
LORD TEYNHAM: Is it also the fact that they fear that a policeman near the traffic route, if called upon to direct

1117
pedestrians across the road, will be interfered with in the course of his other duties? I am not quite clear about the real reluctance of Her Majesty's Government to accept this Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I suggest to some noble Lords who have intervened that, if I understand this clause rightly. Her Majesty's Government are quite right in not wishing to extend the powers of the police under a clause which creates a new criminal offence if the police themselves do not desire that extension. The point on which I think my reading of the clause is correct, which may reassure some noble Lords who have spoken, is this.
"Where a police constable in uniform is for the time being engaged in the regulation of vehicular traffic in a road,"
as mentioned in subsection (1), and is disobeyed, that creates an offence under this clause. But subsection (2) says that
"A constable may require any person committing an offence against the last foregoing subsection to give his name …"
That, of course, applies to any constable and not merely to the constable engaged in regulating the traffic. I think, therefore, that what noble Lords who have spoken wish to bring about can be brought about under the clause as it stands, and I think it would be a bad precedent to force upon the police, in the creation of a new criminal offence, powers not desired by the police themselves.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should very much like to support what the noble Lord who has just sat down has said, and to encourage the Government not to accept this Amendment. It seems to me that it will take away the last fragment of personal liberty that we enjoy in walking about the streets if every single policeman can take us in charge for some sort of wandering about in the streets. I hope that the noble Lord will not accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think that there is a substantial measure of confusion about this point. I might almost say that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was not really examining the powers of the police; he was criticising, the police for not exercising the powers they already have. That, I think, is how he is regarding it. As he
1118
looks upon it, by putting something in here you are not giving the police a right to do things, you are setting up an obligation which the police have to carry out. If that is the noble Lord's interpretation of what is intended it is quite wrong—and I think he must know that it is wrong. I am a little surprised at the anxiety of noble Lords to give the police powers which they themselves do not think they want. But I am glad that there are at least vestiges a some sort of regard for liberty in Lord Canesford and Lord Amulree. What is being asked is that it should be laid down that any man who is walking on a street or a carriageway can be directed by a policeman, and if he does not accept that direction he is guilty of an offence.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is wrong.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is not my Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord's Amendment is to the effect that where a policeman is on police duty—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: On police duty, doing what? If the noble Earl will forgive me, may I say that this is the second time that he has grossly misrepresented me. It is just not fair. Let me read this subsection as it would be if my Amendment were accepted. It would read:
"(1) Where a police constable in uniform is for the time being engaged on police duty any person on foot who proceeds across or along the carriageway in contravention of a direction to stop given by the constable, in the execution of his duty, either to persons on foot or to persons on foot and other traffic shall be guilty of an offence …"
That is how the subsection would read if amended as I propose. The police constable can only stop a person who tries to cross or walk along the carriageway. It is not a case of his being able to stop a person doing anything.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is exactly what I said. I said he can give instructions to someone walking on the carriageway, and if that person does not obey he is guilty of an offence. We have examined this closely with the police and the police consider that they have ample powers to do what is necessary. All that a policeman has to do is to start controlling traffic—he needs no particular

1119
instructions, so far as I am aware—and then he is engaged in the regulation of vehicular traffic. If another policeman is on duty, under subsection (2) he can go round and collect names of people who refuse to carry out an instruction. I appreciate the noble Lord's point. I think the House would be wrong to accept regulations which went so far and which the police themselves do not want. I believe the police themselves are doing their utmost to carry out satisfactorily
Clause 15 [Amendments as to exemption from driving test]:
5.21 p.m.
LORD WALERAN LORD WALERAN moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"(4) The said subsection (7) of section six of the Act of 1934 shall also empower the Minister to make Regulations dispensing with the requirement of the said subsection (1) in the case of a person becoming resident in Great Britain who has held a driving licence in any country specified by the Minister during the ten years preceding the application for a driving licence in Great Britain."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is very straightforward, and I hope that if it is adopted it will save successive Governments a lot of embarrassment. As the clause now stands it seems that if you
the kind of duty with which this subsection deals. But it is a mistake to confuse a right under a Statute with an obligation to carry it out. In the circumstances, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—
Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Remnant, L.

Lawson, L.

Silkin, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Merthyr, L.

Waleran, L.

Archibald, L.

O'Hagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Stonehaven, V.

Gridley, L.

Hampton, L.

Willingdon, M.

Amulree, L.

Hawke, L.

Baden-Powell, L.

Hore-Belisha, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Howard of Glossop, L

Coventry, E.

Bennett of Edgbaston, L.

Jeffreys, L.

De La Warr, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Glasgow, E.

Colyton, L.

Rennell, L.

Gosford, E.

Conesford, L.

Rochdale, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Cunliffe, L.

Salter, L.

Morley, E.

Derwent, L.

Saltoun, L.

Munster, E.

Dovercourt, L.

Sandford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Sandys, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Sinha, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Swaythling, L

Falmouth, V.

Freyberg, L.

Teynham, L.

Goschen, V.

Gifford, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Leathers, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

live in one of the Dominions, or in any other country which has recognised driving tests, and you have been away from this country for over ten years and then return, you have to go through a test again. That could easily be reciprocal. If you visited a Dominion to which you had not been for ten years and you wanted to drive a car while staying there for six months, you might be required to go through their driving tests. The position to-day is ridiculous. Some months ago I met in Paris one of the high officials in N.A.T.O. who was coming back to this country. He had never held a driving licence in this country but he had been driving in Paris for three years and had passed their tests. I think your Lordships will agree that it is not very easy to deal with traffic in Paris. Yet the position at the moment is that if he

1121
brought his car over here, paid purchase tax and import duty and so on, he would have to pass a test; but if he brought it over under a French licence, he would not have to pass a driving test. The position is utterly ridiculous. I suggest that this Amendment would ease a lot of trouble in the future in a reasonable way. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 16, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Waleran.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, Lord Waleran, that in some respects this situation is illogical. If anyone comes to this country on holiday or on long leave for any period under a year, he does not have to pass a test, but if he stays for over a year he must do so. Your Lordships may well, say that a rather artificial line has been drawn at one year, and the answer is that it is an artificial line; but if we took any time less than a year, say three months, the administrative confusion it would involve is obvious. We think that visitors should take a test because they might have passed a test in some other country where the standard is low or they might have come from one of the many countries where no test is required. It is no great hardship lo someone who is coining to stay permanently in this country to undergo a driving test. The test he may have taken may allow him to drive on the rough tracks of outlandish parts of the world, but not fit him to drive across Piccadilly Circus. In the interests of safety, and because little hardship is involved in the test, I should like, if the noble Lord does not mind, to stick to the present system, even though it might be a little illogical, and insist that the visitor who stays longer than a year must take a test.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, is the noble Lord not begging the question; or alternatively has not read the Amendment? What is being suggested is that the driving tests should apply in this country, but only of those countries which the Minister agrees. That is all the Amendment asks for, and the fact that the visitor has a licence to drive in the middle of the Sahara does not come into it. Will my noble friend please have another look at this matter?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the difficulty here is the specification by the Minister of those countries whose tests we are prepared to accept. I am most reluctant to do that, because it would be a very invidious distinction. I will not mention any countries, but to say that the test in Ruritania is better than in some other countries would be invidious. The other point we have in mind is that our signs are not identical with those of the Continent. That may be our fault and it might be better if they were. However, I do not think this is a major hardship. If a person has earned a licence here in the last ten years, he still can get his licence back, and ten years is quite a long time. But I shall be glad to look at this matter again to see whether we can do anything.
LORD WALBRAN: My Lords, in view of the noble Earl's assurance that he will look at it again, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Amendments as to groups of vehicles covered by driving tests]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 19, leave out from ("vehicles") to ("shall") in line 21 and insert ("in relation to which, for the purpose of granting a licence by virtue of the passing of a prescribed test of competence to drive, the test shall be treated as having been the prescribed test").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment also is little more than drafting. It ensures that anybody who at some stage has legitimately acquired a licence cannot be deprived of it under this Bill. I think that that is obviously right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 37, at end insert—
("(2) A person who has been granted a licence to drive vehicles of any class or description by virtue of subsection (1) of section two of the Road Traffic (Driving Licences) Act, 1947 (which conferred rights on persons who bad held provisional licences under emergency provisions to be granted licences to drive without passing a test) shall for the purposes of this section a be treated as if he had, immediately before he was first so granted

1123
such a licence, passed a test sufficient at that time for that class or description of vehicles.") —(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Provision of parking places where charges made]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment paves the way for No. 28, which should be considered with it. Here we come to parking meters. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, was concerned about whether the Minister would give sufficient consideration to the position of frontagers in areas where parking meters might be installed. We said that we would look at it and we have done so. I hope that this Amendment, and particularly No. 28 will meet the point that he has in mind. It means beyond peradventure that the Minister has to consider the interests of the frontagers as well as that of traffic. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 43, leave out from beginning to ("in").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are most conveniently taken together. With the ingenious assistance of the Parliamentary draftsman my noble friend has very well met the point which I ventured to put before your Lordships on the Committee stage. I was most anxious that those who had the right of making their views known under the provisions of the Third Schedule should have some words in the clause itself imposing clearly on the Minister a duty to have regard to the interests of the owners and occupiers of premises, as well as of traffic. I thank my noble friend for having given full consideration to the points I then made, and as the Amendment he has proposed ingeniously meets them I am glad to support it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is consequential to the Amendment I have just moved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 45, after ("section") insert ("the Minister shall consider both the interests of traffic and those of the owners and occupiers of adjoining property, and in particular the matters to which he shall have regard").(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 44, leave out ("the parking places") and insert ("any parking place so designated").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 15, leave out ("as aforesaid") and insert ("of the operation of a parking place").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 16, leave out ("to which the transfer relates").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is a Scottish adaptation point.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 36, after ("area") insert ("in England or Wales").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is another Scottish clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 38, leave out from ("order") to end of line and insert—
("(8) The Secretary of State may by order provide that subsection (1) of this section shall apply to any such area in Scotland as may be specified in the order; and as respects any such area—

(a) references to the Minister in the provisions of this Act relating to parking places shall be construed as references to the Secretary of State;

(b) the expression 'local authority' in the said provisions means a county council or a town council").—(The Earl of Selkirk).

LORD HORE-BELISHA: My Lords, I only wanted to know whether my noble friend had considered the etymological question put by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, whether the word in Scotland is "adaption" or "adaptation."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.33 pm.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to subsection (7):
"An order under this subsection shall not have effect unless approved by resolution of each house of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 18 deals with the highly controversial subject of parking places and all that goes with them. Subsection (7) of this clause gives the Minister the power to extend orders designating parking places outside the experimental area of the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London to all over England and Scotland and Wales. I should like to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether he will agree to produce his plan in the form of the White Paper in precisely the same way as he has undertaken to do in regard to Clauses 1 and 2. The regulations here will have to be very comprehensive. The noble Earl has graciously met the wishes of the House as regards Clauses 1 and 2, and I hope he will extend it to this clause, (which, after Clauses 1 and 2, is the most controversial in the Bill) so that we may have a chance of debating the whale thing after the experiment. The experiment is to be held in the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London. We shall have learned a lot. I hope the noble Earl will agree with me that this is a proper matter to receive the same treatment as he has kindly consented to carry out under Clauses 1 and 2. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 40, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, my name is attached to this Amendment and before the Minister replies I should like to say a word on it, particularly as I raised the matter during the Committee stage. About this question of parking meters, as has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, there is much that is very similar in character to the question of tests for vehicles. The whole scheme is admittedly experimental. Nobody knows how it is going to work. Very few people understand at present the full scope of the regulations as they are bound to be. If the Minister could go so far as to adopt the same procedure that he is going to adopt in the case of the tests of vehicles, it would be an enormous help to everybody concerned. I do ask
1126
the noble Earl to consider this. I am deeply grateful to him far the concession he made on tests of vehicles and if he would do the same thing here it would mean a great deal.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, may be surprised at what I am going to suggest here. What I am going to suggest is that we accept his Amendment but do not accept the White Paper. I want to explain why. In the first two clauses we are dealing with one subject, but when we are dealing with this no one White Paper could cover all the aspects of it. This problem in Westminster is a perfectly clear distinct problem; in Oxford there is another problem which may have practically no relationship to it. In Edinburgh there is another problem; in Birmingham there is yet another problem. It would be quite useless to think one could write a single White Paper that would cover all the different circumstances which exist in different places. That is why I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment as it stands. But each proposal will have to stand on its own legs. It is all detailed matter dealing with streets and squares, and places which have all got to be in; and it is in deciding that that noble Lords or Members of another place can form a judgment as to whether the scheme is bad or not. If the noble Lord agrees to that course I think it is the most useful thing I can suggest.
There is one technical difficulty here. I have just moved an Amendment which has taken out the last three lines of subsection (7) and created a new subsection (8). Subsection (7) refers to England and subsection (8) refers to Scotland. I am quite happy to accept the noble Lord's Amendment which will come in at the end of subsection (7), and something will have to be done about Scotland between now and the next stage. I only mention that in passing.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Earl. I understand that we shall have in your Lordships' House a series of orders which will be very much like what we have got used to under the Sunday Entertainment Act, where the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I think has reached his century—I am not certain; if he has not he is in the "nervous nineties"—of coming

1127
to your Lordships' House for orders to allow Sunday cinema shows. I am grateful to the noble Earl. I think he is quite right. I think this would be by far the best way of doing it and we could debate every order in its detail. I suppose the same would apply to Scotland.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If that is so, could we agree to let the Government alter this Amendment of mine, to subsections (7) and (9), or (8) and (9), whichever are applicable?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I accept that suggestion very willingly. I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to leave this whole matter until next time. I have not been able to take advice about drafting. Perhaps he would leave it over.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will put down an Amendment on Third Reading. I will withdraw this one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19:
Amount of charges for parking and method of payment
(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 be prescribed.
5.40 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple Amendment. I seek to delete from the clause the power to make an excess charge for parking. I am not in agreement with the Government that, in order to drive people out of parking places, the price mechanism must be used. The only official interpretation I have had of the price mechanism was that given in another place by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary: that it is contemplated that after approximately a two-hour period there should be a charge of, perhaps, 7s. 6d. or 10s. to leave your car. I think that is a horrible provision. When anybody mentions price mechanism to me I always have the feeling that the rich are going to gain and the not-so-rich are going
1128
to lose. I do not think anybody should be asked to pay an excess charge with the object of driving him out of a parking place.
I maintain that this whole clause is wrong for the purpose for which the Government intend; but the House has accepted it, and I am not going to fight against it. However, I do not think any charge should be made in a parking place that cannot be controlled by the mechanical meter. As soon as you get outside the scope of the mechanical meter, you bring in the human element. You may make the charge 1s. or 2s. for a specified time, and it should be within the compass of the machine to collect the money. As I say, immediately you go outside the machine the human element comes in, and you must engage attendants for these parking places. The very idea of the meter is to do away with the attendants, because they can get round this scheme and motorists can get away with a lot of things they get away with in parking places to-day.
I oppose the excess charge on two grounds. First, it is inequitable. I think it is wrong that the man with his little motor car who comes into the West End to take his wife to a matinée should be "soaked," whereas the wealthy man can stay there as long as he has sufficient seven-and-sixpences. I think it is an entirely wrong principle, and one that will not operate to the success of the scheme. As I have said before, I would rather have somebody in a parking place for eight hours than eight motor cars going in and out of a parking place, one every hour. I am not convinced that what I think in America is called "nickel-feeding" is a deterrent. If you like to go back every hour and put in another nickel, why should you not?
I hope the noble Earl will have second thoughts and accept this Amendment. I would make it clear that I do not mind having a higher charge for a parking place, say, in the West End of London, than for one on the outskirts, so long as the meter can take care of it. But if you are going to have an hourly or a two-hourly period, everybody who wants to go to a theatre has got to have a three hours wait in a parking place. I do not think it is fair to charge 1s. or 2s. for the first two hours and a higher charge after that, which is what I am told is going to be the result, although, of course,

