Lords Sitting of 19 July 1956

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

  THE NATIONAL STUD
  2.4 p.m.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: 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 now in a position to make a statement on the Report of the Committee on National Stud policy, and methods of operation.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, my right honourable friend is in general agreement with the objectives which the Committee's recommendations are designed to achieve. The permanent implementation, however, of the policy of standing at the Stud a stallion of the very highest class must depend on future financial circumstances. In the shorter term, however, my right honourable friend is enabled to put this policy into effect, thanks to Mr. Clark's generous gift to the National Stud of the stallion Never Say Die. He is also in broad agreement with the Committee's recommendations on mares, but, as the Stud must continue to be self-supporting, it will continue to breed some yearlings for sale as an additional source of revenue. As recommended by the Committee, he proposes to appoint a standing committee to advise on the acquisition and disposal of bloodstock.
  THE DUKE of NORFOLK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his reply, might I ask him further whether he can give me any information as to the composition of that committee? May I also ask him to remind the Minister that it is essential that it should be small in number?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, my right honourable friend has under con-
  1282
  sideration the composition of the advisory committee, which will probably comprise three members, people of standing in the bloodstock world.

TEXTILE AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES
LORD BARNBY: 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 if they will state the decrease in the recorded numbers of operatives gainfully employed in: (a) the cotton textile industry; (b) the engineering industries (including automotive workers), between 1st January, 1955, and 30th July, 1956]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, I regret that statistics of employment in the cotton textile industry and the engineering industries are not available for the full period asked for by the noble Lord as the figures for June, 1956, have not yet been collated. However, between December 31, 1954, and May 31, 1956, employment in the cotton industry fell by 35,000, and in the metals, engineering and vehicles industries it rose by 137,500.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, and in view of the attention given by the Ministry of Labour to dismissals arising from reduced demand for products of the automotive industry, as compared with that given to the cotton textile industry, is it to be understood that the Government consider that different treatment is appropriate for the automotive industry as against the cotton textile industry? The figures which the noble Earl has just given show that the reduction of employment in automotives, which has received so much attention, is very small by comparison with the startling unemployment that has arisen in the cotton textile industry without, apparently, attracting much attention from the Government.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, if my noble friend means that the Ministry of Labour has accorded different treatment to workers discharged from the motor car industry from that accorded to

1283
workers discharged from the cotton industry, that is quite untrue. The services provided for persons seeking work are available equally to workers from both industries. Such differences as there may appear to be between the two cases is due to the fact that the decline in cotton employment was gradual, whereas redundancies in the motor car industry have, on one or two occasions, occurred suddenly. This has meant that much more public attention has been drawn to the motor car industry, and my right honourable friend has consequently had to describe in Parliament and to the Press the services available. This has perhaps produced the erroneous impression that assistance not available to others has been introduced for the motor car workers.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his reply, may I ask if he would care to express a view whether it is to be inferred that there is a much more realistic attitude in the labour unions concerned in the textile industry as compared with that in the labour unions in the automotive industry?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I cannot really see that the statement I have made produces that question. However, to satisfy the noble Lord I would say that trade union tactics have no influence on the services provided by the Ministry of Labour to industry.

MILLPORT PIERS (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (EXPORT PROMOTION LEVY) (AMENDMENT No. 3) ORDER, 1956.
2.10 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, this Order and the second one standing in my name on the Order Paper hang together, and, with
1284
your Lordships' permission, I will deal with them together. The purpose of the Orders is further to amend those which are at present in force under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. From their inception the main Orders have contained an exemption under which very small-scale suppliers of wool fibre are exempted from payment of contributions where the quantity of wool supplied by them averages less than 100 lb. per day. The purpose of the Amendment Orders is to give exemption to users of wool whose consumption averages 25 lb. of wool per day, or less. The effect of these Amendment Orders will be that about fifty firms now making very small payments under the Levy Orders may qualify for exemption. The expected reduction in yield on the Scientific Research Levy will be about £20 to £25 and for the Export Promotion Levy about £15 for each of the six-months periods for which the Levy is collected. These sums are trivial in relation to the total amount of about £135,000 for the two Levies over the same period. Both the principle of the exemptions and their level is supported by the trading associations, including the Wool Textile Delegation and the trade unions in the industry. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1956, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of drawing attention to the gratification which the Government must feel at the working of these Levies, which were introduced under Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation Act. The fact that the Government had the courage to support legislation which made these Levies statutory—and thereby provided funds to the great advantage of employment in this particular industry, as compared with conditions under the earlier system of a voluntary levy, which had all the disadvantages of placing the burden on the willing horses—and that they introduced the two Acts under which these two Orders are moved, must be gratifying to them. Their action has brought great advantage to employment in the industry.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) (AMENDMENT No. 3) ORDER, 1956
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1956, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mothers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Notice of marriage intended to be celebrated or contracted in Scotland where one party has a parent residing there]:
LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or she". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. It is a small Amendment, and is considered necessary in order to prevent misunderstandings. There are in other parts of the Bill references to "he" which also covers "she", as I understand it, not only because of the fact that the sexes are equal before the law in Scotland but because of the Interpretation Act. The Amendment is moved simply to avoid possible misunderstanding through the use in one clause of the words "or she" whereas in another part of the Bill the same intention is carried out without the presence of the words "or she". I hope that is a sufficient explanation. The matter had been pointed out to me by others. I had noticed it myself, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, was in communication with me regarding it. Finally, it was decided, I think with Government approval, that this Amendment should be made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("or she").(Lord Mathers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
2.13 p.m.
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
Clause 45 [Amendments as to pedestrian crossings]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
"() The powers of the Minister to make regulations under the said section eighteen shall include a power to make regulations requiring the provision at pedestrian crossings controlled by traffic light signals of light signals to indicate when pedestrians shall not use such pedestrian crossings."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of my Amendment is to attempt to get into the Bill something more specific than is contained in it at present with regard to the direction of pedestrians at crossings which carry heavy traffic. During the early stages of the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House I have ventured to make some observations upon the necessity in this country for attempting to control the behaviour of pedestrians. In my view, one of the marked advances that America shows over this country in traffic control is the fact that pedestrians have been disciplined by various forces, particularly the "pay as you err" principle, under which they can be stopped in a number of States and cities of America for crossing the road other than at a regulated intersection where there are all-red phases of traffic lights to stop the traffic, followed by a large flashing sign which says either "Walk", when pedestrians cross in perfect safety, or "Don't walk", when they stop. If they do not stop, retribution can come to them in two ways—either by the traffic that is crossing or by the street "cop" who says, "A dollar".
I do not seek to go as far as that, but I think local authorities in this country have been very remiss in not giving pedestrians more encouragement, and

