Lords Sitting of 15 May 1958

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD TERRINGTON On the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Lord Airedale—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Dunning (L. Rollo)—Took the Oath.

GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.
FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

DOMICILE BILL [H.L.]
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to domicile; and to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Meston.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (COLLECTION OF LEVY) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1958
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT)THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT) rose to move, That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations, 1958, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 2 of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1957, under which these Regulations are made, requires the Board of Trade to impose a levy on exhibitors for the benefit of makers of British films, to yield, in the Board's estimation, approximately £3¾ million in the first year ending on October 18, 1958. The rates of levy
372
were fixed last year before the full severity in the decline of cinema attendances had shown itself. It is now quite evident, as those of your Lordships who are interested in the matter will agree, that if these rates remain unaltered, the levy will not bring in the sum laid down in the Statute for the first year. The obligation therefore rests on the Government to amend these rates to achieve the prescribed target, and the proposed amendment which is before your Lordships to-day for approval, is designed to this end.
First, let me say a word about some small changes in the method of imposing the levy. At present, the levy is paid on the net seat price after deduction of entertainments duty, so that, as your Lordships will see, a reduction of duty automatically increases the yield of the levy. This has been demonstrated by the recent change in duty in the Budget, but the increase in levy yield was not sufficient to make unnecessary a change in the rates at which the levy is charged in order to secure the £3¾ million. The amendment before your Lordships provides that the levy should in future be charged on the gross seat price including entertainments duty, so that the yield will not be affected by any subsequent changes there might be in entertainments duty.
Secondly, instead of the levy rising by steps of ¼d. for specified price ranges, as in the past, it has been decided to change over to a straight 10 per cent. of the amount by which the gross seat price exceeds 11d. Apart from being more equitable, the new system is, I am told, much easier to operate. Its effect is to reduce the levy on seats of 1s. 1d. and under, and to increase the levy progressively on higher priced seats.
I think I can say that these changes in the method of imposing the levy have enjoyed a favourable reception in the trade. There has, however, been a little disappointment on the part of some exhibitors because the Government have not felt able to improve on the exemption arrangements. Your Lordships will remember that exhibitors whose net weekly takings, after deduction of entertainments duty, were less than £150, were exempt from payment of the levy. Some exhibitors who have previously been exempt on this account will now, because

373
of the substantial reduction in entertainments duty, be left with considerably greater net box-office takings and will therefore be in a position to pay the levy. Naturally, no one who has been exempt from a liability of this kind likes to have to pay, but I see no justification for raising the exemption limit so that a relatively small number of exhibitors might continue to enjoy exemption regardless of their improved position. This could be done only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on other exhibitors. I do not think it is generally realised that some 1.300 exhibitors are at present exempt from levy.
The increase in the levy has been represented in some quarters as taking away with one hand what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given with the other hand by way of entertainments duty relief. How far this is valid your Lordships can judge for yourselves by comparing the £14½ million reduction in entertainments duty, with the relatively small increase necessary to bring the levy back to £¾million, from what it would have fallen to if there had been no change. But such an argument is, I would suggest, beside the point, because, as I hope I have made clear to your Lordships, the amendment to the rate of levy does not represent an arbitrary decision to take advantage of the improved position of exhibitors following the reduction of entertainments duty: it is before your Lordships for approval because the Act requires the Board of Trade to fix the rates of levy in a way which, will yield in their estimation approximately £¾ million. The Act provides that the Board of Trade shall consult the Cinematograph Films Council before making Regulations, and this has been done. I hope, therefore, that the House will be able to approve these Regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations, 1958, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.13 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, it must give the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, as much satisfaction to ask for your Lordships' consent to these Regulations as it does to the majority of your Lordships to hear him say it. After all, he has had to bear the brunt of the attack that has been made upon
374
Her Majesty's Government for quite a number of years now in regard to a reduction in entertainments duty. I am not going to speculate as to how many were surprised or disappointed at the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reducing the entertainments duty by 50 per cent., but it will mean a benefit of somewhere in the region of £14½ million to the industry and those who benefit from the industry. I understand that queues are already lined up with their traditional porridge bowls to get, if I may use the expression, a "cut" of this £14 million—all, I have not the slightest doubt, worthy claimants.
The Regulations deal with that share which goes to the Fund as levy and which will directly benefit the producers; and. as the noble Lord has said, it is designed for the amount of £3¾ million. Whilst I hope that all those connected with the industry—producers, exhibitors, and the labour employed in the industry—will benefit, may I put in a word for the silent majority, the British public? I sincerely hope that some of this will result in reduced prices to the public, because the cinematograph film industry must realise that if it is to compete successfully with its principal competitor, television, it can do so only on a rising income at the box office; and that, in the last analysis, will depend not only upon the quality of the pictures the industry produces but also upon the prices which the public have to pay to go to see them.
I am glad that the Government have been able to alter the incidence of the levy to favour in some way the small cinema in remote districts. What pleased me more than anything else was to hear the noble Lord give the hint that Her Majesty's Government, if they are in a position so to do, intend further reductions in entertainments duty, because they have now so arranged the machinery that they will not have to alter it again —I think the noble Lord said this in as many words—when they make any future alteration in the amount of entertainments duty. Since the Government can only alter it downwards, I am hoping—in fact I know that it is the only thing that will be of lasting benefit to the industry—that in perhaps twelve months' time the noble Lord will come