1129
we must wait for the regulations. If the noble Earl can give me an assurance that I have been misled on this matter, then I shall be prepared to withdraw the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 21, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I agree with a great deal that has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. It seems to me, also, that a special administration would have to be set up by local authorities to deal with these excess payments as proposed in the Bill as it is at present drafted. Furthermore, I think practical difficulties will be experienced in regard to the attendants in the meter sites, who may be required to spend much of their time at court giving evidence in disputed cases. The payment of excess fees will no doubt be avoided by subterfuges, and I think this would be resented by motorists. If the present method of excess charge were taken out of the Bill, then I think "nickel-feeding" would take place. I would say that the average motorist would not be able to afford this very often; nor would he be able or willing to return to his vehicle at frequent intervals to insert coins in the meter.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I intervened on this matter during Committee, not so much out of sympathy with the long-term parker but because I wanted reassurance on the practicability of this scheme. I wanted reassurance on three points. The first was that the scheme would work; and in order to make it work I wanted to know that there would be sufficient attendants of a suitable character. Secondly, I wanted to know that it would be enforced by the removal of cars. This I believe has been satisfied by the Amendment put down to Clause 6 this afternoon. Thirdly, I wanted, in general, to oppose the idea of a differential rate. But I now see that the alternative to this, and the alternative to "nickel-feeding", would be to bring about police prosecution every time a car was parked for more than two or three hours. The excess charge would act as a buffer. If the police would accept that, well and good. Having received these three assurances. I am prepared to let this scheme go through and to wish it good luck in the process.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: My Lords, I am glad to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, rest content with what is now in the Bill. We all understand the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but as I understand it, the whole point of the excess charge is to avoid the commission of a criminal offence. If there were not an excess charge, the police would have to take action. That would put perfectly innocent persons in an invidious position and add considerably to the work of the police. In those circumstances, I do not think it would be, wise to accept the Amendment, much as one understands the forebodings which underlie its having beer moved.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this provision, I am afraid, does constitute an element which we regard as essential if we are to work parking meters at all successfully. Frankly, the answer that I would have made has been well made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and I have little to add to what he has said. It is all very well to talk about the man with his small motor car, but what we are really concerned with is that the moment a man exceeds his normal statutory time he should not automatically find his way into court. I may say to my noble friend Lord Teynham that one of the points of having this excess charge is that it will avoid either the attendants or anybody going into court for what is a trifling offence. We have sought to settle on an amount which is a substantial deterrent, but not an unfair or unreasonable payment. It may vary in different places or at different times. I do not know what recommendation will be made by the local authority, but I expect the excess charge will be of the order of 6s. to 8s., or something of that sort. I do not want to be too specific. That is enough, for a three or four hour period, to constitute a substantial deterrent. It is not a great deal in excess of what you would pay in an ordinary garage.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Why have a statutory limit at all?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: There is no statutory limit—it is all done by regulation.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: But why have a statutory limit of time?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: There is no statutory limit—that all lies in the regulations. That is what I mean by a "tailor made" scheme. There may be some places where you will put in 6d. an hour, and others where it is 6d. for half an hour or 1s. an hour, depending on the congestion and the type of area. That will be clearly laid down in the regulations which are brought forward. I feel strongly that it would be a great mistake to take away this buffer between what is really a perfectly legitimate use of a parking meter and a court case.
A further point is that we hope the initial charge will be relatively low—that is to say, that it will be attractive for the motorists to go there. We want it low so that it gives motorists the chance of making space available on the roads. The noble Lord said that I should do away with the attendant. But we shall never do that, because without the attendant, of course, no-one would see when the flag went up. I am afraid that somebody will always be required to watch a parking area at all times. What is possible is that, with parking meters, one attendant can cover a much larger area than he can at the present time. The point has been made that parking attendants must be people of good character, and I see no reason why they should not be. I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, because I am quite convinced that subsection (3) is in the true interests of the motoring public of all sizes of cars, big and small. If we did not have something like this we should have a constant conflict between police courts and motorists which, I am sure, we all want to avoid if we can.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I understand what the noble Earl said about the original charge for the original period. But why cannot we have a standard excess charge that is not affected by the traffic difficulties, the concentration of traffic, or where the place is? Why should we not have a standard excess charge of, say, 5s.?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will be frank with the noble Earl. There is no powerful reason why we should not have a standard charge. But it seems to us that there are different circumstances in different places where, bearing in mind the length of time for the initial charge, a heavier or lighter charge for the excess
1132
period might well be appropriate. May I take a case in point? It is quite possible that in some cases, say, outside a Post Office, you might have 6d. for half an hour. I am not saying you would, but that is a possibility. In other places, there would be a charge of, say 2s. for two hours, or perhaps 1s. for two hours. Would the noble Earl want to have the excess charge the same in both those cases, both in regard to amount and in regard to period of time? I am a little doubtful whether that would be right. I am inclined to leave that to the regulations, and I have already given an indication of what we think would be reasonable in the normal case. I do not intend to "bounce up" the excess charge a great deal. If we "bounce it up" to one guinea we are getting in line with a court fine, and I do not want to do that. I think this is the most practical approach to the problem.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Earl's explanation convinces me that the Government have muddled thinking on this. They do not know for what purpose they are having parking places and parking meters, because orginally, in, I think, his Second Reading speech, the noble Earl said that the great object in having all these parking places regulations was to relieve the traffic congestion. That is what tempted me to say to him, "The measure of your success will be empty parking places," because then the streets would be clear of cars at a standstill and would be free for the traffic for which they were originally built. Now the noble Earl says and I suspect this to be the truth—"Of course, what you want is to get as many customers to your parking places as you can." The Government now accept the principle that it is quite proper to let out the Queen's highway for the purpose of parking. That is a different principle from clearing the streets of parked cars for the free flow of traffic. If the noble Earl wants to carry out his original suggestion, the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would, of course, be ideal. A fee of £1 an hour would frighten everybody off the parking places. Or it might be made £5 an hour, and that would clear the streets of London. All you would have to do is to put parking meters down every street and have a fee of £5 an hour, and

1133
you would find that all the streets were perfectly free of parked motor cars.
I do not intend to take this matter any further to-day, because I see that the subsection which I wish to delete says that it may be prescribed by regulation. Therefore, we shall be able, as the noble Earl said on my previous Amendment, to have a free discussion upon all these things. I should hazard a guess that, by the time we get to these regulations, the Government will have had third and fourth thoughts upon the whole question. Resting content with that assumption and hope, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24:
Charges for parking vehicles in Royal Parks
24. Regulations under section two of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1926, may 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 twenty-one of this Act.
5.57 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause:
"Provided that such regulations shall require any surplus income from the charges recovered to be applied towards the provision of parking accommodation for vehicles otherwise than on highways and whether in the open or under cover.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I feel certain the noble Earl will accept. On the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on behalf of the Office of Works, "muscled in" on this part of the question and said that under the regulations they were going to make a charge at some time in the future—he did not know when—in the Royal Parks, which come under the jurisdiction of the Office of Works. When I asked the noble Lord where the "plunder" was going, he said, "To the Royal Parks". I asked him why. He said, "To keep up the Royal Parks". I think the Royal Parks are kept up very well: they are a model, and I enjoy them immensely. Everybody who has anything to do with the flowers in the Royal Parks is to be sincerely con-
1134
gratulated—they are one of the showpieces of London.
The original intention of this Bill, however, and one of the principles which we have had hammered into us by every Government spokesman up to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on this particular subject, was that the one object of charging for any space on the road was to provide off-street parking. That was the be-all and end-all of charging for parking on the Queen's highway—that they would take out of the pockets of the motorist hundreds of thousands of pounds more than they do at the present time, as £400 million a year is not quite enough, and that with that surplus they would provide off-street parking. So, surely, the principle should be carried forward in charging for space in which to park cars in Royal Parks. I do not suggest you should dig up the Royal Parks and have off-street parking in the parks, but surely the money collected should go to the adjacent local authorities, so that they cart the sooner provide the off-street parking which is so necessary. Therefore, I put this Amendment down and I hope that at least it will be accepted in principle and that, when the time does come for the Government to put the regulation forward to charge for parking in the Royal Parks, the balance collected will go to provide off-street parking—I say "balance" because I imagine there will be parking attendants; I hope the Government are not going to be such vandals as to have parking meters. However, we have had an assurance front the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 8, at end insert—
("Provided that such regulations shall require any surplus income from the charges recovered to be applied towards the provision of parking accommodation for vehicles otherwise than on highways and whether in the open or under cover.").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I had hoped that I had succeeded on the last occasion in convincing the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, about the difference between the Royal Parks and the streets of London, but obviously I must have failed, so I must try again. The provision that the Minister of Works should have power to charge for parking in the Royal Parks is largely a measure of protection for the parks. If

1135
charges are made for all parking on the highways outside the parks, the effect is bound to be a great increase in the parking inside the parks. My right honourable friend the Minister of Works would have greatly preferred to accept no parking in the parks. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in the tribute he paid to the amenities of the parks. As a Londoner myself, I enjoy them regularly, and I regret anything which interferes with them and that anybody who wants to go for a walk in a park and parks a car there for that purpose should be crowded out by people who have left their cars there for a quite different purpose.
Charging for parking may be the only means whereby parking in the Royal Parks can be kept within reason. If my right honourable friend the Minister of Works were to introduce charging it would not be to raise revenue but to keep the number of cars parked in the Royal Parks under control, and the Minister of Works would not feel any moral obligation to use the proceeds for the benefit of traffic. The money should be used for improving the amenities and the parks. Your Lordships will, I am sure, accept that there is a great difference in principle between charging for parking on the streets which are part of the Queen's highway, and charging for parking in the Royal Parks, the use of which, by motorists and the public, is on an entirely different basis. I hope that I have now convinced the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that we cannot see our way to meeting the principle behind the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that if they are going to charge in the Royal Parks the charge should be, if not prohibitive, at any rate very high. But I do not understand the second part, of the argument. Why should this money be used for keeping up flower beds?—that is putting it rather stupidly. Here is a heaven sent opportunity for charging more because it is a Royal Park and you want to keep them out, but if there is a surplus, surely it should be used for off-street parking outside the parks, because the sooner that is provided the sooner the Minister of Works can say, "No more parking in the Royal
1136
Parks," and that is what we all want. Although I agree that the charge should be high—the higher it is, the better, provided the park can be filled—the sooner we shall get the off-street parking elsewhere. I do not understand the second part of the argument and I would ask the noble Lord to look at it again, because we want this off-street parking and we do not want car parking permanently in the parks. If the money is put into flower beds, there will be parking in the Royal Parks for ever.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I never raised the question about parking; I accepted that. I want to know why the money should not go to outside local authorities; because the sooner they build up their off-street parking, the sooner will Lord Mancroft be able to walk round the parks and not have to view a lot of ugly motor cars. This is too bad. We have accepted the Government's principle of charging for parking, and I think the least they can do is to see that these monies—I do not mind how much is charged—are put to the purpose for which they were originally intended, and that is to provide off-street parking. Will the noble Lord put the views expressed to his right honourable friend the Minister of Works and see whether he cannot co-operate, as I am sure he wishes to, in the desire to get off-street parking at the earliest possible opportunity?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I will certainly look at this matter again, but I think your Lordships should recognise that there probably is not a great deal of money in it. There would be no parking meters and attendants would have to be paid. It is necessary to see that the cars do not swamp the parks. We intend to be rather more strict about enforcing the regulations, and this is a form of regulation. But we will look into the matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful. If the noble Earl is convinced that on balance there is not a great deal in it. I do not mind. On that assurance, I will withdraw my Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I suggest that if the word "may" is used

1137
instead of "shall", it will really meet the case? There would be the power to allocate the surplus if it were so desired.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25:
Penalties and disqualifications
25.—(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:—
(d) a fine imposed on summary conviction for a first offence under the said section fifteen may be of an amount not exceeding one hundred pounds and may be imposed in addition to any imprisonment awarded by the court and the imprisonment awarded on summary conviction for a second or subsequent offence under that section may be for a term not exceeding six months; and any imprisonment awarded on a conviction on indictment for an offence under that section may be for a term not exceeding two years;
and a fine imposed on a conviction for contravening an order made under the powers conferred by subsection (2) of section forty-six of the Act of 1930 (under which orders may be made prohibiting or restricting the use of vehicles on specified roads) may be of an amount not exceeding in the case of a first conviction twenty pounds and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction fifty pounds.
6.8 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1) (d), 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: My Lords, we come to what I consider is a most serious Amendment. I think it was the third or fourth I put down on the Committee stage. I am quite convinced that we in this country will never tackle this task of reducing the number of road accidents in the country until we influence the behaviour of every road user—motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and every other user of the roads. I saw a cartoon in Punch which I thought was a dreadful indictment in connection with the latest figures of road accidents. It showed a cenotaph, in half darkness, and round the foot of the cenotaph were masses of dead bodies. It really turned my stomach over when I saw it. I have given a lot of thought to this subject and, in spite of all that has
1138
been said, I am convinced that one of the things we must do is to reconcile the conflict of views upon the question of penalties for road offences that exists to-day between the magistrates' bench and Parliament.
It is no good denying that there is a great conflict of opinion. On the Committee stage, I produced figures to show that for motoring offences over the year 1953–54, the last year for which official figures are available, the average fine imposed for careless and dangerous driving and being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle was precisely 10 per cent. of the maximum. I argue that Parliament, in its wisdom, fixes a maximum fine, and any sensible person has the right to think that for the average offence at least the mean between the maximum and nothing will be the fine imposed. But no, it is not it is 10 per cent. of the maximum.
In this Bill we are asked to double the maximum fine. What good will that do if the magistrates' benches in this country still take the view that the offence of careless driving, dangerous driving or being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle is not as serious as Parliament, in its wisdom, thinks it is? There was a letter in The Times of July 6 from the Chairman of the Bromley magistrates' court which gives the age-old reply of the magistrates who think that their standards of fines at the present time are sufficient to meet the case. What are we going to do? Are we, as Parliament, going to allow magistrates' courts to dictate to Parliament? Or have magistrates the public duty of taking notice of what Parliament says? I was rather shocked when the noble Earl the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said this afternoon that anything that the police do not want to do Parliament cannot say that they must do. That really shocked me. Surely Parliament, in its wisdom, says that those are the penalties and it is for the courts to use their discretion in the light of public opinion.
When I raised this matter on Committee stage, the noble and learned Viscount in what, if he will permit me to say so with respect, was a studied reply to me, said one thing. He did not deny the justice or the rightness of the course I proposed, but, he was afraid that if my suggestion was adopted—that is of putting in a minimum penalty but giving the magistrates discretion for special