1287
more instruction on how to cross some of our crowded streets. The Government of the day—not only this Government but other Governments—have always set their faces against pedestrians honouring traffic lights. Therefore, what do we find? We find the green light for traffic with pedestrians going across the road, as the noble Earl Lord Howe said on Tuesday, to the great danger to themselves and everybody else. What I want to do is to encourage the Government, either by regulation or by some insistence, to call upon local authorities, at busy intersections and pedestrian crossings, to put all-red phases of traffic lights coupled with directions to pedestrians, saying either "Cross now or "Don't cross", or "Walk" or "Don't Walk"—I do not mind what the words are, so long as the lights are there.
I should also like to impress upon the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who I understand is going to reply on behalf of the Government, that this would make a marked impact upon the police. At present, we see the police in a great many of our cities and towns having to conduct the traffic operations where pedestrian crossings are situated, simply because the crossings are so packed with pedestrians that if the pedestrians were not prevented at intervals from crossing, the traffic would never flow at all. On every one of those pedestrian crossings where there is a thick mass of pedestrian traffic a policeman has to be stationed, at great expense, whereas it could be done by traffic control lights. I do not think I need say any more to make the purpose of my Amendment clear. I hope the Government will do something, because this is important. May I make one final point? American practice has proved beyond any argument that all-red phases and the proper control of pedestrians across these intersections by the use of lights speeds up, rather than slows down, traffic. Nothing slows down traffic more than people rushing across the road at odd times and in odd places. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 31, at end insert the said subsection,—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I should be the last person to wish to place unnecessary control upon the individual, were it
1288
not for the question of road safety, to which practically every Member of this House has paid lip service from time to time. The question raised in this Amendment has a very great bearing on road safety. I should like to give your Lordships illustrations of what I mean. Subject to the policeman holding up the traffic for them, pedestrians can go across at Hyde Park Corner. I believe I am right in saying that Hyde Park Corner has the greatest concentration of traffic in the twenty-four hours in this or in any other country in the world. But pedestrians go across, as they have a perfect right to do so; and one would hesitate to interfere with any individual. But at the same time there has to be considered the point of view of public safety. On the south-east side of Hyde Park Corner, close to the Constitution Hill Arch, there are about eight different lines of traffic, some of them going into the roundabout system and proceeding to Knightsbridge, others going down in the direction of Piccadilly. They are dependent upon the policeman; the policeman has momentarily to hold up the traffic for them. It would not be making an extravagant demand on the average pedestrian who goes across to say, "Could you not walk round to the left, if you are going from Constitution Hill, and cross over to the other side of Grosvenor Gardens, and so get across that way to Hyde Park?" That is one aspect of the matter.
Take another instance which your Lordships must know as well as I do—Western Avenue. There are a number of pedestrian bridges over Western Avenue. I happen to live out of London in that direction and I frequently have to go in and out of London that way. I have yet to see a pedestrian make use of one of those bridges. I assure your Lordships I am not exaggerating; I have yet to see a pedestrian go across any of those bridges. On the way out of Western Avenue there are pedestrian-con- trolled lights. There are pedestrian-controlled lights also at New Cross, and very good they are; I think they are a very good way of dealing with pedestrian traffic. They are far better, probably, than the bridges, which the pedestrians simply will not use. The pedestrian must accept a certain amount of regulation. All other traffic units have to do it. I remember before the war walking about

1289
in Berlin and coming to some traffic lights, and I inadvertently crossed against the lights. The policeman came up and took a mark off me. He was quite right. I deserved to forfeit that mark, because I had been idiotic and crossed against the lights. I did not know it was a regulation.
This question of pedestrian crossings is very important. I am one of the people who think the zebra crossing is one of the finest things we have had in years in traffic regulation in this country, and on the whole it works. Is it not really pathetic? In Piccadilly there are a number of zebra crossings, and yet one sees pedestrians launching out into the middle of the traffic, when within a few yards there is a zebra crossing and they are making no use of it. They have a perfect right to do it: nobody can say them nay. On the other hand, all other traffic units, if they disregard the regulations for the use of zebra crossings, are likely to be "had up". I well know the view of the Pedestrians' Association on this matter. It really should be put to the Pedestrians' Association, whether it would not be better, in their own interests, for pedestrians to accept a certain amount of regulation rather than run the appalling risks which many of them do.
In your Lordships' House the other day I mentioned Piccadilly Circus. It is crazy—it really is—for the pedestrian to launch out into the middle of that concentration of traffic and make no use of probably one of the finest subway systems—and one of the very few; I wish we had more—which exist in this country. But there it is. Again, take Charing Cross at the rush hour: if your Lordships want to see hairbreadth escapes by the dozen and more, go and stand outside Charing Cross Station at rush hour. It seems to me quite idiotic to allow that state of affairs to go on. Therefore I most strongly support the noble Lord in the Amendment he has moved.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think we all have considerable sympathy for the point of view which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has put forward. Jay-walkers and those who plunge out without taking proper notice either into the road or against the signals are an appalling nuisance and undoubtedly a major cause of traffic mishap.
1290
On the other hand, I can go some way towards putting the noble Lord's mind at rest in this matter, in which we are completely at one with him. The Minister already has powers which go a long way towards meeting the point in the noble Lord's Amendment. He has power under Section 48 to prescribe the kind of light signals referred to in the noble Lord's Amendment, although I admit it is not obligator:, on pedestrians to obey them. Furthermore, provision is made in this Bill to give the Minister power to issue directions requiring the placing of a traffic sign in a particular place. Her Majesty's Government do not consider that powers to require the general provision of light signals of this kind are needed. Pedestrian volume may not always justify the additional expense and delay to traffic; the layout of road junctions and the position of the signals and crossings also have to be taken into account in determining whether pedestrian light signals are desirable.
Traffic light installations are subject to scrutiny in the Ministry of Transport before they are approved, and it is normal practice to consider pedestrian need at that stage. There is no difficulty in obtaining agreement of highway authorities to the inclusion of pedestrian signals where these are found to be necessary. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, knows, experiments with two kinds of pedestrian light signals are being carried out in Slough. In the light of the results at Slough, my right honourable friend the Minister intends to re-examine the scale and uses of pedestrian light signals in this country, but he feels that further powers are not needed.
We now come to the difficult question of compulsion. The noble Lord mentioned America, and Lord Howe has told us how he was fined a mark in Germany. We are not going quite so far as giving the police here power to fine us on the spot. We are now up against a practical problem. We have all I think—I certainlyhave—a guilty conscience in this matter; I cannot pretend that I have not occasionally "popped across" against the signals. How are we to enforce it? The trouble is you must have police there or very near, or rely on everybody standing absolutely still when the road is empty, keeping his conscience in the right place and not going against the lights even if the road is empty. That is the difficulty