375
to your Lordships again with a Regulation to increase the levy, so that it will give the producers a minimum of £5 million a year, which they will be able to have out of the takings and increased earnings by the industry through the total elimination of entertainments duty. And do not forget, my Lords, that this is the only industry, or the only section of the entertainment industry, in the whole country which has an entertainments duty levied upon it. I congratulate and thank the noble Lord for the part he played in persuading his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and hope he will be able to do the same in twelve months' time.
3.17 p.m.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, as one who is interested in the film business, it is only natural that I should support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The cinema industry recognised the fact that, consequent upon the recent reduction of entertainments tax and the decrease of the box office receipts, some amendment of the levy rates had to be made. This was necessary because the British film producers were supposed to receive the £3¾ million as laid down in the Cinematograph Act but were going to fall short of that sum as a result of the reduction in the box office receipts. I am quite confident that the new rates which my noble friend has outlined to your Lordships today will enable the figure of £3¾ million to be reached, and probably exceeded, in the next year, starting October, 1958.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I was very sorry indeed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not see his way in his recent Budget to abolish the cinema tax—I say "cinema tax"; I do not call it entertainments tax, because the cinema is the only form of entertainment which is taxed. However, half a loaf is better than no bread, and I am hopeful that he may yet have it in his heart to give us some more relief, either in an interim Budget or in next year's Budget, and bring the cinema into line with all other forms of entertainment.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said about a queue being formed for the £14½ million which we are alleged—when I say "we" I mean the executive side of the industry
376
—to have got. But out of the £14½ million concession which we have been given, over £5 million will be given to the film distributors on account of film hire—and rightly so: they are entitled to it just as much as the exhibitors are, and they must have it to enable them to stay in business. That leaves a balance of £9½ million in the exhibitors' hands. Your Lordships have heard to-day that the levy rates are to go up, which will further reduce that sum by about £1¼ million, bringing the balance in exhibitors' hands down to something like £8 million. On top of that we have had demands from the two trade unions for wage and salary increases. As a result of all this, I can visualise the concession of £14½ million gradually dwindling until it may well have little value to the exhibitors of this country and the closing down of cinemas will still continue. The tax concessions to the live theatres came too late to save many of them. I hope the same will not prove true with the cinemas. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have some softening of his heart, either in the Committee stage of the Finance Bill or later, and give us what we are, I think, entitled to, tax abolition for this wonderful industry which brings entertainment to so many of our people.
3.21 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I would not intervene on this matter except that when we had a previous Order before us there was a slight discussion on it, and it might be misunderstood if that were not followed up on this occasion. Like those who have spoken, I welcome this Amendment Order, for two reasons. I think it puts the method of the levy on a more equitable basis than is was formerly; and I would say, speaking for producers, but without having consulted them, that they are naturally very pleased that the short-fall which was obviously going to take place on the levy is now being restored.
I feel, however, that it is necessary to say a word or two of qualification. Reference has been made to the remission of tax being of the order of £14½ million. That figure, I think, is a little illusory. It would have been £141 million if receipts for the ensuing year, admissions at the box office, had remained at the same