1139
reasons, special to the facts of the case or the circumstances of the offender, to impose a lower fine—it would detract from the magistrates' view or appreciation of the seriousness of the powers of suspension. As I pointed out, where the magistrates have had the discretion of suspension they have exercised it in only 3 per cent. of cases.
We read in the newspaper the other day of how some magistrates treat suspension. They were the Portsmouth magistrates and it was a case which I am told is fairly typical. A man was disqualified from driving for two years because he was found guilty of driving without a third party insurance policy. In six months, he applied to the court and he got his licence back—two years' suspension, and six months afterwards he applies and gets his licence back. I see nothing in this Bill to deal with that kind of thing. There are compulsory disqualifications, and I must confess that I think it is time that Parliament stated, without any equivocation at all, that magistrates must pay more attention to the will of Parliament.
I said to the noble and learned Viscount on the Committee stage that I would put down this Amendment again to deal with a specific class of offence, and the specific class of offence I have chosen is being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle, which is, to my mind, the most terrible crime that can be committed on the roads of this country. If I had my way—I repeat myself—nobody who was found guilty of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle would ever drive a motor vehicle again. I have put down this Amendment to seek to alter the clause so that the maximum penalty shall be
"a fine imposed on summary conviction for a first offence under the said section fifteen"—
that is, Section 15 of the 1930 Act, which deals with being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle—
"may be of an amount not exceeding one hundred pounds"—
that is how the Bill reads now. I seek 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".
Then the clause goes on with the imprisonment qualification as set out in the Bill.
I should like the Government to agree to accept this proposal as an experiment. It concerns the most serious charge of all. I do not ask it for careless driving or dangerous driving, but I ask for it to be imposed in these cases to see what reaction there is and whether it proves a greater deterrent than exists at the present time. I am not interfering at all with the magistrates' discretion; but when they impose a lower fine they will have to state what their reasons are for so doing; and we shall then see what those reasons are. Unfortunately, from 1952 to 1954 the average fine for being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle went down by about 33⅓ per cent. I will not say anything more. I have stated the case once again in the hope that your Lordships will think fit to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 45, after ("pounds") insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
6.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am in entire agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. However estimable may be the qualities of anyone in other activities, if he is on the road—and "he", of course, includes "she"—in a state of inebriation, he is a potential killer. I do not think he can be too severely dealt with. I am again inclined to support the idea of imprisonment for that offence rather than merely for the second conviction for reckless driving, which is dealt with by the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I feel that something of a drastic character will have to be done before long if the roads are to be made even a little less dangerous than they are at the present time.
The effect of imprisonment as apart from a fine has been clearly shown over the past year in my own county of Perth, where we have a courageous and able sheriff substitute, Mr. Prain, who, perturbed by the growing number of cases of being drunk in charge of a car, gave repeated warnings that, if these persisted, he would not hesitate to impose sentences of imprisonment. In due course he started doing so, and for a year or so only in a few exceptional cases have persons within our area found guilty of being drunk in charge of a car escaped with other than a month in prison. The effect of that, although unfortunately it has not

1141
been to wipe out drunken driving, has been to raise the standard of sobriety locally very much indeed. For example, the public houses round the market have complained bitterly of a falling off in their trade. Again and again when local farmers and others have been offered in that most abominable phrase "one for the road"—an extremely dangerous habit —the reply has come "Nae fear! we're nae going to be Prained." We have a new verb in Perthshire—to be "Prained" —that is to say, to go to prison for being drunk in charge of a car. I am glad to say that other sheriff substitutes are following that example, and the effect is salutary.
I am convinced that until, on the one hand, we get people convicted at least for a second offence of being drunk in charge of a car automatically sent to gaol and at the same time deprived of their licence for a long period without any hope of getting it back at all until that period has expired, we shall continue to have an appalling number of accidents taking place which are caused by persons driving a car whilst drunk. Sometimes the result is unfortunate, because in other ways those concerned are excellent people; but, as I have said, a person who is drunk in charge of a car on a public highway is a potential killer and is all too often an actual killer. For this reason, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will most seriously consider increasing the all too inadequate penalties which exist to-day and which, unfortunately, are not quite heavy enough in this Bill.
6.23 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in the method which he stated so attractively, is returning to the proposals that he put before your Lordships on the Committee stage, and I want briefly to remind your Lordships of the course that his proposals took at that time. He moved his Amendment and I pointed out the difficulty of the Amendment—namely, that it would first of all fetter the discretion of the magistrates; and secondly, that it would deflect their attention from disqualification, which I myself believe to be the most important deterrent in this sphere. Having these
1142
difficulties in mind, I asked the noble Lord not to press the Amendment.
Then, on the question that the clause stand part, the noble Lord came back to the point of the necessity of emphasising the importance that magistrates should reconsider this problem, and with that I expressed entire agreement. I think it is a serious problem and I said —I think the noble Lord approved my words—that magistrates should re-think the position in regard to these charges. But your Lordships will remember that on the specific proposals there was a considerable difference in the House as to the method suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, which is that the magistrates should be directed to impose a minimum fine of half the permitted fine unless special circumstances exist.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, then suggested that we might try what I called, I think, and he agreed with my nomenclature, a pilot scheme. I promised that I would consider a pilot scheme. I have done that, and I should like to point out to the noble Lord, the difficulties that exist. There are those that I pointed out before—the fettering of the discretion, the deflecting of attention and the feeling that a minimum sentence, even in the form of a pointer, might seem an excessive measure against the motoring community. But with regard to the pilot scheme there are further differences. Your Lordships will appreciate that the Bill proposes, by Clause 25, to raise the penalty on the first conviction from £50 to £100, and this Amendment would require the court in the absence of special reasons to impose a fine of at least £50 on a first conviction, but would leave the court with an unfettered discretion if the conviction were a second or subsequent case.
But it goes beyond that. The difficulty which those with whom I have consulted have found is how one is to test whether this pilot scheme has succeeded. If I may just elaborate that in a word or two, I think your Lordships will appreciate the point. The essence of a pilot scheme is that one ought to be able to test the results. Here we are in a great difficulty. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that I am making difficuities for the sake of resisting his Amendment; I want to show that we have considered the matter

1143
most carefully. He will have observed that we have added a new defence in this field which distinguishes between drunk in charge of a car and being drunk in charge of a car but not driving a car, in which case the special defence exists. My noble friend Lord Howe will remember that that was put in to meet the general sense of the House that the present law was not suitable or fair. That is one difference that exists.
The other difference is that we have increased the penalties. The House will appreciate the increase in terms of imprisonment that can be imposed for this offence, from four months to six months for a second or subsequent summary conviction, and from six months to two years on indictment; and in addition there is the longer period of disqualification. It would be most difficult, I am advised, and I agree with the advice, to see whether the results were due to Lord Lucas of Chilworth's proposals or to these alterations in the law which I have mentioned.
There is another practical difficulty which affects me—namely, that noble Lords will remember that by Section 31 (1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, a magistrates' court is required, in fixing the amount of the fine, to take into consideration among other things the means of the person on whom the fine is imposed so far as they appear or are known to the court. That would, I think, present a difficulty. Are "means" special circumstances? How are the magistrates to combine these two things—these two approaches to the matter? For these reasons, we are bound to advise the House to reject this Amendment. I want the noble Lord to appreciate, as I have said before, that I am most grateful to him for raising this point. My position is a difficult one because, as I have said, it is wrong for any member of the Executive to appear to be giving instructions to the Judiciary, magistrates or anyone else.
But what I think I am entitled to do, and what I have sought to do, is to ask that it should go out with tremendous emphasis from this House that all magistrates and members of the Judiciary should carefully reconsider the seriousness of the position on the roads to-day. If they will do that, I think they will approach it in the proper spirit, but we shall not have invaded what I think is an essential principle of the administration
1144
of justice—that each case should be considered on its own merits, that no one should be prevented from putting forward the special circumstances of his case, and that the magistrates should consider these cases absolutely irrespective of any governing principle which might limit that treatment. I am very sorry that I have not been able to help the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I have tried to consider this matter, and, giving it the best consideration I can, I cannot recommend the course which he suggests.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack has recommended the rejection of this Amendment primarily on the ground that it would fetter the discretion of the magistrates, and that it is desirable that they should have complete discretion within the limits of the clause so that they can judge of the particular circumstances of each case. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth justifies his Amendment—and I think rightly—on the ground that magistrates have had this discretion for a very long time and our experience shows that they have not hitherto been sufficiently alive to the seriousness of this particular offence, because they have consistently imposed penalties which, I think we should all agree, have been less than they ought to have been and have certainly not indicated the view that this is one of the most serious offences that could be committed.
I think those responsible for this Bill in a sense recognise that, because they are increasing the maximum penalty. No one knows better than the noble and learned Viscount that merely increasing the maximum penalty does not at all ensure that magistrates will impose heavier penalties than they have done hitherto. It gives them authority to do so, but nothing more. I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount would agree—subject to his point that it does unduly fetter the discretion of the magistrates—that it would be the proper thing to do; because, reading this clause, I see that in another part of it it is proposed to do exactly what my noble friend desires to do under his Amendment. If the House will look at subsection (1) (b) they will see there that it is stated that
"the disqualification required to be imposed by subsection (3) of the said subsection eleven"—

1145
which does not, of course, apply to the particular offence we are talking about; I am merely raising this as an indication of the way in which the magistrates' discretion is fettered in the same clause—
"(which requires the court, except in special circumstances, to impose a disqualification on a second or subsequent conviction for an offence under that section) "—
which is the offence of dangerous driving—
"shall be for a period of not less than nine months unless more than three years have elapsed since the offender's last conviction under that section"
Is that not exactly a parallel? Does it not require the magistrates to impose a penalty of not less than nine months except in special circumstances? Therefore, does the noble and learned Viscount really suggest that if we can fetter the discretion of the magistrates in the case of dangerous driving, there is any objection to doing so in the case of being drunk in charge?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord will allow me, I will deal with that matter now, as he has put the point to me specifically. There is, in my view, a great difference between disqualification and the imposition of the penalty of a fine or imprisonment. Disqualification is a measure for keeping people off the roads. But this is a point relating to a penalty of a fine. The noble Lord would like to ensure that there should be a minimum penalty in the case of a fine. I draw a great distinction between the two things.
LORD SILKIN: I was not saying that this is an exact parallel. I started off by saying that this relates to dangerous driving and not to being drunk in charge. But the principle of telling magistrates that they shall disqualify, and disqualify for a minimum period, seems to me to fetter the discretion of the magistrates, unless there are special circumstances—which is exactly what is being provided for here. Therefore, have not the Government, in this subsection, really given away this principle of not fettering the discretion of the magistrates? I admit that it is not in connection with a fine but in connection with disqualification. But it has been argued that disqualification may be a more serious penalty, and may more seriously affect a person than merely paying a fine. It may affect a person's
1146
livelihood; it may affect his mobility. Yet discretion in this connection is taken away from the magistrates. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that the Government themselves have created a precedent in the case of a less serious offence which, in my view, ought to be followed in the case of the more serious offence to ensure definitely that the penalty fits the offence.
With respect, I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that a pilot scheme is not practicable because it would be difficult to satisfy ourselves that the results which flow, flow particularly from the increase in the severity of the penalty. I know that there is the case mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and I think that there is circumstantial evidence that the reduction of drunkenness in Perthshire flows from the greater severity with which these offences have been dealt with. It may be that the Scots are more logical than we are, or it may be a case of post hoc, propter hoc. I do not know. I see the difficulty there. I would ask, the noble and learned Viscount to think again about this matter. In my view, he has given away the principle already in regard to a less serious offence. Therefore I think it would be fully justified in the case of the offence of drunk in charge.
6.39 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two about this Amendment. Though I am not in favour of the passing of the Amendment, I think there is a great deal to be said for the spirit of it and for what the noble Lord has said in moving it. But, as I see it, there are one or two difficulties. The whole question of minimum punishment is raised, and I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has just said—indeed, I think we must all agree—that the principle of minimum punishments has already been established, as he rightly said, by the minimum disqualification. On the other hand, we have never had before, I think, for a first offence, a minimum fine, though I believe there are precedents for it when a fine is imposed on a second conviction. I see, however, as I have said, a technical difficulty about this Amendment.
I believe that I am right in saying that under Section 15 of the 1930 Act a court is not under any obligation to impose a fine at all. If I am right about that, obviously we cannot go on to say that the fine imposed must be above a certain