1291
I am putting to the noble Lord and I am sure he appreciates it.
I am not closing the Government's mind to the noble Lord's suggestion; we will consider carefully in these experiments how we can further improve the arrangements to meet what is, as the noble Lord describes it, a serious menace to road safety. I cannot go so far as to say that I should like to see the American and German systems introduced here. The American system, with geometrical crossings and evenly spaced lights, is much easier than ours can be in the uneven streets of England. But we will carefully consider the matter. I can also assure the noble Lord that if any further step is needed along the lines he has suggested, my right honourable friend the Minister is quite content that he already has under this Bill and the existing law the powers to do what is necessary.
EARL HOWE: Would the noble Lord say something about pedestrian bridges?
LORD MANCROFT: Pedestrian bridges do not really arise under this Amendment on the subject of lights. I will take careful note of what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said, and I will certainly bring his point to my right honourable friend's attention.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I knew when I put the Amendment down that the Minister has these powers. What I wanted to do was to try to reinforce the Minister and encourage him to use them a little more forcefully than he is doing at the present time. I know, also, that general application, as the noble Lord rightly says, will be out of the question. But there are places where it could be applied. On the Second Reading I drew attention in the House to one place in the middle of Oxford, Carfax, where there has been an all-red phase of traffic lights for two years. But nobody knows of it, and if you said to the ordinary pedestrian in Oxford, "Do you know that there is an all-red phase in the middle of Oxford?" he would think the university had gone Bolshevik or Communist. The people there have not the faintest idea of it.
LORD MANCROFT: I crossed it last night and did not know it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There you are; an intelligent Minister of the Crown, who answers for the Ministry of Transport, does not know it is there. It has been there for two years, and yet people scuttle backwards and forwards like frightened chickens in and out of the traffic. If there were a "Walk" or "Do not walk" or a "Cross now" sign, I do not think the noble Lord need have any fear about enforcement. The British public are really a law-abiding lot of citizens, and if you give them directions they will follow them. But if you do not give them directions you cannot expect them to find out for themselves. The dear old lady with a shopping basket does not know what an "all-red phase" is. But if she sees a sign "Don't cross" she stops. I hope that the noble Lord will bring this home very forcibly to his right honourable friend. Let us have some action in the future instead of expressions of pious hope. With the assurance which the noble Lord has given that he will do this, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF W1LLINGDON: My Lords, before this Amendment is withdrawn, may I ask the Minister a question? Some of us on the Back Benches do not understand what an "all-red phase" is. Could he tell us?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, perhaps I might answer that question. An "all-red phase" is a period during which the four traffic lights at a road intersection are all red at the same time. They can be all red for, let us say, fifteen seconds or half a minute, according to how they are adjusted. While the red lights are on, all traffic at the crossroads stands still to give pedestrians the opportunity of crossing. As matters are now, the pedestrians are apt to stand still, instead of crossing, because they do not know what it all means. If they had this sign telling pedestrians to cross while vehicular traffic was stationary, the risk of accidents would be reduced to negligible proportions.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: Thank you very much, I am a wiser man.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 [Appeals relating to road service licences]:
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, this Amendment is a matter of Scottish application. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 8, after ("district") insert ("in England or Wales, or any county or town council in Scotland").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.33 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 49 to insert the following new clause:
" . The Minister may make regulations prescribing conditions for the manufacture of helmets to be worn by the drivers of motor vehicles and it shall be an offence to manufacture or sell a helmet not complying with the specifications required by such regulations."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment to make yet another attempt to stem, even in some small way, the terrible toll of motor cycle accidents. Statistics show that 50,000 motor-cyclists are killed or injured on the roads of this country in the course of a year. That is the highest percentage in connection with any type of vehicular traffic. The appalling thing is that when a motor cyclists is involved in an accident, it usually has very serious consequences, because he has no stability to prevent himself from being flung to the ground; and when he is flung to the ground, all too often the most vulnerable part of his anatomy, his head, comes into violent contact with it. Attempts have been made to make the use of crash helmets by motor cyclists compulsory. I myself have been swayed in that direction. I am swayed away from it owing to the difficulties, but I am fast being swayed back again. What has swayed me back again is the feeling I have that we must do something. It is all very well to adopt the attitude which was adopted by a noble Lord when we were discussing pedestrians. He said that pedestrians should have the right to cross roads whenever they liked.
I do not believe that we can afford this terrible toll among motor cyclists, who include some of the best of the youth that we have in this country. We cannot stand by and see them killed in this way. I thought that I might persuade the Government to go one step in the way of
1294
compulsion, and the step I want them to take is to ensure that the efforts which everyone—including the Government—is making to persuade motor cyclists to wear crash helmets shall not be nullified by allowing them to wear some of the wretched things which are put on the market to-clay.
I was staggered when I read in the Daily Telegraph (I rely on the Daily Telegraph for my information in this connection) of an incident at the annual meeting of the British Medical Association at Brighton on July 6. A well-known Harley Street surgeon walked on to the platform wearing one of these helmets, and pointed out that one little "bash" on that helmet and the whole thing could tear in two. And it did. It was made of cardboard. I was also affrighted to see that this helmet (the report in the Daily Telegraph goes on to say this)
"was sold as Governmert surplus stock"
It was also stated that these helmets had been worn by paratroopers, tank men, despatch riders, et cetera. The laboratory to which the British Medical Association sent these surplus, or allegedly surplus, Government helmets said that they were absolutely useless. Really, if you are going to persuade young people to wear crash helmets you must expect them to be a little more vent uresorne than if you do not. What is the good of making them venturesome and then giving them something that is no protection whatsoever? There was another point in this report from which I am quoting. This well-known Harley Street surgeon said that 1,800 hospital beds were occupied all the time by motor cycle casualties at a cost of £10 million a year. That is a staggering figure. The report goes on to say that this surgeon said—
"it would be cheaper to give a good helmet with every motor cycle than to charge tax."
I entirely agree. The noble Lord might persuade his right honoarable friend the Chancellor of the Exchever to do something about that, but that is not the purpose of my Amendment.
I cannot think of anyone other than the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation who could come into this matter, because they are the Ministry who have responsibility in this connection. I want to ensure that they will see that no helmet is sold on the market unless it comes up to a certain standard—whether it is the

1295
standard of the British Standards Institution (which I think would be very appropriate) or the Road Research Laboratory I leave to the Government. If everyone who wanted to buy a helmet for use when riding a motor cycle was well aware that unless it had an accepted standards mark upon it it would not be a proper helmet to buy, I think that might go some way in the direction we all desire to go. The wording of my Amendment may be faulty, but I do not think the noble Lord opposite will quarrel with my intention—indeed. I hope that he will be sympathetic. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 49, insert the said new clause. — (Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of this Amendment. These helmets certainly assist in the protection of motor cyclists from serious injury, but they must be of efficient construction. I might add that the helmets used by the A.A. patrols are the result of very long experiment, not only by the A.A. but also in conjunction with the Road Research Laboratory. I suggest that the specification for these helmets should be rigid and rigorously applied: that is absolutely essential.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this Amendment, because I was most shocked at the report I read—not in the Daily Telegraph but in The Times, which carried a very good report—of the passage at the meeting of the British Medical Association to which Lord Lucas of Chilworth has referred. It seems to me that if the Government could apply to the British Standards Institution for a standard for a crash helmet which they could enforce, such a step would have excellent results. There is a good precedent for the enforcement of such a standard. When a Bill which I had the honour to introduce in your Lordships' House on Second Reading, dealing with electric fire guards, was under discussion it was agreed that no electric fire ought to be sold without one of the standard fire guards approved by the British Standards Institution. I should like to see a similar provision applied to the manufacture of crash helmets. Some manufacturers I know do put a good crash helmet on the market, but some of them are not
1296
so good. They are made of shoddy material, and are little more than death traps for any young man or woman motor cyclist who may wear one.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, here is a real opportunity for noble Lords who are interested in road safety to get something done. The invasion of the "Vespa". and other motor cycles of that type, has led to a vast increase in the motor cycling population on the roads. We have more motor cycles on the roads in this country than they have in America—so here is a question on which we shall not have to go to America to get the answer. It is not the slightest use having a crash hat unless it is a crash hat and will do what it is supposed to do. In motor racing it has been laid down by the international authority that all drivers must wear crash hats. That order was hotly contested and was not at all popular, but it was made: and the crash hats used in motor racing to-day are, on the whole, extremely good and doing their work. If the authority in this matter, whether it be the Road Research Board, the British Standards Institution or any other body, want any other information about these crash hats they only have to ask for it. It is vital that when a crash hat is placed on the market, it should be of an approved pattern and should be marked so that the individual purchasing it may know that he is really buying something useful and not a bit of cardboard.
The motoring organisations have done their part in helping this matter along. Both the R.A.C. and the A.A. have all their patrols wearing crash hats, and I think that the sort of crash hats they wear would be a great deal better than the average hat sold in the shops, though it may not be the last word. If it is not, no doubt the motoring organisations will improve it; but for the moment it is a good one and will give the Government a good idea of what is a reasonably good crash hat so far as knowledge goes at the moment. I hope that everybody will understand that what is worn must be a proper crash hat: it is no use selling bits of cardboard to people. I strongly support the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I should like to say a word, as a doctor with long experience. I think that this is a good opportunity for taking action. The vivid demonstration given at the