377
level as last year. With the fall in attendances at the cinema the total yield of tax would have been down again, and therefore the remission is something less than the£14½ million. So far as British producers are concerned, the best estimate is that out of the so-called £14½ million they will receive in increased film rentals something of the order of £1 million. With the effect of this amending Regulation they will get from the production fund £3¾ million..I am bound to say that I do not think that that does any more than put them in the position of hopefully continuing for a further year. The industry's case was for abolition of the tax and a £5 million levy for production. They will continue for the current year on the same basis of the optimism that has always sustained them in the past; but unless, in a year from now, there is abolition of the tax and a £5 million levy I do not think that British production can be sustained at the level we should all like to see.
With those qualifications, may I say that I think that all sides of the industry welcome the Regulation. There may be a little disappointment among some of the exhibitors at the failure to raise the exemption limits, but apart from that I think all sections of the industry welcome the Regulation as making a necessary and equitable change in the situation.
3.25 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the friendly way in which you have welcomed these changes. There are two points only with which I want to deal. The first, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, gave voice, was the complaint that we have heard elsewhere, that the duty reductions are not being passed on to the cinema patrons as freely as one may wish. But whatever may be felt about the exhibitor's decision to pass or not to pass on to his patrons by way of a reduction in seat prices some of the duty reduction, I do not think that this is a matter in which the Government can or ought to interfere. Whether increased patronage would compensate them for reducing prices is a matter for the commercial judgment of exhibitors. They must make up their own minds on it.
My Lords, throughout the numerous debates we have had on this subject of
378
late, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and those who support him in this matter have made several attempts to get me to forecast my right honourable friend's Budget for 1958. Now that we have that safely behind us, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, tries to ensnare me into saying what will happen in 1959. I can only say what I have said before: that I will see that his remarks are passed on to the proper quarter, but I cannot anticipate my right honourable friend's Budget for 1959 or any other year on which the noble Lord attempts to ensnare me.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

LITTER BILL
3.27 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I very much hope that we shall find that it is generally welcome in all parts of the House, as indeed it was in all parts of another place—a somewhat rare but nevertheless desirable state of affairs. This small and, I think it might be termed, wholly inoffensive measure has been very generally welcomed throughout the country. All organisations—and they are like the sands of the sea, without number—who are concerned with the preservation of amenities throughout the country and in the countryside are in support of this measure and welcome it. I would mention only two, because I think they have really borne the heat and burden of the day: the "Keep Britain Tidy" Group, which is sponsored, I believe, by the National Federation of Women's Institutes, has been a tower of strength in this matter, and I think it is significant also to realise and to know that all the local authority associations are in support of a measure such as this.
I do not think it will be necessary for me to try to make out the case against