1147
amount, because if we did and if the magistrates did not like that, they could get out of it easily by not imposing a fine. I think that there is something to be said for its not being compulsory to impose a fine. Only three days ago I was presiding in court where a man was convicted of being under the influence of drink in charge of a motor vehicle. We sent him to prison, disqualified him for double the minimum period and made him pay a substantial sum in costs—it was an indictable case—but we did not impose a fine. We thought that he had been sufficiently punished by the other three penalties imposed. If this Amendment were put into the Bill, I think we ought to look at that point, because I think that all noble Lords would agree that if we made a minimum fine, we must make a fine compulsory, otherwise there would be a gap through which any court which wanted to avoid the minimum would escape.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, the Chairman of the Magistrates' Association, and to my noble friend Lord Silkin for speaking on this Amendment. I certainly shall not attempt to divide your Lordships on a matter of this kind, in face of the advice of the noble and learned Viscount. But I must say that he has not reconciled my difficulty—that is, the great disparity between the opinion of Parliament and the opinion of the magistrates. Let me quote from a letter in The Times from a chairman of a Bench:
"In most courts the penalties imposed are suitable in relation to those imposed for other offences coming before the same courts."
That is what the magistrates think. I have never heard a Lord Chancellor lecture (if I may use that word without offence) the magistrates, as the noble and learned Viscount did on the Committee stage of the Bill in his reply to me. One of the biggest newspapers which reports the proceedings in your Lordships' House and for which I have a regard—the Manchester Guardian—never mentioned a word that the noble and learned Viscount said. How are we to make public opinion alive to this great problem of road accidents? How are we to bring this home to the public? At the present time it is treated by the general public
1148
as a price we have to pay for this so-called civilisation. It does not raise a flutter in the heart of anybody, until some day death knocks at his own door. I am grateful for what noble Lords have said. Perhaps we have made some progress and one day we may be able to reconcile these two views, but at the present time the opinion of Parliament, as expressed in this Bill, and the opinion of the general run of magistrates on the seriousness of road accidents are poles apart. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) Where a person has been convicted for a first offence under section eleven (reckless or dangerous 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, the court shall impose a sentence of imprisonment following any conviction against that person for a second or subsequent offence."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to carry out what I have said in your Lordships' House for many years in regard to the punishment of those misusing the roads. On one occasion I remember suggesting hard labour and somebody shouted out, "There is no such thing to-day". I replied that for this offence I would re-institute it. I happen to travel fairly often long distances to meetings, and I do not find any improvement whatever in the behaviour of those on the roads. I think that dangerous and reckless driving is just as bad as, perhaps worse than, it has ever been. I have listened with great interest and respect to what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said in regard to the discretion of magistrates, and I want to get it put down quite definitely that anyone who is convicted for the second time should go to prison. There are a great number of people who do not care "two hoots" about a fine. I was told the other day of a man who had been fined eighteen times. That is making a farce of trying to prevent the appalling casualties on the roads. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, rendered great service to the House when he gave us the full comprehensive figures of what is happening today. Although I knew that the position was pretty bad, his figures had a strong effect on me.
The situation is quite appalling. For years and years we have tinkered with this question. We have imposed fines, taken licences away for a while, but with no good effect whatever on the figures that are coming every month. Some people say that we cannot expect anything else, because there are so many more motor cars on the road. I think that we have to deal with things as they are and not try to make excuses for not getting "tough" on this subject. I should like to see it laid down that anyone who does for the second time the things I set out in my Amendment has no option but imprisonment. I was glad to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said about the beneficial effect on the number of cases for driving whilst under the influence of drink in Perthshire, which has apparently resulted from this being done. I speak with the greatest seriousness on this subject, because I feel that in this Bill we have a great opportunity to save many lives. I hope that the Government will accept the principle of my Amendment, because I am convinced that the punishments already inflicted have had no effect whatever in reducing the reckless and dangerous driving, together with the other offences mentioned in the Amendment. We must try something that does succeed, and I feel convinced that anybody who has served two or three months' imprisonment will never forget it and will never repeat the offence that caused him to get there. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Teviot.)
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this Amendment also. To some extent it raises the same point as that Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with which we have just dealt. Again it raises the question of the minimum punishment. I do not, on the whole, like minimum punishment because, amongst other reasons, there is always the temptation—and after all we are all human and find it sometimes difficult to resist temptation—that courts, when faced with minimum punishment, try either to escape convicting the man (I am sorry to have to say that is done, but it is so) or somehow, I may use the expression, to wriggle away from imposing the punishment.
1150
In saying that, I should like to say this as a magistrate myself. In my opinion, the words which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said on the Committee stage of this Bill were in no way unmerited or undeserved, and I am bound to admit that over the years magistrates, by imposing inadequate sentences — I speak generally — have deserved not only the words of the noble and learned Viscount but something more, though something that I think is, on the whole, undesirable that is, the imposition by Parliament of minimum punishments. I agree with the noble Lords opposite that it is no good trying to ignore the fact that Parliament imposed minimum punishments as long ago as 1930 or 1934. Therefore the principle is established. But on the whole I do not like it. What I should like to see—and I think noble Lords will here agree with me—is that magistrates, by imposing voluntarily the appropriate punishments, would render minimum punishments unnecessary. I should like to see that. I admit again that at the present time it cannot be said that minimum punishments are altogether unnecessary. I hope that in time we shall be able to say so. I wanted to take this opportunity of saying once again that what the noble and learned Viscount said on Committee stage was in no way unmerited and will not be in any way resented. I believe, by any reasonable magistrate.
With regard to this Amendment, in the first place I think the wording needs a good deal of rearrangement. If I may respectfully say so, the wording is rather unhappy, and I doubt whether the Parliamentary draftsman would be very content with it. The other point I wanted to make is this. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, says that for a second conviction under these two sections there shall be imprisonment. But he does not say how much imprisonment, and one of the defects of his Amendment is that any court which wanted to avoid the imposition of imprisonment could easily get round it by sentencing the man to one day's imprisonment, which means his immediate release. Does the noble Lord really want that?
I suggest to the noble Lord, if he is going to put this provision into the Bill, if he can get the House to accept it, that

1151
(this is from his point of view, not mine) he must surely provide for a minimum period, because under the Amendment as drafted the minimum period is one day, which means none at all. That is just a technical point I should like the noble Lord to consider if he is going to get this Amendment in. On the whole, I am disposed not to like this Amendment, because, as I have already explained, it imposes a new minimum punishment; and although I agree that in a large number of cases convictions under Section 15 —I am not so sure about Section 11—should carry imprisonment for a second offence, I am not altogether happy about the imposition of this punishment with no discretion left to the magistrates.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope, indeed I am sure, that nothing I say in answer to this Amendment will derogate in any way from the serious words which I said on the Committee stage of the Bill. I am very glad indeed that my noble friend who has just spoken, who is chairman of the Magistrates' Association, should have referred as he did to my words, because it is immensely important that the seriousness of this problem should be in every magistrate's mind.
With regard to the Amendment moved— by Lord Teviot, there are, I think, three difficulties. In the first place it would be, so far as I know, the first time in our history that a minimum sentence of imprisonment had been laid down by Statute, and we want to consider the due and proper administration of justice—on the one hand, that those who are trying the case should have the freedom to deal with the circumstances of the case which I mentioned to your Lordships a moment ago, and, on the other, that they should not be driven to the course which my noble friend Lord Merthyr has just mentioned, of imposing one day's imprisonment, thereby bringing the law into disrepute. That is the difficulty with which we are faced, and there is also the second difficulty, which the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, also touched on, and that is whether, in most minds, dangerous or reckless driving and being drunk in charge of a car or while driving a car are really offences of the same magnitude. I think that has to be considered.
The third point is this. I am sure that the greatest practical help, as I urged
1152
on your Lordships on the Committee stage, is disqualification. I have tried to say a few moments ago why I think disqualification is on a different plane from the imposition of a sentence of either a fine or imprisonment. I think it is a natural common-sense method by which society protects itself by getting these people off the road automatically, unless there are special circumstances surrounding the offence, not the offender. I think it is a line which can be most profitably considered where the penalty is optional and where we have increased automatic suspension under this Bill.
But I should like, as the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has said, that there should go out from our debates on these penalties, first of all, a sense of the seriousness of the matter that we are discussing, which, indeed, is shown by the increased penalties in the Bill; secondly, as I have said, a need for re-thinking; and thirdly, an effort to use the voluntary thought, consideration and good sense of magistrates before we come to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has urged us to consider of imposing minimum sentences, either of fine or imprisonment. If this effort fails, then not only the magistrates but we ourselves will have to think again. This is the last chance of voluntary serious consideration of one of the greatest evils of our time. I do not think I can say more to mark the seriousness of the matter. I would ask my noble friend not to press his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, withdraws the Amendment, I should like to express my thanks to him for again underlining this matter, and to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, for what he has said. Coming from the Chairman of the Magistrates' Association, it must have some effect. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, is right: if the magistrates of this country think that they have had some heavy criticism, they deserve it, because they have been palpably negligent in their duty. I am grateful, too, to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for what he has just said.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I would, with great respect, thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for what he has said, particularly at the end of his speech—that this matter is going

1153
to be taken seriously, and if not successful, we shall have to think again. On that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) In subsection (1) of section six of the Act of 1930 (which provides for disqualifications for holding a licence, and for the endorsement of licences, on conviction of criminal offences in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle, other than offences under Part IV of that Act) for the reference to any such offence as aforesaid there shall be substituted a reference to the offences specified in the Fourth Schedule to this Act.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by the said subsection (1), so much of the Act of 1930 as provides that a person convicted of an offence shall be, or shall be ordered to be, disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence shall not apply to a person convicted of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, or inciting to, the commission of the offence."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment arises partly from some remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on the Committee stage, when he said that there appeared to be some clarity lacking in offences where disqualication applied. Our attention has also been drawn to the same point by the Clerk to the Dudley magistrates, Mr. Wilkinson, to whom I should like to take this opportunity of expressing our gratitude. The doubts which have arisen are in relation to in what offences discretionary powers and disqualification can be exercised, because it all depends on whether an offence is a criminal offence in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle, and in particular whether these words apply to persons who have not driven a vehicle, or been in one when it was driven, but have caused or permitted it to be driven. For example, we want to make it clear that in cases where a car is driven without proper insurance disqualification applies equally, or can be applied equally, under Section 6 (1) of the 1930 Act, both to the driver of the car and to the owner or the person who allowed someone else to drive the car.
There is also some doubt felt by some people as to the power of magistrates' courts to impose disqualification under Section 6 (1) for offences created not by Statute but by regulation; that is to say, pedestrian crossing regulations. The purpose of this Amendment is to remove all doubt, and the offences are put together
1154
under Amendment No. 74. One other small point I would mention is that subsection (3) of this Amendment is intended to clarify the position as regards disqualification of persons who aid, abet, counsel, procure or incite offences in which disqualification can be imposed on the principal offender. The subsection provides that alders and abettors are not subject to compulsory disqualification, but only to disqualification in the exercise of the discretion of the court. This Amendment is intended to clear up these points, and I hope the House will agree that it does so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 13, at end insert the said subsections.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We on this side of the House accept that gladly, and I am grateful to the noble Earl for his lucid explanation. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, is not in his place, but, as I followed his argument, the noble Earl has met it completely.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at five minutes past seven and resumed at twenty minutes past eight.]
Clause 28 [Offences against s. 35 Of Act of 1930]:
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved to add to subsection (3):
"except in so fat as offences where driving disqualification remains at the discretion of the court."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a matter which was discussed on the Committee stage and now appears in a somewhat different form. In spite of the forceful arguments of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, I am not convinced that there is not a good deal of merit in the case that I submit. The Bill proposes to remove the present discretion which the court possesses in respect of disqualification of drivers. The Bill proposes that the disqualification should apply to all classes of vehicle. The Amendment which I submit to your Lordships says that in cases which merit less severity than automatic disqualification—that is to say, in cases where the disqualification remains at the discretion of the court—the court should also possess discretion as to the class of vehicle to which discretion should apply.
I listened with rapt attention, as did all Members of your Lordships' House, to the sombre and grave words which were spoken by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor about this terrible toll of death on the roads. I have no wish to be soft or sympathetic to wrongdoers but, equally, I am sure your Lordships will agree that despite our anxiety to reduce road accidents we should retain a sense of fairness and a sense of reason. The Government's view, as I understand it, is that if a motorist is considered deserving of disqualification by the court, even when that disqualification is at the discretion of the court, he is a man unfit to drive any class of vehicle and the anti-social conduct of his offence must be assumed to apply to all sorts and types of driving in which he may be occupied, even though he may be the driver of a road-roller. If he is convicted of an offence in a racing car he must not be allowed to drive the road-roller, even though it is his livelihood, and even though he is not likely to do much damage with the road-roller.
My Lords, I fear that the present proposals of Her Majesty's Government may have the effect of not disqualifying certain people who should be disqualified. I feel that magistrates, if they know that a disqualification for not the gravest type of road offence carries with it the deprivation of a man's livelihood, may hesitate to disqualify; whereas if my Amendment were adopted that discretion would remain with the court, and should the offence be such that they felt the disqualification should range over all types of vehicle, then so should it range. But if, on the other hand, they felt the disqualification should be a limited disqualification then they could apply that limited disqualification. I must say that I felt somewhat sympathetic with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who said that the principle of discretion of the magistrates had been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and I would ask that the principle of discretion which is granted as regards penalties for other offences should be extended to this one. Let me repeat that I have no wish to be soft or sympathetic to the wrongdoer, but I do hope that Her Majesty's Government may feel this is not an unreasonable proposal to put forward. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 15, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I once again support my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, on this very modified Amendment, compared with what he had down last time. The Front Bench (if I may collectively term them in that way) last time poured some scorn on the question of the example we took of the tractor driver. There is something in this modified Amendment which is much more serious and I entirely agree with my noble friend. Take a lorry driver who has driven a lorry for twenty years without any penalty whatsoever and who, on a Saturday afternoon off, commits one of the offences for which magistrates will still have discretion as to suspending his licence. For such an offence in the ordinary way, if committed on a Saturday afternoon when he was riding a motor bicycle, they would rightly and properly take the view that he ought not to be allowed to ride a motor bicycle again for some time. Assume that this lorry driver has driven his lorry without any offence for twenty years. Under the clause as it stands now, he will lose his lorry driver's licence too. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that there is a grave risk that his licence for riding a motor bicycle will not be suspended at all if this happens.
8.31 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, in an earlier Amendment we were asked to maintain the discretion of the magistrates. If one takes the example that the noble Lord has just instanced of a lorry driver who has driven a lorry for twenty years without ever having done anything wrong, and then one day he drives a motor bicycle carelessly or dangerously or even after he has had a drink, can one imagine any bench of magistrates disqualifying this man, knowing that this clause applies and that he can, therefore, be deprived of his living? I am quite content, contrary to what I said on an earlier Amendment, to leave this to the discretion of the magistrates.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I also agree with the modified Amendment. Surely it is right that the court should retain discretion as to disqualification in the case of a man earning his living by