1297
British Medical Association was reported in the Press all over the country and has impressed itself on the public. I think we shall find that a large proportion, if not all, of the medical profession would back up any action on the lines suggested in my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is a most important matter. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and those noble Lords who have supported him. I need only quote to your Lordships the examples of the Army, who made the wearing of crash helmets compulsory a long time ago, and the police, who followed suit very soon afterwards, to convince your Lordships that the Government wholeheartedly support the idea behind this Amendment. It would be ideal to have a guaranteed helmet. How this faulty one, which came under criticism from the B.M.A., got into circulation is not clear at the moment; we are investigating the point with some energy.
I doubt whether it would do if we tried to make some arrangement whereby the British Standards Institution helmet should be the only one available; there are obvious difficulties there. My noble friend Lord Selkirk and I have been carrying out a few shopping inquiries, and we found that the reputable shops we have been into stock only the B.S.I. helmet, which has a kite trade mark on it, and that they would not dream of selling anything else. That does not cover the whole field, so I propose to accept the principle of the noble Lord's Amendment, though not the actual words, because there is a technical difficulty about "motor vehicles." I think we want to confine it to motor bicycles. Again I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that I cannot accept his drafting, but I do not blame him, knowing how difficult it is to draft such an Amendment. We will try to draft an Amendment which will give him exactly what he wants.
I think it is right that we should go this long way to show how much the Government want people to appreciate that they should wear guaranteed, or guaranteeable, crash helmets. I think all noble Lords will agree that many more young people are wearing crash helmets, but this Amendment will go a good deal further. One remark which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, made frightened me
1298
a little. He talked about "venturesome young men". I hope that young men will not think, once they are wearing a guaranteed B.S.I. crash helmet, that it will be safe for them to go charging into a brick wall at fifty miles an hour. I hope we are not going to put such ideas into people's heads, but that they will be encouraged to take more care on their motor bicycles, even though they are wearing crash helmets. I assure the noble Lord that when we come to present the Amendment that we are drafting, he will find that it will go the whole way to meet the sensible and valid point he has made.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. As regards drafting, I use the words "motor vehicles" because in the traffic acts motor cycles are included in vehicles. One illuminating thing the noble Lord said was that the B.S.I. have a crash helmet. I did not know that, and I think that the average person who goes along the street does not know that it is possible to buy one I am also glad that the noble Lord has said that the alleged faulty helmet, which is only a fair sample of Government surplus stock, is being inquired into, because this must cause great distress and disturbance of mind to the hundreds of thousands of parents with sons in the Army in one capacity or another, who are wondering whether their boys are wearing cardboard crash helmets when they have to do parachute training. So I hope that the noble Lord will insist that this matter is investigated very thoroughly and that a public statement is made by the responsible Government Department as soon as possible. I do not know whether he wants to say anything more on that.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I would like to amplify what I said on that point. The helmet which caused the trouble, so far as I can ascertain, although our inquiries are not complete, was never intended for use as a crash helmet at all. Some misunderstanding has clearly occurred.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord agrees that the public interest demands that an authoritative statement is made as early as possible. I am grateful to

1299
the noble Lord for accepting the Amendment. I should not be surprised to find, when he produces his Amendment, that it goes even further than mine. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 [Financial Provisions]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment provides for Scottish application. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 34, after ("Minister") insert ("or of the Secretary of State").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Interpretation]:
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is a purely technical Amendment, designed to facilitate the ultimate consolidation of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 30, at end insert ("'chief officer of police ' has the same meaning as in the Act of 1930").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved, in the definition of "public service vehicle" to leave out "has the meaning assigned to it" and insert:
"stage carriage and express carriage have respectively the meanings assigned to them".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises out of the Amendment to Clause 32 which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was good enough to accept. I should like to take this opportunity of asking him whether he is now in a position to answer the question which I put when moving the earlier Amendment; that is to say, whether the term "loading and unloading" can ever be used in connection with the picking up or dropping of passengers by a public service vehicle. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 37, leave out ("has the meaning assigned to it") and insert the said new words. —(Lord Gifford.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this Amendment is consequential on the earlier Amendment that I accepted, and I would recommend it to the House. The noble Lord asks what is the meaning of the phrase "loading and unloading." In
1300
the ordinary sense and also, so far as I am able to confirm it, in the legal sense, it refers to goods and not to the discharge of passengers or their effects from a passenger service vehicle. I hope that the noble Lord is content that these words in this Bill have no reference to ordinary passenger service vehicles.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that categorical reply, which quite satisfies me.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment has Scottish application. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 12, after ("by") insert ("or under").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule [Deferred tests of condition of vehicle]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 32, leave out from ("Where") to ("the") and insert ("the last foregoing subparagraph does not apply").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule [Travelling &c. allowances for attendance at Road Safety Conferences]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is another that has Scottish application. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 37, 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, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 48, after ("Minister") insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule [Procedure for orders designating parking places]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment paves the way for the next Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 12, after ("(7)") insert ("or (8)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after the Third Schedule to insert the following new Schedule—

FOURTH SCHEDULE

  OFFENCES IN RESPECT OF WHICH DISQUALIFICATION OR ENDORSEMENT MAY BE ORDERED
  1. Any offence against subsection (1) of section four of the Act of 1930 or section thirty-one of the Act of 1934 (driving, or employing a person to drive, without a licence) or under subsection (3) of section five of the Act of 1930 (failure to comply with the conditions of a provisional licence).
  2. Any offence under subsection (4) of section seven of the Act of 1930 (applying for or obtaining a licence, or driving, while disqualified).
  3. Any offence against section nine of the Act of 1930 (restriction of driving by young persons).
  4. Any offence committed in respect of a motor vehicle against any statutory restriction of speed on a road, including any offence under section thirteen of the Act of 1930.
  5. Manslaughter by the driver of a motor vehicle, any offence under section thirty-five of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861 (causing bodily harm) committed by the person having charge of a motor vehicle, or any offence under section eight of this Act, or section eleven or twelve of the Act of 1930 (reckless, dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving).
  6. Any offence under section nine of this Act, or any offence under section fifteen of the Act of 1930 (driving or attempting to drive when under the influence of drink or a drug) committed in respect of a motor vehicle.
  7. Any offence under section sixteen of the Act of 1930 (unlawful pillion riding) committed by the driver of a motor vehicle.
  8. Any offence under section twenty-eight of the Act of 1930 (taking away motor vehicle without owner's consent or other authority).
  9. Any offence under subsection (1) of section two of this Act.
  10. An offence under any statutory provision, committed in respect of a motor vehicle, being an offence—

  (a) of failure to conform to the indication given by a traffic sign or to comply with a direction given by a police constable, or

  (b) of failure to comply with a requirement to proceed or not to Proceed in a specified direction or along a specified part of the carriageway, or