379
litter. I think we are all fully aware in this House, in any case, of the shameful and disgusting mess that the countryside is in and that measures are long overdue to try to control and correct it. But it may be convenient if I briefly sketch what is the immediate background of the measure that is now before your Lordships' House. Your Lordships will be aware, probably, that there have already been three Bills in recent years on this subject. The first Bill, I regret to say, fell by the wayside and did not get very far. The second, though it reached Second Reading in another place, fell on somewhat stony ground; and weeds, in the shape, I regret to say, of Her Majesty's Government, grew up and choked it. But the third measure which we now have before us has fallen on good ground and now comes to us in a form which I sincerely think may commend itself to your Lordships. It would be churlish of me in the extreme if I did not pay tribute, with your Lordships' permission, to the patience, skill and assiduity of a Member of another place, Mr. Rupert Speir, who introduced the Bill there.
If therefore I do not actually endeavour, in the short time I shall detain your Lordships to-day, to make the case against litter, it is because I prefer to confine myself to an explanation of the clauses in this very modest Bill. I think we must all admit that this is a short and simple Bill. It could hardly be shorter. There are but two clauses, and no Schedules. It is in language which is a very good approximation to plain English—and we could not ask for better than that. It is a simple Bill and I hope that it may prove generally acceptable. We must always remember, however, that good intentions may pave the way to Hell, and I think it would be advisable for us to look at this Bill for a moment to see whether there may be in it hidden dangers that may have unforeseen disadvantages. Having studied this Bill with great care, I should like to bring forward one or two points which may conceivably trouble your Lordships, and attempt to allay any fears to which those points might give rise.
In general terms, and first of all, I think we must satisfy ourselves that there is a mandate for legislation of this sort. I personally think that that is abundantly
380
clear. The very fact that all these organisations, and the local authorities themselves, are behind this Bill shows, I think, that there is a general desire for legislation of this sort. The next point which it is most necessary always to bear in mind, in dealing with a measure of this sort, is this: Is this a pettifogging, vexatious interference with the justifiable liberty of the subject? Is this "Mrs. Grundy" legislation of the sort that we do not want? I do not think that we could possibly describe this Bill in those terms. I do not think that the liberty of the subject can go so far that the subject must be at liberty to spread broken bottles on Brighton beach, or to deposit unwanted iron bedsteads in St, James's Park. I think that that is not liberty but licence, and that it is high time that such licence was checked.
The third matter that I think should concern us in general terms is whether this Bill is necessary. Are we here duplicating other powers? Is this matter already covered by other legislation? I should be deceiving your Lordships if I did not say that this is, as it were, the rock on which the previous measures foundered. But I would rather not say "rock" because, greatly daring, we came nearer to this "rock" and we found that it was not really a rock but only a shadow, and that there arose the problem which we foresaw: that the by-laws which already exist in many parts of the country, and which were thought to be adequate, have not in fact proved effective.
Far be it from me to enter into a debate on the theory and practice of by-laws. The Lord Chairman of Committees might resent my poaching over that ground, and I should feel quite unable to deal with the matter. But I think it would be fair and proper to say just this, that surely the essence of by-law legislation is that it is a local circumstance for which one is legislating. This matter of litter is not local; it is national. There can be no reason, I would submit, for there not being national legislation and a national Statute for its abatement. Wherever we arrive at a state of affairs when something is of national application, then we have a national law to deal with it. It is not only the extremely heinous offences that warrant national laws. Not only do we have a law for murder; we have laws

381
also against exceeding the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. Therefore I think there are quite justifiable grounds for saying that this matter of the nuisance of litter is of such wide and national importance that it deserves national treatment.
If anything further needed to be said it would be simply this: that, while the by-laws do exist, and have existed for many years, the problem is still with us—they have not, unfortunately, proved effective. If anyone should say "We shall be usurping the functions of the local authorities; they will resent this", my reply would be that that is not the case; that the local authorities, through their organisations and associations, are supporting this legislation and are desirous that ii should come into force. They do not consider that we are poaching on their preserves. This little Bill is so reasonable and undictatorial that it is not even proposed that the by-laws should be superseded; the by-laws will still remain in force until, as one hopes, when they come forward for review some of them may be repealed. A prosecution can be brought either under this Bill, when it becomes law, or under the by-laws. It is worth noting, however, that this Bill goes a little further than the by-laws and that the penalty is slightly more severe—£10 instead of £5.
There are one or two other specific points that might conceivably cause difficulty to your Lordships, and I would attempt to anticipate them, if I may. First, there is the question of the unwitting offence. If this Bill had been passed into law and one of your Lordships had the misfortune to drop his glove on going home from this House this afternoon, would he have committed an offence under this Statute? I am advised that he would not have committed such an offence, because the words "and leaves", in the third and fourth lines of Clause 1 of the Bill operate. Those words give an intention or deliberateness to the act which is, I am advised, not present in a wholly accidental leaving or depositing of the litter or the glove. But, quite apart from that, I am sure that the success of the operation and the enforcement of this measure will depend wholly on the reasonableness with which it is used. That, of course, applies in regard to a good many other Statutes.
382
Another point upon which I should like to touch is the vexed one of private land. I am advised that if private land, as such, to which the public have no right of access, had been included we should have been in very deep water with the law of trespass and other things. Private land, as such, does not come under the Bill, except—and this is very important—in so far as Clause 1 says
"If any person throws down, drops or otherwise deposits in, into or from any place in the open air …"
and so on. That is to say, if one is eating one's lunch in a lay-by (which is a public place in the open air to which the public have right of access without payment) and should toss a sandwich paper, banana skin, or even the beer-can of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, over the wall into a private field or a private garden, one is caught, because one has deposited "from" an open place. Similarly the offence is committed if one is walking on a footpath or right of way through private land and deposits litter right or left from this public place on to land, whether it be private or public land.
I have been told that there was a fear that certain legitimate sports or pastimes might he in difficulties under this measure. "What about a paper-chase?" I was asked. I believe that we are all right there if the depositor of the paper (which in certain circumstances could, of course, be litter) has obtained the consent of the owner. All land, whether public or private, has some kind of owner, and there will be the onus to find out who is the owner of the land, whether public or private, over which the paper-chase is held. Provided that his consent has been obtained, an offence will not be committed under this Bill by those who go in for that pastime.
Another question which was considered: will this make it quite impossible for anybody to go to a football match at Wembley Stadium or the enclosure at Ascot without fear of prosecution afterwards?—for there is always a most dreadful mess after these occasions. I am informed that the Bill as drawn will make it perfectly safe for your Lordships to go to Ascot without fear of prosecution, because that is a place to which one has to pay to go, as also is Wembley Stadium. The offence will be created only in an open space to which