1157
being a driver. Under this Amendment, there will be an obligation for the court to convict in the case of drunkenness. Surely, that meets the point required by Her Majesty's Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I fully appreciate the moderate way in which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, proposed this Amendment. I should like to assure him that I have given it careful consideration since the Committee stage of this Bill, but he will appreciate that his Amendment bites only when there is a discretion. Take one example of a person who is convicted for the first time for the offence of dangerous driving. The court could exercise the power to limit the disqualification, but on a second conviction for the same offence there would be no power. That is the effect of the Amendment. As I urged on the last occasion, in the case of insurance there is now a discretion to disqualify or not to disqualify. That really meets the point of my noble friend Lord Derwent, that there is now a discretion in the insurance case which was a hardship up to the time we made these amendments in the law.
But there are two general difficulties and one particular difficulty. The first general difficulty is the one that I put on the last occasion: that when this House has felt so seriously on the general question, it would, I think, have an unfortunate effect if, on the first occasion thereafter, we took the opportunity of dealing with a rare case by modifying our severity. We have to note the repercussions which will obviously take place if this Amendment is carried. My noble friends have suggested that the effect may be that the court will not disqualify because there is this hard case. That would be an example of a hard case not merely making bad law but bad administration, which I hope would not happen.
My noble friend Lord Derwent on the last occasion dealt with the case of the agricultural tractor. I have considered that, because it is a practical point which I think is worthy of consideration. But the first difficulty—the general difficulty—I found, is this. If one exempted agricultural tractors, one would immediately have to consider how far it was a special matter for agricul-
1158
tural tractors and how far one would have to deal with the claim for other types of vehicles used mainly off the road—trench digging vehicles, cranes and that sort of thing. Then one would come to the general point—this is what we have to face—as to whether every case where a man's living depended on the disqualification is a case where the disqualification should not be imposed. That I find very difficult to escape and very difficult to accept. Suppose a lorry driver or bus driver, when driving some other vehicle has driven dangerously, and the court feel that it is in their discretion, not as an automatic matter, necessary to impose disqualification. I believe that the fact that a man makes his living from driving on the road makes it necessary for him to show a high standard in his driving..
Upon this broad general point we, as a House, are really posed with the problem of which we were speaking before our adjournment. If one gets to that stage—that the fact that it is a man's daily bread is to be a reason for not imposing a disqualification when his dangerous driving has justified it—are we not falling into the same error, leaning over backwards in is matter, as we have been condemning magistrates for falling into in our earlier proceedings? As I have said, it is a matter of discretion. Therefore, one must postulate that the magistrates believed that this was a case where the disqualification should be inflicted, and I cannot believe that, after the seriousness which we have tried to inject into this matter, the magistrates who really think that this is a case for disqualification are going to refuse to disqualify because it is a matter of daily bread. One must face the point that those whose daily work requires them to take vehicles on the road, and therefore are on the road constantly, ought to set a high standard.
My Lords, I want to say this to my noble friend, because I should not like him to think that having declared myself on the Committee stage I did not take any trouble about it—that is not my way. I have tried very hard to consider the farm tractor case, because I think that was the most extreme illustration, but at the same time the spearpoint of the argument. It would be possible, of course, to make an Amendment of the Bill which would have the effect of producing the

1159
result that a discretionary disqualification should not extend to the driving of the appropriate kind of farm tractor unless the court directed that it should be extended. The appropriate kind of farm tractor would have to be defined in terms which would be based upon the provision in Section 7 (4) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, which exempts from the motor vehicles excise duty any mechanically propelled vehicle in respect of which the applicant for an excise licence satisfies the licensing authority that the vehicle is one intended to be used on public roads only in passing from land in his occupation to other land in his occupation and for distances not exceeding in the aggregate six miles in any calendar week. That would take Lord Derwent's farm tractor, or at least some of those which were in ordinary use, outside the Bill.
To make an exception from a driving disqualification depend on the terms of an exemption from excise duty is not very satisfactory, both in principle and because the terms on which the exemption from duty is granted may be varied. It seems to me rather an illogical way of dealing with the matter. I think the answer I give to Lord Derwent is the ordinary common-sense answer, that it may well be possible to ensure that if the tractor is driven by a disqualified person it will be driven on the road only to a very limited extent. After all, if necessity of driving on the road does arise, it ought not to be difficult to get someone else to take the tractor over.
I come back here to our original suggestion that we have enlarged the field of discretion; we have enlarged it to cover the case of driving without an insurance certificate. But we have still maintained discretion in relation to a first conviction for dangerous driving. I have come to the conclusion, after consideration, that these cases will allow the magistrates to exempt anyone who has really mitigating circumstances. I think that that is as far as we ought to go. This is so much a psychological problem. We have heard in all the speeches, from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, on the last Amendment and the speech of my noble friend Lord Merthyr to the speeches from the other side of the House by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Silkin, that
1160
it is a psychological problem of convincing all concerned of the seriousness of the problem of road slaughter. To go back on that for what is a rare case in regard to the tractor and the other cases would be a pity. This is a question of convincing a person whose daily life is engaged in driving of the seriousness of the position in which the country is placed. To go back on that would be something which this House would regret. I am sorry to have taken so long over this matter, but I wanted my noble friend to appreciate that I have considered it. I have even considered a back-door way out. In these circumstances I hope that, in the interests of the general feeling of the House, which is so strong, the noble Lord will not press this Amendment but will trust the magistrates to exercise discretion in a proper case.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for the long consideration which I know he has given to this matter. He has communicated with me between the last stage of the Bill and this and I am grateful to him for that. I remain unconvinced, but I bow to the superior wisdom of the noble and learned Viscount. Although I feel that we are creating some unfairness in our attempt to deal with a psychological problem, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Extension of s. 113 (3) of Act of 1930]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, both halves of this Amendment tighten the provisions about evidence of identity. I do not think that the matter is controversial, and it is not one of great substance. As we wish to make a certain amount of progress, I will content myself with saying that, unless noble Lords have any particular points to raise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 3, leave out ("references") and insert ("subsection (2) of section forty-one of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948 (which provides for proof, in proceedings for certain traffic offences, of admissions as to the identity of the driver or owner of a vehicle) shall apply to any offence to which the said subsection (3) applies; and in the case of any offence under the provisions of this Act relating to parking places the power conferred by the said subsection (3) to require information shall

1161
be exercisable either by or on behalf of the chief officer of police or by or on behalf of the local authority for the parking place in question.
(2) References")—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord thinks this Amendment non-controversial because I am afraid that I have serious objection to it. A long time ago I raised this question: if we give local authorities power to institute proceedings for road traffic offences, who is going to collect the evidence? The trouble lies in the last two lines of the Amendment:
"… or by or on behalf of the local authority for the parking place in question."
Subject to anything the noble Lords opposite may say, I interpret that as meaning that any car park attendant can cross-question me upon whether I am the owner of a vehicle and ask me to produce my driving licence to establish my identity, powers heretofore confined to the police. Are we setting up an auxiliary police force that will be in charge of all the car parks set up under this Bill and arming them with the power to cross-examine anybody who leaves his car on the park and who, in the opinion of a car park attendant, is transgressing the law? Is he going to be the person to cross-examine us about our lawful authority to be there with the car? I do not object to the police having this power, which they have now, but if your Lordships will look at the words of the Amendment, I think you will interpret them as meaning that the representative of the local authority will be the car park attendant. That is where I think this Amendment is somewhat controversial.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I feel more strongly about this Amendment than I really know how to state. I know perfectly well that if it eventually conies to this: that a car park attendant comes up to me and asks me to give my name and address, I shall flatly refuse to give it to him and will suffer any penalties which may result from that refusal. I absolutely refuse to believe that it. can be the intention of the Government to compel the motorist to give his name and address and general particulars to a car park attendant. I will do it, every minute of the day if you like, to any police officer—but to a car park attendant! Can the Government really
1162
be serious in putting this Amendment forward? I absolutely refuse to believe it.
What is going to happen? We are going to have parking places—in the Royal Parks, for example. A motor car is parked in the Royal Park at night and a man in a nondescript suit of clothes, or even in uniform, comes up to you and asks you for particulars, name and address and all that sort of thing. How is one to know that he has anything to do with it at all? He may be a parking attendant at some provincial car park or any London car park. How are you to know who he is or what he is, even if he is in uniform? The only person one recognises in London, or anywhere else, is a police officer. I cannot believe the Government are serious in wishing to hand over power to ordinary car park attendants to come and ask for one's name and address. There are so many arguments against the idea that one's mind boggles at it. I think it is an outrageous suggestion, and for myself I shall go into the Lobby against it; and I shall certainly refuse absolutely, at all times, to give my name and address to a nondescript car park attendant. And I am perfectly certain that that will be the attitude of most of the motoring world.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I think it is wrong that such powers as those set out should be given to car park attendants. I would remind your Lordships of a case which occurred recently in the courts which shows what can happen. It was last week. The case received wide publicity in the Press. The park keeper was severely criticised in the court for the drastic action he took in obtaining the name and address of a lady who was combing a dog's hair in the park. The unfortunate lady declined to give her name and address and she was marched through the park and, I think, put away in a shed. What became of her afterwards I do not know.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is what happens when one says something is non-controversial. I thought we had settled this question a long time ago. It is not so serious as that, I admire the sturdy British independence of the noble Earl, Lord Howe; if he wishes to refuse his name to any car park attendant, let

1163
him do so. But I have a shrewd suspicion that there is not a car park attendant in England who does not know Lord Howe's name before he asks.
Let us see what this Amendment does. It is principally the second part with which we are dealing. It ensures only that local authorities have power to obtain information leading to the identity of a driver of a vehicle alleged to have committed an offence against the parking place provisions. Clause 31 extends the powers of the police which are embodied in the 1930 Act to obtain information as to the identity of the driver of a vehicle to cases arising under the Lighting Acts, the parking place provisions and others. This part of the Amendment extends these powers to local authorities so far as parking place offences are concerned. The duty of enforcement, I quite agree, will fall primarily on the local authorities, and the power to prosecute offenders is given to them by Clause 21 of this Bill. If an excess charge is incurred but the name and address of the driver is not known, it will obviously be necessary to trace him through the owner of the vehicle, whose name and address can be traced, as your Lordships realise, through the registration number.
The fact is this: unless the local authorities have power to require this information from the owner they would clearly have to seek the assistance of the police. What we are trying to do is to minimise the additional burden which parking places will throw on the police. That is why the power is being given to the local authorities to get the information for themselves. That is all it is, and I think any attempt to blow this up into a grand inquisition and suggest we are going to be frogmarched off by park attendants for having refused to do it is carrying the matter a little beyond the bounds of realism. That is all we are trying to do, and that fact, I thought was established long ago in the history of this Bill.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, could the noble Lord enlarge a little on what he has just said? As I understand it, the police have powers to obtain information. That, in practice, takes the form, I gather, of a policeman asking for some proof of identity, and if one declines to give it—which would be very foolish—I believe the policeman
1164
has the right to take one to the police station. Now we are proposing to extend those powers to the local authorities. In the form that the noble Lord put it just now, it seemed a reasonable proposition: that the car park man would, I presume, take the number of the car, it would then be traced through the registration and the owner would be asked certain questions as to whether he was driving the car, or whoever was driving the car. But, in practice, could the local authority devolve the power we are giving them now to their car park attendant, and give the car park attendant some decentralised power to stop a motorist leaving a car park and to demand some information from that motorist, in the same way as the police have that power now? If there is any possibility that the local authority will be able to decentralise that power, then there is a good deal of substance in the points put forward by noble Lords who have protested against the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has raised this point. I want to say beyond peradventure that there is no question whatsoever of any local authority officer stopping any car anywhere. What will happen is this—and it is, I admit, an administrative matter. A man overstays his time in a car park. The flag goes up and the car park attendant will put a ticket on the car saying: "Mr. So-and-so stayed over the time. Please pay 5s., 6s. or 7s. 6d. to the local authority." He will take the number of the car, I take it, on the stub of that voucher, and in due course, supposing the offender does not pay up, the local authority will write to say: "This car is reported as having overstayed its initial period. Who was driving?" In the ordinary course of events, most people would say: "My brother was driving", or "So-and-so was driving", and that would be the end of it. But in some cases the persons concerned will not say that. We are giving the local authority power only to make that inquiry, and to ask the person to reply to it. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said that if that is not done, then the whole thing is thrown on to the police. We are anxious to relieve the police of this responsibility. What I will undertake is to see that this does not go further than what I have said, and if it does, I will

1165
undertake to report back on the Third Reading. I am confident that what I have said is just what can be done, and no more.
EARL. HOWE: With permission, I should like to ask whether that means that the individual who flatly refuses to give any information about himself to a car park attendant has committed no offence?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am afraid that I must answer that question. In the ordinary course, there is no need for the car park attendant to ask for a person's name, because he will take the number of the car and that is all that is necessary. However, I will investigate this point and let the noble Earl know about it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if I may speak with leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for having relieved my mind. The common-sense interpretation of this matter is that the representative of the local authority can obtain any information required, and that means cross-examination of the driver as to whether he is the owner, as to his licence and everything else. In the way the noble Earl has explained it it is quite intelligible to me and quite reasonable. If he will carry out the undertaking he has given, then I am quite happy.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32:
Amendment of s. 46 of Act of 1930
32.—(1) The powers conferred by subsection (2) of section forty-six of the Act of 1930 (which authorises the making of orders regulating traffic on roads) shall be exercisable as respects any road where it appears to the council or Minister exercising the power that it is expedient so to do—
(2) The provision which may be made by order under the said subsection (2) shall be any provision prohibiting, restricting or regulating the use of a road or any part of the width thereof by vehicular traffic or by such traffic of any class or description specified in the order, either generally or subject to exceptions so specified, and either at all times or at times, on days or during periods so specified, and, without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, any provision—
(c) prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles or the loading and unloading of vehicles,
(3) An order made in the exercise of the said powers by any council to which the said section forty-six applies which contains no provision other than provision—

(a) promoting or restricting the waiting of vehicles or the loading and unloading of vehicles, or

(b) prohibiting or restricting the use of footpaths or bridleways by bicycles and tricycles, or