  (c) of using a vehicle on a road, or causing or permitting a vehicle to be so used, so as, by the condition of the vehicle or its parts
  1302
  or accessories, the number of passengers carried by it, or the weight, distribution, packing or adjustment of its load, to cause, or to be likely to cause, danger, and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of this paragraph) of contravening any requirement as to brakes, steering gear or tyres or any other requirement prescribed under subsection (1) of section one of this Act,

  and any offence in respect of a motor vehicle under section fifty of the Act of 1930 (leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position on a road), subsection (8) of section eighteen of the Act of 1934 (pedestrian crossings), subsection (5) of section one of the Street Playgrounds Act, 1938, or subsection (2) of section two of the School Crossing Patrols Act, 1953.
  11. Any offence under section thirty-five of the Act of 1930 (compulsory third party insurance).
  12. Any offence in respect of a motor vehicle under the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word or two on this new Schedule although I have already referred to it earlier. For reasons that I explained then, it has been thought desirable to clarify the offences for which disqualification might apply. All we have done here is to put a list of the offences to which that penal sanction already applies. There is no new offence in this Schedule at all. I would draw the attention of your Lordships to only two paragraphs, because they have been inserted in the Schedule since it first appeared. The first is paragraph 8, which was put in after some words I had with my noble friend Lord Merthyr, who drew my attention to the fact that taking a car without the owner's consent was an offence for which previously disqualification had been used. The second is paragraph (9) (c), which is a slight extension of what was in this Schedule before—though not of the existing penal sanction—of driving a car in a dangerous condition. The various circumstances are outlined. I think those are the only two paragraphs to which I need draw attention. I am sure that it will be a great convenience to magistrates to see in this clear-cut way to what offences disqualification can apply. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After the Third Schedule, insert the said new Schedule.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on having this so clearly set out, but would

  1303
  he go a stage further? I should like the general public to be informed, if possible, through the public relations department of the Ministry of Transport of the severity of the penalties that can now be imposed, according to this Schedule. A motorist's driving dicence can be suspended for nearly every offence under the traffic law. He can now have his licence suspended for proceeding the wrong way up a one-way street; and he can have it suspended if he is convicted of failure to comply with a direction to drive his vehicle on a certain part of the highway. I do not quarrel with any of this, but I think that if the British public were better acquainted with the road traffic law—and whoever is going to explain to them its ramifications will have not only a Herculean task but, I should think, a life-long one—we might see a stricter observance of it. That would relieve the magistrates and the police of a lot of trouble, and it would save motorists a lot of money. I have read through this Schedule, and I would urge your Lordships to read it too. You will be surprised, as I was, when you see the number of offences there are for which you can be deprived of the use of your motor car. If the noble Earl could do that, I am sure he would be adding still more to the effectiveness of the legislation we are attempting to put into force.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I think the suggestion of the noble Lord opposite is a good one; and if I may follow it up, would it not be possible to have a simply worded leaflet sent out with the driving licence when it came back after renewal? That would help motorists to know what the new law is.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Or an addendum to the Highway Code.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, as a humble driver of a motor vehicle, I should like to offer my sincere thanks to the Minister for this Amendment, which I feel is a most valuable one, and if the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, could be put into effect, it would be even better.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to say how much I appreciate the welcome which this new Schedule has received. However, I should like to reinforce what I said before. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, suggested something about new offences,
  1304
  but I would repeat that there is nothing new in this Schedule; it merely sets out the law as it exists at present. I will certainly bring to the notice of my right honourable friend the point the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has made, and the warm commendation which that suggestion has received from different parts of the House.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Sixth Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment anticipates the next Amendment, which stands in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. The noble Viscount has a valid point here. It is possible that sometimes the powers of the local authorities to cut away the trees, hedges or shrubs on the edge of a road which are obscuring the view, are obviously intended for things like brambles, grass and weeds. What we have done is to change the words and to say that, besides references to trees, hedges and shrubs, we should include references to vegetation of any description. I am confident that it fully covers the point the noble Viscount has in his Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 56, line 30, after ("footpaths)") insert ("references to trees, hedges, and shrubs shall include references to vegetation of any description, and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am very glad indeed to see this Amendment on the Marshalled List, as it not only covers my point but, as the noble Earl says, extends it to cover such things as bracken and heather where they grow to a sufficient height to obscure the view. The Public Health Act, 1925, specifically says, in Section 23, that one of the reasons these hedges, shrubs and trees should be lopped is for the purposes of road safety. If we are going to add the other vegetation mentioned in the Amendment of the noble Earl, I think it is a suitable place to do so, and I welcome it heartily.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, after paragraph 6 to insert:
  "7.—(1) The Minister may by regulations provide that, subject to any exemptions prescribed by the regulations,—

  (a) where the length of a vehicle, or the combined length of two or more vehicles of which one is drawing the other or others,

  1305
  together with any load on the vehicle or vehicles, exceeds a length so prescribed, the vehicle or vehicles shall when on a road during the hours of darkness carry such lamps or reflectors each showing a light, or as the case may be facing, to the side as may be so prescribed;

  (b) a vehicle constructed or adapted so as to be drawn by another vehicle shall when on a road during the hours of darkness carry such lamps each showing a light to the front or the side, or both, as may be prescribed;

  and any such regulations may prescribe the conditions with which lamps or reflectors carried on a vehicle in pursuance of the regulations must comply and the position and manner in which they are to be attached, and may make different provision in respect of vehicles of different classes or descriptions, or in respect of vehicles of the same class or description in different circumstances.
  (2) Section ten of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927 (which imposes penalties for contraventions of that Act or of regulations thereunder) and section fourteen of that Act (which specifies the vehicles to which that Act applies and applies the Act to the Crown) shall apply in relation to this paragraph and regulations thereunder as they apply in relation to that Act and regulations thereunder.
  (3) Any lamps or reflectors required to be carried by virtue of this paragraph shall be carried in addition to, and not instead of, those required to be carried by or by virtue of the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953, and accordingly any such lamps or reflectors shall, for the purposes of these Acts and, in particular, section two of the said Act of 1927 and for the purposes of section eight of the Act of 1934, be treated as not showing a light 10 the front or to the rear.
  (4) Any reference in section nineteen of the Act of 1934 to the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953 shall include a reference to this paragraph.
  (5) It is hereby declared that any reference in section one of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1953, to a reflector is a reference to a reflector facing to the rear.
  (6) The power to make regulations conferred by this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment looks rather formidable, but I am happy to tell your Lordships that I need not go into it in any detail It is concerned with our old friend, the abnormal indivisible load. On Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, tried to persuade us to accept an Amendment which would prohibit the movement of these "juggernauts," as he rightly called them, during roughly the hours of daylight, and to confine their movement to the hours of darkness. Unfortunately, I had to reject
  1306
  the Amendment because the police were most unhappy at this idea on the grounds of safety. They pointed out that these vehicles were difficult enough to drive, even in broad daylight, and that the idea of their being driven safely on the roads at night presented a problem which filled them with considerable alarm.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, went on to suggest some Amendment to the lighting regulations which he thought would increase the road safety of these big vehicles at night. I gave him an undertaking that I would try to do something to meet what I thought was a valuable point. This Amendment, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, is our attempt to honour our obligations to the noble Lord in this respect. I think we go even further than he wanted. We give him all that he asks and a little more, for this reason. We think that, whilst we are making these regulations (which will be difficult to work out in theory, and much easier to put into practice when we see how they work) we may as well cover every eventuality which might arise with these "juggernauts." I do not know whether the noble Lord has been through the new paragraph in great detail, but I think he will agree that it goes even further than the promise I originally gave. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 57, line 23, at end insert the said new paragraph.— (Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said with regard to my lighting proposals. He is quite right in saying that his Amendment goes even further, which I think will be an advantage. On the Committee stage, the noble Lord said that I should have "abnormal loads" written across my heart, like Queen Mary of old had the word "Calais" written across her heart. I do not want something written across my heart; I want something put into the Act of Parliament. If I keep on long enough, I expect that one day I shall get some regulation about these abnormal loads.
  What I wish to impress upon the noble Lord—and this is all I intend to say on this particular subject this afternoon—is that, while nothing is done about it, these abnormal loads are getting more and more abnormal. Unless something