383
the public have right of access without payment. Presumably it is assumed that the half-crown received by some noble Lords for allowing the public to walk through their gardens must partly provide for a man to clean up the banana skins afterwards. If I am not wearying your Lordships, there is another point which may be worth mentioning. Your Lordships will see in subsection (1) a reference to an open space which appears at first sight to be rather curious. It says:
"…for the purposes of this subsection any covered place open to the air on at least one side and available for public use shall be treated as being a place in the open air,"
I am informed that that adequately covers the bus shelter, which is an open space, covered but open on one side; so that it will be an offence for anyone to throw used bus tickets or sandwich paper out of a bus shelter.
There is another covered place open on one side about which we may find we are in trouble. That is the church porch. What about confetti? What about the well-nigh universal custom of throwing confetti on to the blushing bride? I am informed that we shall indeed commit an offence if we throw confetti out of a church porch or into a church porch or churchyard unless—the saving words—we have the consent of the owner or authority concerned. I suggest, therefore, that at weddings it should be made very clear—perhaps in future a notice will have to be posted up—whether the vicar and churchwardens have given permission for confetti to be thrown. I have heard it said that we might overcome this difficulty by using edible confetti, so that the confetti, having been thrown, would be consumed by the fowls of the air. Personally, I believe that it would be a much more desirable procedure that, before we possibly commit an offence, we should make sure that the vicar and wardens have consented to this practice. For—and let us make no bones about it—some of them object.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, are we to assume that confetti is not litter if it sticks to the bride; that it is then all right?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I should say that the bride cannot be
384
defined as a public open space to which the public have access. Perhaps it might be wiser if I did not go into any further details but simply confined my last few remarks to the second subsection of Clause 1. Your Lordships may conceivably have had some difficulty in understanding, and may have wondered, why particular bodies are named as bodies which shall have power to institute procedings. The reason is that such bodies have not now any such general power to spend money on a matter of this kind, and it is felt that they must be protected against the rapaciousness of the Public Auditor who might wish to surcharge councillors with the expense of prosecution. If this Bill passes as it is now before the House, there will be no risk of those of your Lordships who are county councillors being surcharged if you or your council should institute a prosecution under this Bill.
I think there is little more that I need say. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 refers to Scotland, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, will, I hope, say a word about that. The law in Scotland is very different, and I understand that these are matters which there have to be dealt with by a gentleman known as the procurator fiscal. I am not optimistic enough to believe that the passing of this Bill will immediately end the whole problem of litter, for obviously that will not be the case; but I do feel that it is a desirable and a worthwhile advance that we should have a moderate and a proper sanction universally applicable throughout the whole country. There is a terrible habit growing up among some of the young in this country. When one asks them to do something, or not to do something else, they are apt to turn round and say, "So what?" It is a very embarrassing position when that happens, and one has no sanction, when there is no answer to, "So what?" I feel that there must be in the background this sanction which can be used—I am sure that it will be used with tolerance and not extravagantly so that we shall be able to tidy up our countryside, and not only our countryside but also our towns, by, in the last resort, prosecuting those who make such a disgusting mess of it. I beg to move that this Bill be given a Second Reading.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