(c) revoking or varying any such prohibition or restriction,

shall not require confirmation by the Minister, and the Minister shall not have power to revoke or vary any such prohibition or restriction contained in an order made by or on the application of any such council:
Provided that—
(i) this subsection shall not apply to any trunk road; and
(4) The following provisions shall have effect as respects the proviso to subsection (2) of the said section forty-six (under which no order may he made with respect to a road which would have the effect of preventing reasonable access for vehicles of any class or description to premises on or adjacent to the road):—
(c) a restriction on the loading or unloading of goods shall in no circumstances be treated as preventing such access as may be reasonably required if the restriction does not prevent loading unloading for more than six hours in all in any consecutive period of twenty-four hours.
9.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment, which deals with the traffic regulations that may be made under the 1930 Act, has been put down to try to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, to ensure that certain restrictive action can be taken in regard to roads, purely on the grounds of amenity. I move the Amendment and hope that it will meet the point the noble Lord had in mind.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 21, at end insert—
("or
(e) without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing paragraph, for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, this Amendment meets completely what I desired. I am happy to think that, with this paragraph added to the Bill, it will be clear beyond any doubt that the authorities can preserve the amenities of the Ridgeway and the ether green roads of England for ever.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, but I should like the noble Earl's assurance upon one point. I take it that the acceptance of this Amendment will not mean that motorists are absolutely debarred even to drive their cars on the Berkshire Ridgeway, the example the noble Lord has quoted. I have driven my car there for the purpose of taking a picnic tea. All I have done is to drive my car there, and drive it off. I have not used it as a road. Surely this Amendment will not debar the motorist from enjoying the amenities of the countryside, so long as it is not abused, and using one of the green roads of England for purposes of pleasure. Could the noble Earl give me that assurance?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, that point does not arise on this Amendment at all. All we are saying in subsection (1) is that these are the purposes in mind which the local authority can consider when they impose restrictions. What we are doing is simply to say that the consideration shown in this Amendment—that is to say, preserving the character of the road—can be considered when the local authorities impose the restrictions they think necessary.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has taken a friendly interest in my Amendment, that he will find some words to his comfort in lines 34 and 35 of the clause?
TIIE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether this subsection, or the clause as a whole, gives him any power to deal with what I think is a growing menace—that is, the habit of motor vehicles using residential streets as short cuts for through traffic. It is a menace that is particularly acute in London, but no doubt it arises in other large cities, too. I have in mind, in particular, a residential area in North London which is bisected by a large broad street uninterrupted by traffic lights which, in the course of years, has come to be used as a through road for heavy and light traffic of all kinds and speeds, passing from the North West of London from the Harrow Road to the
1168
City. That represents a threat to the amenities of the district and, indeed, to the safety of the inhabitants. School children have to cross these roads to go to school, and old people have to cross to go to their shopping centre.
When such a road is in a district that not only under the Planning Acts but also in fact is a residential district, it seems to me that there ought to be powers to restrict through-traffic. I confess that I see great difficulties in diverting the traffic and in controlling it, but I should like to ask whether the Minister thinks he has any powers under this clause, or under the later clause which deals with experimental traffic schemes in London, to deal with this problem, which I think is a serious one, and growing more serious, and is threatening many parts of great cities.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, is this not one of the immediate effects that one must expect from an utterly inadequate road system? If we could have, not exactly a motor road but a well-recognised through-road for the traffic which uses the road referred to by the noble Earl, would that not meet his point? A mere policy of restriction surely cannot be the right one in these days, when our roads are so utterly inadequate. It might well have considerable effect, in the long run, on goods going to the docks, or wherever they go. It seems to me that a protest such as that which the noble Earl has just made is, on the face of it, a perfectly reasonable one, and one with which we can all sympathise; but, on the other hand, does it not underline how hopelessly inadequate our roads are, and ought not the Government to be dealing with it from another angle? Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, would do what he can to support it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am always glad to be at the noble Earl's disposal, but if he will look at subsection (2) (d) he will see, among the other powers,
"prohibiting the use of roads by through traffic".
I do not know how it can be done—as he said, it is a difficult matter—but the power is there.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.7 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that no prohibition or restriction on waiting imposed under the powers conferred by the said subsection (2) shall apply to any stage carriage or express carriage."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 32 gives the local authorities certain unfettered powers, and on the Committee stage I moved two Amendments with the object of exempting public service vehicles from those powers in so far as waiting and loading and unloading were concerned. The noble Earl was good enough to say on the Committee stage that he accepted those Amendments in principle, and the wording of the new Amendment which I have now put down has been agreed. But it does not go quite so far as my original Amendment, in that it omits the contract carriage. The contract carriage is the privately hired coach, as noble Lords will know. I agree that there may he some difficulty in including the contract carriage, but perhaps the noble Earl would just deal with that point.
While I am speaking on this Amendment I should like to say that I have studied the Hansard report of the Committee stage rather carefully, and it will he remembered that there was a three-cornered argument in which the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, and the noble Earl referred to whether the words "loading" and "unloading" were ever applied to public service vehicles. I believe the noble Earl's view is that those words do not apply to public service vehicles. However, as the wording used on the Committee stage was not quite clear, I was wondering whether I could have the noble Earl's categorical assurance that those words, "loading" and "unloading" apply in no case to public service vehicles. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 2, at end insert the said proviso. —(Lord Gifford.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will excuse me from pronouncing on that last question—I would rather not do so without being properly advised. But I will very gladly accept his Amendment, as I said I would do on the Committee stage.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, by leave of the House may I say that if, after reflection, the noble Earl finds that, contrary to what was indicated on Committee stage, "loading" and "unloading" might possibly apply to public service vehicles, then I think "loading" and "unloading" ought to be added to the words of this Amendment, because, on the strength of his assurance on Committee stage, nothing is being said in the Amendment, as at present drafted, about loading and unloading.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord may rest assured that, so far as public service vehicles are concerned, his Amendment will meet all their requirements. I will certainly look at it to see whether anything further is: required, but I am pretty confident that nothing further is required in this.
LORD TEYNHAMThe noble Earl has not dealt with the question of contract carriages.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No, I have not. I do not think that is necessary, because these stage coach carriages are quite different. We are not in the same difficulty about contract carriages. We have not included them because they do not need the paving services which the stage coach carriages do. That is what I am informed.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I say that I am a little worried whether a local authority could prohibit the waiting of a contract carriage without such an order being confirmed by a Minister.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am afraid that I shall have to look at that one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "and" where that word occurs after the words "the Minister", and insert "but". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to take this Amendment and the next together, as they really form one Amendment. On the Committee stage, when the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, introduced this clause, which seeks to transfer to the local authority, without any appeal to the Minister, powers that are at present held only by the Minister, I said that I did not like it. I did not like it then,

1171
and I do not like it now. At the time, I said that, while I was quite prepared to admit that the gentleman from Whitehall did not know everything, I was not prepared to admit that Mr. Bumbledom of Slopcombe-on-the-Slush knew anything more.
What I have tried to do here is something very simple by the insertion of two words and the omission of one. If your Lordships will look at Clause 32 (3), you will see that it says:
"An order …
(c) revoking or varying any such prohibition or restriction,
shall not require confirmation by the Minister"—
and then I seek to change the word "and" for the word "but"—
"but the Minister shall"—
then I leave out "not"—
"have power to revoke or vary any such prohibition or restriction contained in an order made by or on the application of any such council."
I believe that the Minister should have the right of revocation upon appeal. I am not satisfied that local authorities are the appropriate people to deal with this question of waiting and unloading or loading on streets, because many of the streets in our main cities are main routes; they are trunk routes. Trunk roads do not come under this subsection, but trunk routes do. I asked the noble Earl last time, when does a trunk road cease to be a trunk road? Of course, it ceases to be a trunk road, in the eyes of the law, when it enters a county borough. So trunk roads, when they are inside a county borough, do not come within the embargo that I wish to make.
The whole point is this. I believe that the Minister should retain the right first of veto and, secondly—I know I am going a bit further than the noble Earl wants to go—of initiation. We have to look after these trunk routes. We cannot expect all these new roads to be built for another twenty-five to thirty years. We shall never free the congestion on our main roads unless we really clear some of those that exist at present. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl will accept this Amendment, which I think is a necessary Amendment in order to free our traffic. I will not go through the whole of the case that I put before your Lordships
1172
previously, but there are now plenty of roads in this country that are congested—main roads that run through some of our ancient towns—and the local authorities will not do the job that they have the power to do. I think it is wrong to give them these powers without any recourse whatsoever to the Minister in case of the non-fulfilment of those powers. That is why I have put down this Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 11, leave out ("and") and insert ("but").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
9.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is slightly inaccurate on this occasion. It is most difficult to put this clause correctly, but we are really in this position. Virtually all traffic restrictions outside London are now initiated by the local authorities, but they all have to be confirmed with the Minister. Here we are trying to reduce the number of actions by the local authority which require confirmation by the Minister. Therefore I am afraid that it is no good the noble Lord thinking that his Amendment would increase the initiative of the Minister, because it would not. At the same time, I want to set his mind at rest on one matter—that is, on trunk roads. Trunk roads go through all county boroughs and stop only when they get to London. So that I think he need not worry about what in fact is a trunk road—incidentally, the High Street at Oxford is not a trunk road.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Why is that?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is not for me to say why, but there is a by-pass round Oxford which I presume is a trunk road. Last time the noble Lord asked me to examine this point, and I have endeavoured to do so. In regard to places like Stamford they are trunk roads, and in those cases the Minister has full initiative—in other words, he acts in the position of the local authority. We are really dealing with places outside that category. This is not a question of initiative; it is purely one of veto or, if you like, the power to revoke or vary. We have to ask ourselves whether the local authorities can be trusted properly to exercise the powers laid down in Clause 3—incidentally, there is a printing

1173
mistake here; if your Lordships will look at subsection (3) (a), you will see that the words should he, not "promoting and restricting" but "prohibiting and restricting"——or whether they should do it only after confirmation by the Minister. I expressed the view last time—and I believe it is sound—that local authorities should have as much responsibility as they can undertake. If we do not give them responsibility they will never reach the ability to exercise it. I am therefore anxious to keep as much power with the local authorities as is possible without their constantly referring to the Minister. Apart from anything else, I think that is good administration. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press this point.
I notice that there is another Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. If the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would wait a little, I might have something further to say when we reach that Amendment. What the noble Lord is asking for here is to enable the users of the road to appeal to the Minister over the head of the local authority. He is not giving the Minister any initiative; he is merely giving him a check—in other words, a means of withdrawing the traffic regulations which local authorities in their wisdom have imposed. If anything, he is weakening the control of traffic rather than strengthening it. He is, in effect, suggesting putting two authorities where there might be only one. So this really does not meet the point of improving the regulation of traffic.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I will leave my Amendment until I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has to say. I have not such a high regard for local authorities in this matter as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has. I know the noble Earl's difficulty. I did not serve for two years in the Ministry of Transport without learning of the mass of things which have to come to the Minister for confirmation. I may tell your Lordships that if it had not been for the veto of the Minister you would not have had one street in any town in this country free from the 30 mile-an-hour limit. Applications for the imposition of this limit used to arrive in shoals. Why? Local prejudice—that
1174
is the answer. I ant afraid that if local authorities were given freedom to prohibit loading and unloading in certain streets, local prejudice would be bound to come in. You may say what you like about bureaucrats—and you cannot find things that are too strong to say against them, so far as I am concerned—but in matters of this kind they have one great virtue; they are impartial. I have found that local authority administration is not impartial when it comes to matters of this kind. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment, and I will not move my next Amendment. I will wait to hear what the noble Earl has to say on Lord Teynham's Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (3), to insert at the beginning of the proviso
"(i) this subsection shall not apply to any order in connection with which objections have been received by the council by whom the order made;".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the intention of my Amendment is to try to deal in a practical way with the increased powers proposed to be given to local authorities by this clause. I understand that Her 'Majesty's Government are anxious to delegate such powers in place of the existing procedure under Section 46 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to avoid a large number of small, unopposed traffic regulations passing through the Ministry and causing a lot of unnecessary work. I sympathise with this desire of the Minister of Transport and I think that if this Amendment is adopted it will mean that only those traffic regulations to which there are objections would go to the Minister's Department for confirmation by him. On the other hand, as I see it, the Bill, as drawn, does not appear to retain the safeguard of a public inquiry in the event of strong opposition to an order made by a local authority. Even if it is intended to embody this by means of regulations, I still maintain that the Minister must have the power of veto after a public inquiry.
During the Committee stage of the Bill I ventured to point out that this safeguard was essential for the transport industry. I would again remind your Lordships of the proposal of the City of Manchester Corporation in 1955 to ban the loading and unloading of goods in certain streets

1175
between certain times. Very strong objections were taken to those restrictions by the transport interests concerned. The Minister held a public inquiry and, as a result, decided to delete from the Manchester Order this proposed ban on loading and unloading of the vehicles. I hope that the Minister will look at this point again. It is of vital importance to the transport industry. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 15, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD BENNETT OF EDGBASTON: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment. I have heard from many people in trade and industry who are much concerned that this clause has been put into the Bill, because, as my noble friend has indicated, they foresee considerable trouble and difficulty arising if the right of appeal against an arbitrary decision of a local authority is taken away. Six hours is a long time. If it were a short period it might be that objections would not be so seriously raised, but a ban for six hours is a very long period. The case of Manchester, to which my noble friend has referred, goes to show that there will be other cases, and it ought not to be possible for these orders to be made without the maintenance of the safeguards which exist at present. I support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I want to be quite frank about this matter. The noble Lord's Amendment says "any order to which there are objections"—that means any order which causes two people to write in and say that they do not like it. If the noble Lord feels that he wants to go as far as that, we might as well take out the whole of subsection (3). I am reluctant to do that. I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Bennett of Edgbaston, said. There is a lack of confidence in local authorities. I wonder whether, if they were given more responsibility, they would not stand up to it better. They say that it does not matter what they do, because everything they do needs confirmation by the Minister. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the situation, but I think that people who are given responsibility do stand up to it.
I should like to make a suggestion—at this late hour I apologise for doing it. We could take out subsection (3),
1176
and it would not matter very much, I agree, but I should like to suggest an alternative to see whether noble Lords would agree to it. It is really a modification of the procedure in subsection (3). Instead of writing for confirmation in every case, I suggest adding to the powers which local authorities can exercise (noble Lords will see them set out in subsection (3), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)) the power which is shown in subsection 2 (a)—which really means one-way traffic—that is, slightly to extend the scope of the powers of the local authorities. I would then, on the lines of Lord Lucas of Chilworth's Amendment, say that the Minister may revoke, vary or amend the order which has been made by the local authority if he thinks it is desirable, and the local authority will not be able to reissue the regulation for a period of twelve months. Perhaps I have not made myself clear. Under subsection (3), if the Minister revoked an order the local authority could immediately make another order on top of the Minister's; but now I suggest saying that they should not be able to do that for twelve months.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What happens then?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If they make another order, the Minister can again revoke it, if he so desires. Your Lordships may think that this will lead to squabbles, but it seems to me that it would put responsibility, first of all, on the local authority to make an order which reasonably satisfies their own citizens. I put this suggestion forward so that noble Lords may think about it before next Thursday, and I shall be glad to put down an Amendment on Third Reading. I think it would meet the point that the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has in mind. I feel that he does not altogether disagree with me that we should try to get things away from the Ministry as much as we can, provided that reasonable assurance is given to those engaged in trade and industry, and the haulier business in particular. If, on these assurances, the noble Lord can withdraw his Amendment, I shall be grateful.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the Government's policy is to give power to local authorities and to let them exercise