  1307
  is done about it, we shall be forced into a very difficult position. I believe that these loads, which cannot, by any stretch of reason, be carried by any other means of transport—and there are some that cannot go by sea or by road—will have to be broken down in the way that was done years ago. Then, there used to be sections. Now, through the softness of the Ministry of Transport, they are prefabricated and taken along the roads, to the discomfort of everybody. The others will have to travel at night, because in another year or two the traffic on these roads will have overtaken even the capacity of the roads the country is building at present. I am happy and grateful that I am like Pilgrim—"one step enough for me."
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am not always in agreement on this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but I am happy to see this Amendment. May I ask my noble friend whether he will make certain that the Ministry, when making regulations with regard to lighting, will see that they make them in plenty of time for the abnormal load to move on the date it is intended to move? Some of the police arrangements about moving by day or night sometimes have to be altered rather late. It may well be that the police think that a load should go through by day and, for quite proper reasons of their own, suddenly decide that part of the journey must be made by night. If the Ministry would take care that, should that happen, the lighting regulations for the abnormal load are there, so that the matter will not have to be referred back and delay the moving of the load, I should be grateful.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, instead of moving Amendments to the Road Traffic Act, I wish the noble Lord would do something to give us roads which would be adequate to take an abnormal indivisible load, without all the necessity for these difficult regulations. I agree with what has been said by previous speakers, that these large indivisible loads are an increasing menace, obstruction and danger to the users of the highway—not only drivers of motor vehicles, but to everybody who uses the highway. They create a difficulty for the police. They make extra demands on the police, who are already short-handed. They have to be escorted along their devious routes, and
  1308
  they are a menace to those responsible for the upkeep of bridges and the like. We all know these things, and we cannot stress them too often.
  The real trouble is that the road system of this country was never constructed with the idea of carrying these abnormal indivisible loads, and it cannot be adapted to it. I do beg the Government, instead of coming forward with Amendments to permit of the movement of these gigantic things, to "get down to it" and give us the roads upon which it would be safe to move them without causing difficulty for other road users. There would be much more sense in that. The movement of these colossal loads, whether by day or night, brings traffic on the Al road to an absolute standstill. It is impossible to get one of these enormous things—even one that is not one of the biggest—through Stamford or Newark, to give the noble Lord an example. What I have said is reinforced there a thousand times over. It really is not right to send these things along important arteries of traffic. The A30 is just as bad, and also the A40, for that matter—the A40 into Oxford, and the A30 into Southampton. Ship's propellers are often taken on enormous trailers to Southampton. One often wonders why loads of that sort could not go by sea. This matter does not seem to be tackled by authority as it should be, and as it must be, if we are not to have the roads made inadequate, for the loads that move along them. I beg the noble Lord not to rest content with this Amendment, but to try to impress upon the Minister of Transport the absolute crying necessity for better roads for through-traffic in this country, be it carrying abnormal indivisible loads or any other loads.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, perhaps, by leave of the House, I may reply to the two or three questions put to me. I wholly agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, have said concerning the nuisance of these abnormal indivisible loads on the roads. I have been agreeing with them for about two years, but I do not know what the answer is; nor does the Minister of Transport, who has just completed the most exhaustive investigation on this point to see what we can do to mitigate the nuisance that this problem causes on the roads. If the load is small

  1309
  enough to go by rail, then it goes by rail, but many of these loads are far too big to go under tunnels and bridges.
  EARL HOWE: What about the canals?
  LORD NIANCROFT: Some can also go by sea, but sometimes it is not possible to send them by sea. We ought to bear in mind that people do not send fifty-ton propellers by road for the fun of it. On many occasions, however, these things have to go by road. We are inquiring into this most carefully to see what can be done and we are fully aware of the most appalling nuisance that is caused. The other evening, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, "chipped" me for talking about the adverse level of unemployment when I meant the favourable level of employment. When he talks of loads becoming "more and more abnormal", what he really means is that they are becoming normal.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.12 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, after paragraph 7 to insert:
  " 8.—(1) In subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1930 (which provides for the classification of motor vehicles) the words from 'Motor vehicles' to 'classes' shall cease to have effect, and in each paragraph of that subsection the words from 'that is to say' to the end of the paragraph in that subsection shall be construed as a definition for the purposes of that Act of the expression immediately preceding those words; and in paragraphs (d) to (f) of the said subsection (1) for the words `classified under this section as' there shall be substituted the words 'falling within the definition contained in this subsection of'.
  (2) Subsection (2) of the said section two (which empowers regulations to be made subdividing classes of vehicles, and making different provisions with respect to each subdivision, and varying maximum or minimum weights fixed as respects any class) shall cease to have effect, but regulations under section thirty of the Act of 1930 may vary any of the maximum or minimum weights specified in the definitions contained in subsection (1) of the said section two, either generally or in the case of vehicles of any class or description specified in the regulations and either for the purposes of the Act and of all regulations thereunder or for such of those purposes as may be so specified.
  (3) The Motor Vehicles (Definition of Motor Cars) Regulaticns, 1941 shall cease to have effect, but subject to the power conferred by the last foregoing sub-paragraph the definition of motor cars' in subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1930 shall include vehicles constructed or adapted for use for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description—
  1310

  (a) which carry a container or containers for holding for the purpose of their propulsion any fuel that is wholly gaseous at sixty degrees Fahrenheit under a pressure of thirty inches of mercury, or plant and materials for producing such fuel, and of which the maximum weight unladen does not exceed three and a half tons,

  (b) which do not carry any such container, or plant and materials, as aforesaid, and of which the maximum weight unladen does not exceed three tons;

  and in paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of section two of the Act of 1930 after the word 'load' there shall be inserted the words 'or goods or burden of any description'.
  (4) In subsection (3) of section four of the Act of 1930 (which provides for specifying in driving licences restrictions with respect to the driving of any class of vehicle) after the word class' there shall be inserted the words `or description'.
  (5) Nothing in subsection (4) of section ten of the Act of 1930 (which empowers the Minister by regulation to vary the provisions of the First Schedule to that Act) shall be construed as limiting the powers conferred by sub-paragraph. (2) of this paragraph."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment effects no change of any substance, but will merely facilitate the work of consolidation and avoid doubts which might otherwise arise as to the powers of the Minister, when making regulations about motor vehicles, to make different regulations for different classes or descriptions of such vehicles. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 57, line 39, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Mancrof)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 57, line 46, leave out from the beginning to ("which") in line 1 on page 58 and insert—("9. In subsection (2) of section six of the Act of 1930").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is both drafting and consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 58, line 47, leave out from ("and") to end of line 48 and insert ("for the words from the offence of' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words the provisions of this Part of this Act as to disqualification for holding or obtaining licences shall not apply to his conviction of that offence ' ").—(Lord Mancrof 1.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after paragraph 24 to insert:
  "25. Subsection (2) of section one hundred and eleven of the Act of 1930 (which provides for consultation with representative organisations before the making of regulations under that Act) shall apply to the making of regulations under this Act or the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953; and subsection (4) of that section, and subsection (3) of section twenty-six of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 (which provide that production of a copy of regulations purporting to be printed by the Government printers shall be evidence that the requirements of the Act as to the making and laying of regulations have been compiled with) shall cease to have effect."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is really a consolidation Amendment. There are two points about this which I should like to make, quite shortly. One is to ensure that when the Minister is making regulations he will carry out the consultative procedure with representative organisations. This is really to ensure that all regulations are on the same line which will enable consolidation to proceed rather more easily. In any case, it is a desirable practice. The other point is that there was in certain enactments, particularly the 1933 Act, a rule which made the Government Printer's copy of the regulations evidence that the full Parliamentary procedure had been complied with. That procedure is no longer used to-day. Accordingly, the provision in (I think it is) the 1933 Act is repealed. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 61, line 51, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am tempted to ask the noble Earl, when is consolidation not consolidation? I do so only because it gives me an excuse to ask him this further question: will he consult with his colleagues who are responsible for this Bill and ask when we can expect a consolidated Road Traffic Act? Because, of all the Acts which are upon the Statute Book, I should think the most chaotic are the Road Traffic Acts of this country. We have a Road Traffic Act, 1930; we have a Road Traffic Act, 1933; we have a Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1934; and we shall now have a Road Traffic Act, 1956. If any of your Lordships wants to understand what is the law, he has to go through all these Acts to find out. The time has arrived when the noble Lord must appreciate the great necessity for
  1312
  consolidation. He really has, because the Amendment to one of the Schedules, for which we have so well and truly praised him, only goes to show the necessity for some clarification. I think the time for consolidation has arrived, for the benefit of the law-makers—I will not say the law-breakers—and those who have to administer and study the law on this subject. We know that the consolidation of the Road Traffic Acts of this country is long overdue.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, as a commentary on what has just fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I am not sure that everybody in this House realises that, whenever he gets into the driving-seat of his motor car and starts to drive off, there are over 3,000 offences which he can commit—3,001 now, because there is a new one under this Bill.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Perhaps we could hear one day how many of these 3,000 offences the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has not committed.
  EARL HOWE: 2,999.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that I appreciate the point he is making. The work of consolidation is already far advanced.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thank the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I can go even further than that and say this, tentatively—and I hope the noble Lord will appreciate it—that if we are lucky, we may have it by next Easter.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Good!
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.18 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after paragraph 29 to insert:
  "30. In sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the Act of 1934 which imposes a maximum speed limit of 30 m.p.h. on a vehicle not being a heavy motor car adapted to carry not more than seven passengers, exclusive of the driver, drawing a two-wheeled trailer, after the words drawing a two-wheeled trailer' there shall be added or a close-coupled four-wheeled trailer' (`close-coupled' in relation to any two wheels of a vehicle meaning that those two wheels are both fitted on the same side of the vehicle, are not steerable and are so fitted that the distance between them