1177
it subject to the Minister's right of interference, but I would say (perhaps by the Third Reading the noble Lord will have something to say), subject to certain regulations which the Minister will be making when he gives the authority to the local authority to make orders under subsection (6). There are three matters about which, if there is no right of appeal to the Minister, the Minister ought to make certain when he authorises the local authority to exercise their powers. The three things are: that before the local authority make any order there shall be very detailed publication of that order in the local Press, and perhaps the London Gazette to give it a wider circulation; secondly, that it should be easy to make objections; and, thirdly, that if there are any serious objections, the local authority will hold a local public inquiry. With that, of course, the Minister can see what is happening, and without doing anything himself he will be in a position to know whether or not he wants to interfere.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am very happy to give the assurance that the regulations will contain all those points.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I think the noble Earl has, very wisely, got the sense of the House. So far as I am concerned, although I do not like it 100 per cent., I think his proposal is a happy compromise between what he wants to do and what I think the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, wants to do, and what the noble Lord, Lord Bennett of Edgbaston and I want to do—although I want to do it in another way from Lord Bennett of Edgbaston. I might think six hours is too short a time. But subject to anything the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has to say about his Amendment, I would support the suggestion the noble Earl has made.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the Amendment he proposes. I should like to study Hansard tomorrow to see whether the suggested Amendment meets my point and if it does not, I can put down a further Amendment on Third Reading. In the meantime, I will withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (4) (c), to leave out "be treated as preventing" and insert "prevent". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I may have leave to discuss my next Amendment with this one; they both deal with the same point. Subsection (4) (c) of this clause seeks to define the proviso to Section 46 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and is an attempt to define the reasonable requirement of a waiting restriction. It seeks to make law that any prohibition on the loading and unloading of goods of up to six hours in twenty-four shall not be considered as preventing reasonable access. It seems to me now established that a right of appeal of interested parties will be allowed in cases where restrictions are intended. As the noble Lord, Lord Bennett of Edgbaston, has just said, six hours is a very long time. If subsection (4) (c) is allowed to go through as it stands, it will mean that in any case where a restriction on loading or unloading is introduced for a six-hour period or less, there will be no ground of appeal left for the interested parties.
In the Manchester case already quoted, a two-and-three-quarter hours' restriction was turned down as being too long. That was done at the request and instigation of trade, industry and road hauliers, who felt that they were not having fair treatment. If they have a six-hour prohibition period imposed without any right of appeal, their case is even worse. There are various practical difficulties inherent in a six-hour restriction, which I might briefly outline. There are certain goods, such as milk, bread, vegetables and fruit, that have to be delivered at certain times, which might well coincide with the morning rush hour. There are van rounds, which have to be planned to take in certain towns within a fairly wide area. To take an extreme case, if all those towns had a waiting limit of six hours imposed, so that there was only a four-hour period in the middle of the day when loading and unloading could take place, not one van, but three vans and three drivers might well be required, thus taking up road space and wasting time and money.
The third, and perhaps the most cogent, argument is what is the alternative if a six-hour ban is imposed. One might say that it should be delivery in

1179
the early morning and late at night. But if one is realistic about this, it is not so easy to unload at these times. One has to have someone at the loading depot and someone at the premises to take delivery. It is hardly to be expected nowadays that this could be done without great expense and difficulty to all concerned. Therefore, I would beg that the present arrangements which do not work too badly, reinforced by this Bill, should be allowed to stand more or less unchanged, and that the hands of the trade and industry concerned should not be fettered by a six-hour restriction against which they have no appeal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 45, leave out ("be treated as preventing") and insert ("prevent").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, if the noble Viscount is merely anxious to discuss the six hours, then I shall be happy to do that. However, his Amendment goes a great deal further than that, and I can only say that it is quite unacceptable in its present form. In fact, if the Amendment were accepted it would mean that at any time in future any order could be challenged in the court as to whether it is reasonable or not, which would mean to say that it would be impossible to make any order at all under this clause. I realise that there is certain anxiety in this matter, but I think we have to get to the stage when goods must be loaded or unloaded at the most convenient time. We have to find a compromise in this matter as to how that is to be done. We have suggested six hours. We do not mean by that simply that a six-hour restriction should be imposed anywhere. What we mean is that the restriction must not be for more than six hours.
Subsection (4) deals with the question of access, and paragraphs (a) and (b), I think I am right in saying, give better assurance for access than existed before. It is true that paragraph (c) is an innovation, with its definite restriction on unloading in certain periods, but I should have thought that the undertaking I gave on the previous Amendment met that point. I feel that there must be a compromise between the two. If the noble Viscount feels that the point is covered. I should be glad if he would withdraw
1180
the Amendment. Otherwise, I shall be happy to see whether there is any other way to make it more acceptable to him. I hope that he will not press the Amendment in its present form, because it is quite unacceptable.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I hold no brief for my drafting. I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said. I am still not sure that if this subsection goes through it will not mean that, if a six-hour restriction is imposed, the parties concerned will lose any right of appeal. However, in view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Amendments as to traffic regulation during road repairs, etc.]:
9.40 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, we now move to a quite different subject. This Amendment is concerned with repairs to roads, and it enables orders to be made regulating traffic on alternative routes provided where a road is being repaired. This particular Amendment is, I think editorial, consequential and drafting, and I defy anyone to convince me that it is controversial. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 20, after ("notice") insert ("or, in the case of an order under subsection (1) of this section, any such provision as is mentioned in paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of the last foregoing section").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment applies to Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 30, at end insert—
("(11) In the application of this section to Scotland, for references to the Minister there shall be substituted references to the Secretary of State.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Experimental traffic schemes in London]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment also applies to Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 35, leave out ("by the Minister").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Powers of police to erect traffic signs relating to special traffic regulations]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is also of Scottish application. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 26, leave out ("by the Minister").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Temporary signs for dealing with traffic congestion and danger]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment also is Scottish application. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 45, leave out ("by the Minister").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SWAYTHLING LORD SWAYTHLING moved, after Clause 37 to insert the following new clause:
" . As from the first day of January, 1957, the Road Vehicles Lighting (Standing Vehicles) (Exemption) (General) Regulations, 1956, shall cease to have effect and the Road Vehicles Lighting (Standing Vehicles) (Exemption) (General) Regulations, 1955, shall extend and apply to all roads outside the Metropolitan Police District and City of London:
Provided the Chief Officer of Police of a Police Area may by means of traffic signs designate any road in the said area as a road on which vehicles my not stand or park without the required lights or parking lights."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage I put down the same Amendment and, unfortunately, through circumstances beyond my control, I was unable to move it. Therefore I have put it down again for the Report stage. May I remind your Lordships that when the Road Traffic Bill was before the House on the last occasion, I moved an Amendment with the same object in view as the Amendment I am now moving. I said then that, as a magistrate, I was concerned to see motorists come before the bench accused of doing something that in London they are permitted to do. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, told me then that regulations could be made to permit cars to be left without lights in lighted streets, and that such regulations would soon be issued, subject to the advice of the chief constables in each locality.
These regulations have now been made, and I would submit to your Lordships that the situation is now far more chaotic
1182
than it was before. Under the new regulations there may be a lack of unformity throughout the country if chief constables adopt different policies in deciding where to permit the parking of vehicles without lights outside London. Moreover, if this concession is to be granted generally, an excessive number of new signs will be required. Incidentally, the signs that are proposed give no indication of what they signify, and will be completely unintelligible to foreign visitors and possibly to a considerable number of British motorists. The complication of different regulations outside London, together with signs not in use in London, will most certainly confuse motorists.
The new clause proposes a simplified scheme by authorising parking without lights on roads with street lighting outside London, subject to the same conditions as are applicable in London. Instead of the requirement for a chief constable to consent to this relaxation, power would be given to the chief constable to specify roads where the general relaxation should not apply. In other words, chief constables will have to contract out instead of having to contract in. In such cases, authorised signs would have to be erected.
Your Lordships will know well the signs in London which regulate parking in the streets—either signs saying, "No waiting," or "No waiting between 11.30 a.m. and 6.30 p.m.", or the like. There are a number of country towns or villages where lights are turned off late at night. I would suggest that signs such as I envisage in the second part of the Amendment might readily indicate in a simple manner, "Lights required" or, "Lights required after midnight," or whatever wording is appropriate. This new clause should reduce the work of the chief constables in ensuring uniform application, limiting the number of signs required and simplifying the law to make it more readily understandable by the motoring public. I hope Her Majesty's Government will accept the Amendment. I beg leave to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 37 insert the said new clause.— (Lord Swaythling.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I expect your Lordships will remember, as it is of fairly recent date, that the exemp-

1183
tion which permits unlighted vehicles to be parked in the London area on any road other than a bus or trolley bus route was brought about by the acute shortage in that area of garaging and off-the-road parking facilities. After consultation with the Metropolitan Police, it was decided, subject to certain restrictions, to legalise the widespread practice which motorists had adopted of parking without lights or with parking lights. Generally speaking, I think it is fair to say that provincial areas have not got the same shortage of garages and off-the-road parking facilities. Many towns probably have no need of the concession. Unless there is a real need the Government consider it undesirable to take even those minor risks which the safeguarding conditions do not provide for. Under the Exemption Regulations of 1956, each chief constable has power to consent to unlighted parking on any roads in his area. I expect that the power will at first be used rather sparingly. Where it is used the roads in question are to be indicated by the erection of traffic signs by the local authority.
The opposite procedure, which the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, suggests in his proposed new clause, I should have thought would impose considerably more work upon chief constables by requiring them to designate every road which is considered unsuitable for unlighted parking. It would also involve the provision and erection of a large number of traffic signs to indicate roads on which unlighted parking was banned. Also, the police have no authority to provide and erect permanent traffic signs, and if the clause were accepted the proviso would need amendment in that connection—not that I wish to take advantage of that nor of the fact that I believe the noble Lord used the word "General" for "London" in his Amendment.
I agree that there is something to be said for the noble Lord's Amendment. It is not quite a case of "six of one and half a dozen of the other", but seven on my side and five on his. Let us give the present system a chance to work. We may come round to the noble Lord's thinking on this matter, but I have consulted the police on the question and the majority of chief constables wish to try the scheme I have been explaining to your Lordships. In due course, if we
1184
find our fears are not fulfilled and the matter is working more smoothly, then we can, by regulation, come round to Lord Swaythling's proposals. At the moment I would prefer to give the present scheme a trial, because it is what the majority of the chief constables want—and rightly so, I think, because they will undoubtedly be faced with a great deal more work under Lord Swaythling's scheme than they will be under the existing regulations, and also because there is an element of safety which comes down in favour of our scheme. If the noble Lord thinks it over, he may see his way clear to agree to giving our scheme a trial.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, what is likely to be the duration of this trial? It is of some importance. Nothing is more harassing from the point of view of the ordinary motor car owner or motorist, call him what you like, than lack of uniformity in regulations. I think it is important that we should get uniformity of regulations. I should like to know from the noble Lord whether he could give us an idea as to how long this trial is likely to take. I strongly support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, which, I think, is in accord with common sense and general practice.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I can reply only by leave of the House. Briefly, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that uniformity of regulations is desirable; but unfortunately we have not uniformity of conditions. I cannot possibly answer now how long the trial will take. It may be that we shall never change to the scheme suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, but let us at least give a trial to our present arrangements, which involve far less work and probably will produce more uniformity than the noble Lord's scheme.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for what he has said about the trial that may be given to my method at a later date. I do not quite agree with him about the number of signs required. If the scheme was carried out by my method, the number of signs would be less, but it is of course a matter of opinion. May I say also that since I put down this Amendment I have read an article in The Magistrate, the journal of the Magistrates' Association, which strongly

1185
deprecates this lack of uniformity and speaks about the number of cases which come up involving people who, because they live in London, do not know the regulations in other districts. I hope that the noble Lord, when he talks about a trial period of seeing how its works, will also consider the cases that come before benches involving offences where people have that very good excuse of not knowing the local conditions. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.54 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 42 to insert the following new clause:
" . The Act of 1930 as amended by the Act of 1934, in relation to the provisions against third party risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles, shall be amended so as to secure that the issue of a road licence shall be conditional upon the production of a certificate of insurance which is valid for the full period for which the road licence is issued."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage I put clown a similar Amendment to this and argued that the number of people who evaded the law by not complying with it and drove motor vehicles without third party insurance were a menace to the safety of the roads. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, in his reply to me, said this, at Column 502 of Hansard of July 4:
"There is no great evidence of evasion in taking out insurance policies. In fact, the penalties are so severe that we believe evasion is almost negligible."
The noble Lord ended his assertion by saying:
"but I think this is another loser."
I consider that not a very courteous phrase to use. After considerable argument, into which I will not go now, my noble and learned friend Lord Milner of Leeds put down a Question on the Order Paper [OFFICIAL REPORT, V01. 193 (No. 115), col. 680]:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will give details of the prosecutions and convictions for failure to hold a valid third party car insurance during the year 1955, or any other convenient yearly period."
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, replying for the Government said that the latest figures given in the Home Office returns—which, of course, the noble Lord. Lord Hawke, could have obtained very easily
1186
by asking for them—showed that in 1954, which is the last official return of the Home Office, 19,385 persons were prosecuted for driving motor vehicles on the road without third party insurance, and 18,011 were convicted for failing to insure against third party risks. So that the assumption that "there is no great evidence of evasion" and, moreover, that "evasion is almost negligible", does not seem to he borne out by that statement.
During the course of the debate I asked if I could be told the number of claims met by the Bureau of Insurance which has been set up by agreement between the Minister and the insurance companies whereby any claim arising out of an accident caused by a vehicle driver who is not insured for third party risks and who is not of substance and has no assets is met by the Bureau. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said that he would give me the figure. I have not had it yet. Perhaps the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill will give it to me. In the circumstances, I cannot argue as to how many there will be. But how can anybody say that this is not something of which we have to take serious notice, when there are 18,000 motorists, drivers of vehicles, on the, roads of this country uninsured against third party risk? When I asked the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, if he could give me an answer to my supplementary question to Lord Milner's Question, as to what happened to the poor wretched victims, of course he could not give it; nor do I suppose: that he could.
There is a strong and outstanding case for providing that third party insurance should run concurrently with the period of the Excise licence. Here we are dealing with road safety and not with the convenience of the insurance companies. I can assure the noble Lord that no insurance company minds a flood of business at any period of the year if they are being paid premiums to give cover—that is what they are in business for. Therefore, without my going through the whole of the argument that I went through before, I hope that the noble Earl will accept this Amendment. It does not put any great amount of added work upon the shoulders of the licensing authorities. If it puts any added work upon the insurance companies, they are being paid to do it because they will get premiums. Nobody, least of all your Lordships'