  1313
  measured horizontally and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle between the centres of the areas of contact of the wheels with the road surface does not exceed 33 inches;)."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can deal with this matter very shortly. I have put this Amendment down again because on Committee stage, very late at night, I asked the noble Earl whether he would give me an assurance that the Regulation—and this can be done by regulation because it is an amendment of the Construction and Use Regulations 1955—would be introduced soon as a great deal of inconvenience was being caused not only to the industry but to users. The purpose of this Amendment is as follows. One can tow a two-wheeled caravan behind one's motor car and travel at 30 m.p.h.; but if one buys the most up-to-date caravan of no larger size but with two close-coupled wheels on each side, because it has four wheels instead of two one can travel at only 20 m.p.h. This Amendment seeks to allow the close-coupled, twin-wheeled caravan, towed behind a motor car, to travel at 30 m p.h. like its antiquated predecessor. It can be done by regulation. I have put the Amendment down again, and perhaps the noble Earl, now that he has had time to look at it and consult his advisers, can give me some reassuring news. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved.
  Page 62, line 40, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, on the Committee stage I saw the Amendment only in the morning of the day it was moved and did not have time to look at it very carefully. I think I can give the noble Lord all he is asking for. First of all, this is a matter which is better done by regulation, because that is the speedier way; secondly, I will undertake to see that it is done before the end of the year. I hope that it will actually be done weeks, and perhaps even months, earlier than that. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied with that statement.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am more than grateful to the noble Earl. This is the last Amendment that I have on the Marshalled List. My thanks are also due to him for the other roost valuable concessions he has given.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 63, line 22, leave out ("(3) of section forty-three") and insert ("(4) of section four"). —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is an Amendment for Scottish application. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 63, line 26, at end insert—
  ("(8) In the application of this paragraph to Scotland, for any reference to the Minister there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 63, line 42, at end insert:
  "29. For subsection (1) of section three of the Road Traffic (Drivirg Licences) Act, 1936 (which provides that a driving licence granted on a test of competence to drive prescribed for a specified class or description of vehicles shall specify that class or description and that the person to whom it is granted shall be deemed not to be the holder of a driving licence for vehicles of any other class or description) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
  `(1) A licence (other than a provisional licence) granted under Part I of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 shall specify whether the licence authorises the holder to drive motor vehicles of all classes or descriptions or of certain classes or descriptions only, and in the latter case—

  (a) the licence shall specify the classes or descriptions of vehicles which it authorises the holder to drive, and

  (b) the holder shall be deemed not to be the holder of a licence granted under that Part of that Act to drive motor vehicles of any other class or description.'"—(Lord Mancroft.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Seventh Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think I can say that all the remaining Amendments, Nos. 86 to 90, are drafting Amendments. The last repeals the words of Section 2 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, in regard to disqualification on second conviction. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 65, line 14, column 3, after ("In") insert ("section two, in subsection (1) the words from the beginning to `classes' and subsections (2) and (3); in").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 65, line 50, column 3, after ("sixty-one") insert ("in section one hundred and eleven, subsection (4)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 65, line 57, column 3, leave out ("and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 65, line 59, column 3, at end insert ("and in section twenty-six, subsection (3)"). —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 66, line 14, column 3, leave out from ("(10)") to ("in") in line 16.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SANITARY INSPECTORS (CHANGE OF DESIGNATION) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
TRANSPORT (DISPOSAL OF ROAD HAULAGE PROPERTY) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
HOTEL PROPRIETORS BILL
Returned from the Commons, with certain of the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to; one of the said Amendments agreed to with an Amendment; and one other disagreed to, with a Reason for such disagreement: the said Amendment and the said Reason to be printed.

OVERSEA MIGRATION POLICY
3.27 p.m.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether with regard to Chapter 2 (a) 6, and Chapter 2 (b) 2 of the First Annual Report of the Oversea Migration Board (Cmd. 9261), they can now state whether regarding the first an appropriate early statement can be expected, and with regard to the second, if such policy is yet formulated. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question of the development of the Commonwealth is ever one of solicitude to your Lordships. Migration forms an important part of the conditions which contribute towards that steady development, and so it would seem that the moment is timely for some additional statement to be made upon it. It is a subject which has received consideration at intervals since the war, when it became time to resume the steady flow of migrants from this country to the Dominions. I emphasise "steady flow", because in all matters connected with this there is a tendency to complicate the issue by suggestions: there are those enthusiasts who would see a mass movement, and so complicate and tend to bring into disparagement the whole subject.
But I repeat that discussion would seem timely, for three reasons. There is the impending need for legislation—the Government must by next year have ready their proposals for the renewal of Acts which expire. Then, recently we have had the conference of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, during which exchanges of view must have occurred between those taking part and the Secretary of State. Lastly, the Secretary of State himself has now completed his tour of the Commonwealth with his visit to Canada. Wisely he has until recently followed a course in Parliament of being reserved in any recommendations or commitments. But now it would seem necessary, for the three reasons I have mentioned, that the subject should be raised, with the hope that he may find it possible to convey something to us.
What we really want is an indication of a more active, rather than a passive, attitude by the Government to this matter.
I recognise that recently the Prime Minister said:
"If we strengthen the manpower and resources of the Commonwealth as a whole we strengthen ourselves."
So there is no suggestion of an insufficiency of enthusiasm about this matter. But there remain in people's minds earlier statements of an authoritative character which were less clear. I would suggest that there is need for more education of a character which would convey to the younger generation of this country the opportunities which the Commonwealth offers. It would seem that there is room for something better in the curriculum. I know that the Secretary of State himself realises this strongly and we have reason to believe that he has been doing his best to bring about some improvement in that matter.
Naturally finance must govern the whole question of Commonwealth migration, but the finance is more at the receiving end than at the despatch end. Therefore, it may be said that this is a matter for the Dominions rather than for this country. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has indicated the importance of the proportion of finance available for Commonwealth development, and the suggestion is that we might justifiably see a higher rate expended by the United Kingdom on this matter as a whole. I will not take time to remind your Lordships of the legislation; the subject was last dealt with in 1937, and it is always a matter of some confusion of mind as to what relation the £1½ million voted bears to the annual expenditure, which seems so meagre, of only about £150,000.
Recently, there was in The Times newspaper an article which dealt with the dangers of the rigidity of our economy, and that doubtless caught the eye of most of your Lordships and suggested the importance of some overriding considerations of the realignment of our economy. It is because that is in the minds of many that it is urged that migration, or the rate of it, from this country to the Dominions, justifies more active attention by the Government and calls for some guidance of public thinking. Again, I would add that automation, which has been so much mentioned in the Press of late, seems to be an additional reason for long-range consideration.
That brings me to a point which I will not shirk referring to, and I recognise the Minister's necessary and justifiable concern. There are many industrialists who argue that any outflow of bodies from this country must inevitably be a disadvantage to this country. My Lords, it is that belief with which I most emphatically venture to disagree. I submit that the suggested steady outflow of 250,000 people a year is not unreasonable when it is considered in relation to our past history, the proportion of the gainfully employed people in this country, and the needs of strengthening the ties of the Dominions with the Mother Country. I support, with a most emphatic conviction, the view that exports from this country to the Dominions, which form so large a part of our total exports, are influenced by sentimental ties, and will be influenced in the future by the proportion of our migrants who, out of the total inflow, inescapably rise to the top and become the important purchasers of goods. If the proportion of inflow into the Dominions from this country is high, the higher will be the proportion of our people who obtain these high positions and who will, I submit, be inclined to buy goods of British origin rather than goods of other origin. So, as I say, sentiment enters a great deal into the question.
I mentioned earlier that it was the decision of the Secretary of State, after he took office, to familiarise himself with the position. We have good reason to be convinced that his tours of the Dominions gave great satisfaction there. Those quarters which are interested in Commonwealth development had high hopes that, following his assuming of office and bearing in mind his grasp of the position, there would be a quickening of interest in this matter at home and indications of decision to substitute for a passive attitude a more active one. Those bodies concerned with migration have indeed been grateful for the considerate receptiveness which the Minister has shown. I do not need to remind you that the Secretary of State has at his disposal the Oversea Migration Board, who are established for the purpose of giving such advice to the Minister as may be appropriate and for considering all problems before they pass him for consideration. It is the Report of the Board (Cmd. 9261)

1319
to which I particularly refer in my Question, and I would quote from that Report:
"If the United Kingdom Government wishes to adopt a positive migration policy, and to encourage a high and steady rate of emigration, then our own needs and the needs of the Commonwealth to make it essential that a complementary policy of encouraging larger families should be followed."
The other point to which I drew attention in my Question is the need for some statement, and I support it by another quotation from this Report:
"…there was an impression that the United Kingdom was not anxious to encourage emigration to the Commonwealth."
Further on it says:
"The view was expressed that if the United Kingdom Government could see their way to making some sort of declaration that in their view a movement of a given number of people would be entirely helpful in strengthening the Commonwealth, many people who at the moment were hesitating might decide to emigrate."
My Lords, it is on that last point that I suggest to you that there are in our Islands many who still have an adventurous spirit, and whose spirit would give even better results, perhaps, in the atmosphere of progress in the Dominions than it does here. It is they who would maintain this long tradition of flow that would help to develop the Commonwealth as one wishes it to be developed. I beg to put the Question standing in my name.
3.37 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I hope I shall never complain of the question of Commonwealth migration being raised in this House. As the noble Lord has said, migration from the United Kingdom plays a very important part in the economy of the Commonwealth. I hope that no-one has the impression that Her Majesty's Government are averse to it. I have on three or four occasions in this House emphasised what the Prime Minister has already said, that we wish to see a steady flow of the right type of emigrants going from the United Kingdom to the various Commonwealth countries, and that we believe—and we think we can say this without any arrogance—that British stock exported from this country to the different Commonwealth countries adds strength to their economies and to their communities.
1320
As the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, will realise, the British Government cannot compel people to leave this country to go to other Commonwealth countries, but each Commonwealth Government, through their High Commissioners in this country, have the fullest facilities to recruit emigrants in whatever way they like to go to the different Commonwealth countries. There are, of course, at the receiving end certain physical limitations, the ability to build houses or hospitals or schools, or to make roads quickly enough to receive the full number of emigrants who may wish to go. But having said that—and I am not going to embark on a long speech on migration to-day—I would again emphasise that Her Majesty's Government do wish to see a steady flow of migrants from this country to the other Commonwealth countries.
The noble Lord's Question really draws attention to two points which were raised in the last Report of the Oversea Migration Board. First, the suggestion was that if Her Majesty's Government could make a declaration that in their view the movement of a given number of people would be helpful in strengthening the Commonwealth, many people who were hesitating would, or might then, decide to emigrate. I will have that suggestion considered in the review of various aspects of migration which is necessary before the Empire Settlement Acts expire in 1957. I am bound to say to the noble Lord that my experience of the fixing of a figure for a target—which has been a popular exercise in so many public fields since the war—has been that in almost every case the target has been made irrelevant almost before it has been written down on paper. Nevertheless, I will have this proposal considered.
I may tell your Lordships here, as a matter of fact, that in the five years 1951 to 1955—which is the latest period for which we have accurate figures—350,000 persons emigrated from this country to other Commonwealth countries. So we have kept up a fairly steady flow, even in years of full employment in this country. Indeed, in some ways it is remarkable that so many people have been willing to go overseas.
The second point was the suggestion that if the Government wish to encourage a high and steady rate of migration it is essential that a complementary policy to

1321
encourage larger families should be followed. That does not quite come under my Office, but I will certainly convey the suggestion to the Minister of Health, who is already interested in any measures which might be taken further to stimulate the birth rate. Again, I will also put that suggestion to the Oversea Migration Board. The reason I am going to tell my noble friend that I do not want to make a statement to-day on the migration policy which we shall have to adopt early in 1957 is that the Oversea Migration Board will be making a report in, I think, three or four weeks' time. This will be their second Report and I would very much rather have that expert information and the accompanying recommendations at my disposal before we decide on any changes that may be necessary in migration policy.
The noble Lord said a word about education. Education, I equally believe, is needed in this country about the meaning and purposes of, and the opportunities in, the Commonwealth to-day. What I should like to tell him (though I cannot say exactly what will follow from it) is that I am now having discussions with the Minister of Education to see what practical measures we could adopt with a view to ensuring that children in this country
1322
are brought up with a wider knowledge of the Commonwealth than they have at present. I hope that I shall have something to report at a later date upon that matter. So, I would ask the noble Lord perhaps to allow me to see the Report of the Oversea Migration Board which is coming along in a number of weeks and perhaps later on, in the Autumn, when the review I have set in motion is completed, I shall be in a position to give a fuller answer to the noble Lord's Question.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, can the noble Earl, the Secretary of State, make any comment on the question of finance? Can he give any encouragement in that direction, particularly in regard to the discussions that have taken place recently with Commonwealth Ministers?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have discussed migration with various Ministers from Commonwealth countries, both here and in the Commonwealth. I am afraid, however, that I cannot add anything to-day on the subject of finance.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before four o'clock.