1187
House, after all we have heard this afternoon from the serious statements that have been made about the necessity to do everything we can on this matter of road accidents, can "ride off" and say that the number of evasions is negligible when, in 1954, 18,011 people were convicted of driving vehicles without third party cover. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 42 insert the said new Clause. —(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I do not want to spoil any of the noble Lord's laudable efforts to improve the situation, which he is trying to do, but I should just like to point out one small difficulty about this Amendment. The noble Lord quoted 18,000 cases in which people were convicted for being uninsured. I just want to point out that if this Amendment were passed it would not entirely meet the whole of that situation, because it would be perfectly possible for a man to produce a certificate of insurance and still be convicted of driving while uninsured. He might produce a certificate of insurance enabling only himself or only a named man to drive; then, someone else might drive the vehicle, and there would still be a conviction. He would have taken out a policy of insurance and produced it in order to obtain a licence, yet in many cases an offence would still be committed. The noble Lord should not think that all of these 18,000 cases were cases in which there was no insurance. I think he would find that a large number of them, although not perhaps as many as half, were cases in which there was insurance but it did not cover the particular risks which were in force at that time or did not cover the particular driving which was being undertaken at that time. I just wanted to point out that particular difficulty to the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Merthyr, who, as usual, puts his finger exactly on the real point. Lord Lucas of Chilworth has come forward as if he could resolve this problem by simple amendment. I very much doubt whether he can. I have been trying to find out exactly the circumstances of these 18,000 cases he has mentioned. I have so far failed to find any satisfactory answer. Of course, there are a great many other circumstances, besides
1188
the expiry of licences, in which this difficulty may arise. There is the point of limited insurance which Lord Merthyr has emphasised; there is the case of the man who buys a car which is already licensed with the Excise licence upon it, and does not bother to take out his own personal third party insurance. There are also, of course, the cases of cars stolen or taken without permission.
This is a question that has been pretty carefully examined. I do not know whether the noble Lord has read the Report of the Cassel Committee on Compulsory Insurance. They say quite definitely:
"It has been brought to our notice that failure to insure may in some cases be due to the fact that the period of the policy of insurance need not and in fact generally does not coincide with the period of the car licence. Thus a car licence can be obtained for a year on presenting evidence of an insurance which may expire in a month or less. We have closely examined a variety of proposals for synchronising the periods for which the insurance and the car licence run, but they are all subject to serious administrative difficulties and disadvantages and we have therefore decided not to recommend any of them. We are informed that it is the invariable practice for insurers to notify the insured prior to the expiration of their policies of the necessity of renewal."
That quotation shows that there is a wide field outside this area we are discussing and that this matter has already been very closely examined. There do seem to be great difficulties to deal with. We have considered staggering the issue of excise licences. I think if we could do that it might be possible to take a different view. The real answer to this point is that we are unable to find a case of anyone who has suffered any loss on account of a car being uninsured. Figures have been provided by the Motor Insurers' Bureau who have undertaken, in agreement with the Government, to meet all cases of persons injured on the road (I think I am correct in saying this) by uninsured motorists. The number of claims established before a court in 1955 was forty-nine. Those cases were all met by the Motor Insurers' Bureau.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What year did the noble Earl say?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: 1955.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is the same year for which Lord Mancroft gave a figure.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My noble friend tells me that the figure which he gave was for 1954. This one which was given to me is for 1955. So we cannot say that anyone is losing anything. There would be considerable difficulties in putting this Amendment into force, as is shown by the Committee's Report which I have just quoted. We certainly should not resolve the whole problem if we adopted the Amendment. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will think again before pressing this matter. We should regret doing this unless we were able to put forward a reasonably administrative scheme. After all, as I have said, no one, so far, can be shown to have lost anything through lack of third party insurance.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I feel that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is on the track of the right solution. In the last part of his speech he said that he was seeing whether he could stagger licences. Whatever the objections may be to the present system, and however far Lord Merthyr is right when he says you cannot catch all fish in any net, I feel that the normal way of working should be that the Excise licence and insurance certificate must run concurrently. If we do that, we shall have dealt with the bulk of cases and got over the major part of the problem. Admittedly that will not catch all the offenders, and I agree with my noble friend when he says that no system which will not be unduly onerous will do that, and it comes to the point that only the courts can deal with it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I frankly think that it is shocking that this House should appear to acquiesce in a state of affairs in which 18,000 people were convicted of driving motor vehicles without third party insurances—18,000 potential injurers of other people, and only forty-nine claims were proved. The people, I assume, had to incur the legal expense of going to court and proving their cases. We purport to be sitting all this time to help to solve the terrible incidence of slaughter on the roads. Of course, we shall not tie up every case, and I would contest what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has said. The bulk of insurances taken out cover the car, not the driver, and the vast bulk of cars are covered, whoever
1190
is driving, so long as the driver has a valid licence. There are relatively few cars where the driver is insured and the motor car is not. Insurance always runs with the car. If anyone sells a car, he transfers the insurance; and if he does not wish to transfer it he cancels it and gets a rebate for the unexpired period. To say that we can do nothing like this until we have stopped every hole is not being realistic. If we try to do that, we shall not do anything at all. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, may be right about staggering the issue of the licences; but why does he want to stagger them? It puts hardly any more administrative work upon the licensing authorities. They have a huge quantity of licences to issue and renew upon January 1, or any other specified date. Do not the insurance companies gain by an influx of business on one day in the year? They have an influx and an income at the same time, because people have to pay for their insurances; so why should that worry them?
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the noble Lord may be right, but surely from the common-sense point of view it is better to stagger work over the year, from the standpoint of both the licensing authorities and the insurance companies.
LORD LUCAS OF CETILWORTH: My Lords, I am not saying that it is not an improvement on the present system. Anything that can be staggered, whether it be holidays or anything else, may be better. But it is being put forward that there are great administrative difficulties. I pay little attention to the Committee which the noble Earl has mentioned. We are facing the problem of 5,000 deaths on the roads and a quarter of a million injured, while here we have 18,000 people convicted of driving vehicles without third party insurance and we can trace only forty-nine through the courts.
LORD GIFFORD: Surely the forty-nine were the only ones who had an accident.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is entirely wrong.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is right. The noble Lord cannot prove the contrary.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Earl cannot prove that it was only forty-nine. What the noble Earl said was that only forty-nine people could, through the processes available to them, establish that they had a case. What about the poor impecunious people who could not afford to employ lawyers?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: There is legal aid.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: How many people know there is such a thing as legal aid when they are knocked over or injured? It is not a thing we can laugh off. With the aid of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, we were in a serious mood about this some time ago, and now we appear to say that, because there is a little administrative difficulty, it cannot be done. I suppose that if I divided your Lordships' House now on a quick count—I do not know how many noble Lords there are in the holes and corners—there would not be thirty present; we should have to stand adjourned, and the Bill would not go any further till another day. I am not going to take an unfair advantage of the House by doing a thing like that, but I am certainly shocked at the manner in which this matter has been dealt with by the Government. I think they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I am hoping the noble Earl will, in reply to me, say they will at least study very carefully Lord Bridgeman's suggestion to see if they can get over this, I do not know what the public will think when they learn that 18,000 people were convicted in one year of driving motor cars without third party insurance and the Government do not propose to do anything about it. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell me whether he will reconsider this matter in the light of what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman says.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, of course, we will consider what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said. As I said, we are examining the question. This has nothing to do with those accidents. All the known cases of accidents are compensated. I can assure the noble Lord that I will look carefully at what he has said and take what steps we can to meet him.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is the first time I have heard that it has nothing to do with road accidents. It is the law of the country that nobody shall drive a motor car on the roads of this country unless he is covered by third party insurance, and now we are told that failure to do this has nothing to do with road accidents. I know that it is ten past ten, and brains do not work well at ten past ten; but it is news to me that it has nothing to do with road accidents. However, as I have the noble Earl's assurance, and as I do not want to embarrass the House by dividing and losing the Bill—and I hope it will be held to my credit at some future date—I will withdraw the Amendment if I have the permission of the House to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Amendments as to speed limit in built-up areas]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
"(4) The provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall not take effect until an order by statutory instrument appointing a day for such subsections to come into operation has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament:
Provided that no such order shall be made before the Minister has reported to each House of Parliament the views of the Departmental Road Safety Committee on the results of the experimental introduction of a 40 m.p.h. speed limit in the London Traffic Area."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is put down to try to ease the position of the Government upon the question of the proposed 40 miles an hour limit. I think that every one of your Lordships who spoke on the Committee stage, though quite understanding the reasons why the experiment was going to be tried, felt it was wrong in principle to have a 30 miles an hour limit and a 40 miles an hour limit running practically consecutively over various stretches of road. But the noble Earl and the Government wanted to try the experiment. What this Amendment says is: let the experiment be tried, and let a report be made to the House after it has been tried. That is the reason I have put down the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I regard this proposal as one which will not make for road safety; in fact, I think it will make for increased danger on the roads. All the motoring organisations, without exception, are against it, and the cyclists' representatives are against it, too. Your Lordships will see that in the Report on the 30 m.p.h. speed limit in the London area the only people who seem to be in favour of it are the majority of the London Traffic Advisory Committee. If this 40 m.p.h. speed limit comes into force, it will destroy uniformity in road signs. If I read this aright, we are going to have a different sign on the roads, and that in itself is going to mean complications: one more thing to harass the motorist who is trying to observe the law and at the same time drive safely having regard to the crowded state of our roads.
I submit that this proposal should be further examined. As has been pointed out, it will apply only throughout the Metropolitan Police area, or the London Traffic area, or something of that sort. I hope that the Government will drop the idea. It will not speed up traffic. I believe the Minister of Transport is in favour of it because he thinks it will speed up traffic. The reason why it cannot speed up traffic is because of the more or less black spots where traffic cannot possibly get through quicker than it does today, no matter what the speed limit is. Merely to introduce a differential speed limit will reproduce all the conditions that one finds, notably, in France.
Much is said in this Report about American conditions. Why do we always cite America in connection with anything to do with road traffic in this country? The conditions in America are completely different, and there is no analogy in the lay-out of their roads or their cities. I submit that it is no good quoting America as a justification for differential speed limits. In America they have broader motor roads, all with lines along them, and the traffic keeps carefully to its own line. They have a lay-out quite different from anything that we have here. I submit to your Lordships that a differential speed limit is an entirely unnecessary complication, not wanted by the great majority of road users, but wanted merely as a sort of experiment by a majority of the London Traffic Advisory Committee. I do not think
1194
that that is a sufficient justification for it, and if this question goes to a Division I shall certainly go into the Lobby against it.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I wonder whether we could come to a compromise on this matter, so that no extension of the differential speed limit outside the London traffic area may take place until the results of the experiment in London have been fully investigated and reported upon.
10.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said. All we want to do is to try an experiment. What would any Government do with a recommendation on the authority of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee? The noble Earl said they are divided—and I accept that—as to whether 40 miles per hour should be tried out as an experiment or not. We have such a traffic problem that if anybody authoritatively recommends a course I think we ought to try it out. That is all we are asking to do, and all we intend to do. I do not think the noble Earl has much against it. It is all right inside London, but there is a question outside London. Conditions outside London are different from those inside. Whilst the experiment might succeed in London it might fail outside. We should like to try one or two places outside London in the form of an experiment to see whether it would work. It is not easy to get that sort of thing proved, because, in the first place, the Minister has to give notice to the Council. If the council object, there has to he a local inquiry, so that there will be plenty of opportunity for opposition locally. I suspect that a good many local authorities will hold much the same view as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and will be reluctant to accept this proposal. I do not foresee any rapid extension of it. What I should like to do is to try this experiment outside London. I do not think it is much good waiting for the report on London, because I do not think it will be representative of the problems which may exist outside.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord would withdraw this Amendment. The Report of the Departmental Committee will be made public, and we can then

1195
debate the matter again and see how far it has gone. The experiment might be a success out of London, and it would be a pity not to try it out. I can give the assurance that it will be carried out in only a few places for quite a time.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, does the noble Earl mean that he wants to try the experiment in London, and then we can debate the result of the experiment before he tries it out anywhere else?
EARL HOWE: Would the noble Earl indicate what will be the criterion of its success or otherwise?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, it is a little difficult to give it a mathematical computation, but I think it is a matter upon which the police and the motoring associations could judge and could form an opinion. The Ministry of Transport would have to draw their conclusions from that. We might even hold an inquiry to see whether one method is better than another. So far as London is concerned, I suppose the noble Earl would recognise that the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee gave a fairly authoritative judgment on the subject. I agree that it is not too easy to form an opinion, but I should have thought that public opinion would be clearly expressed if, when the matter has been tried out, it was a success; and certainly it would if it proved a failure. If it is something between the two, perhaps public opinion would not be so clear.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, says whether or not he is going to press this Amendment to a Division, I should like to ask the noble Earl two questions. First, can he tell us the majority in the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee which made this recommendation? Your Lordships are probably aware that I sat on that Committee for a considerable time, and I think in many ways it is an expert body. It is composed of people who are not necessarily dealing with the particular type of road envisaged in this Amendment. Such roads do not exist in council areas, and yet the noble Earl says that the police could judge on this matter. What was the police view when there
1196
was a debate on the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee? We already know that the motoring organisations are opposed to it on the grounds which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has stated. I hope that if the Government do not accept the rejection of this proposal, at least Lord Teynham's suggestion may be adopted.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The number on the Committee is twelve, and eight voted in favour and four against. This is an authoritative Committee and we should equally be exposed to abuse if, in a time of great traffic difficulties, we completely ignored the advice given us. I think we ought to try this experiment, and we should like to try it in one or two places outside London as well if we could get the local authorities to agree. I am certain that when it has been tried and when we have the report of the Departmental Committee it will be clear whether it is a success or not.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. I was not going to take part in this particular discussion, but I have understood hitherto that the Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee were fifty strong. Were only twelve concerned in this?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It was a special sub-committee. I am sorry.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I should like to go on debating this subject and I would divide the House on it, because the House is against the Government. The noble Earl comes here and pleads with your Lordships that the Government cannot ignore a recommendation of this Committee. This same Committee recommended the Government not to establish parking places in London until they had sufficient off-street parking. It suited the Government then to ignore the recommendation. The Committee is brought in in support of the Government when it suits them, but a recommendation regarding parking meters was ignored. I will withdraw this Amendment on one condition: that I return to it on the Third Reading. I will put down the same Amendment, and then perhaps we shall debate it at a time when the House is properly representative and I am not hamstrung in asking your Lordships to put it to the

1197
test by the number present in the House. We have had the weakest defence I have heard. The whole House is against it and we are to be shanghaied because of what this sub-committee recommended. As I have mentioned, the sub-committee also made a recommendation in regard to parking places and parking meters in London. I will do a deal: if Her Majesty's Government will accept the Committee's recommendation on parking places, I will accept this. On the understanding that I shall put the Amendment down on Third Reading to test the feeling of the House, now withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 14, leave out ("empowers the Minister") and insert ("gives power").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 46, after ("Minister") insert (", or, in Scotland, of the Secretary of State").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 4, after ("Minister") insert ("or the Secretary of State").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Amendments as to pedestrian crossings]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 14, after ("Minister") insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 23, after ("Minister") insert ("or of the Secretary of State").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

GOVERNORS' PENSIONS BILL
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past ten o'clock.