3.51 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, this Bill, as the noble Earl has so ably, moderately and humorously explained, is a Private Member's Bill belatedly blessed by a hesitant Government, and it now comes before us as a non-controversial measure for our consideration. I have no hesitation myself in giving my unreserved support to its passage through your Lordships' House. But I cannot say that it gives me great pleasure to support it, for the fact is that the need for such a Bill is a sad commentary upon the social habits of a very large section of our people. It is a reflection upon the attitude of our adults and our adolescent population; and to some extent may even be regarded as a criticism of our educational system.
This attitude to litter is not confined to slum dwellers who know no better and whose housing conditions do not encourage habits of tidiness; it is equally prevalent among the minority of motorcar users, whose revolting droppings every week-end penetrate deeper and deeper into the once almost inaccessible countryside. Years of example, persuasion and exhortation by a minority of socially-minded men and women have had little, if any, effect. Hence the need for this Bill, mild and moderate though its terms are, which makes the scattering of litter a statutory offence for which a penalty not exceeding £10, maximum, can be imposed.
The Bill applies to England, Scotland and Wales; and I cannot imagine any county council or local authority not welcoming it. Many local authorities, conscious of the expense and annoyance that litter scattering imposes, have adopted local by-laws to deal with the situation, but have found them not wholly effective. In the City of Glasgow, although litter baskets in great numbers and at considerable cost have been fixed, and although on trams and buses, also at considerable cost, receptacles for tickets have been attached, they have not prevented the scattering of litter in the streets, even though the baskets and receptacles are to some extent used by a number of people. For myself, I am pleased to see that in Scotland offences can he dealt with in courts of summary jurisdiction, for this presumably implies (I stand to be corrected if I am wrong) that offenders will be tried by baillies
386
and police judges, who, for the benefit of the mere Sassenach, are men and women who are still members of local authorities although acting as what would be called in England magistrates. Offenders would come before these people, who are, as I say, members of local authorities, and who will therefore have a truer appreciation of the seriousness of the offence, knowing what the cost is and what the trouble is, and be able to explain to offenders what this annoyance and expense mean which their thoughtless actions create.
Nobody will pretend, as the noble Earl has pointed out, that this Bill will either prevent or remedy the evil of litter scattering; but it will, one hopes, have a restraining effect upon some who otherwise would not know any better. Side by side with the proposed deterrent in the Bill, advantage must still be taken of modern methods of mass communication, so that children in schools, adolescents in their hostelings and hikings, and adults in their motoring and holidaying, may be made to understand the wickedness of this habit of litter scattering and shamed into decent behaviour. I am very pleased indeed to be able to give this Bill my complete support.
3.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, congratulated Mr. Rupert Speir and his associates in the House of Commons on having succeeded in getting the Bill through the House of Commons up to the point that it reaches this Chamber. Having had some experience in the past of passing Private Members' Bills through both Houses of Parliament, I heartily endorse what the noble Earl has said in that respect; but I should like to add this. I feel that the noble Earl, in sponsoring the Bill in this House to-day, has earned the gratitude of the nation in so doing, particularly for the reason that he has expounded it so eloquently and so admirably to your Lordships this afternoon.
Seeing that I myself happen to have taken an interest in this subject a couple of years ago, perhaps I may, with your Lordships' permission, quote Questions I have put and Answers I have received, because it will adequately cover a great

387
deal of ground that I might otherwise trespass upon this afternoon. On July 10, 1956, I asked the Government whether they would introduce a Bill which would render persons who dropped litter about
"liable to prosecution and on summary conviction to a maximum penalty of one month's imprisonment without the option of a fine."
Of course, I knew that that was asking too much; but I knew also that it would give some publicity, as it did and as my postbag showed, to this particular problem. The answer of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, was as follows [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol 198, col. 677]:
"My Lords, the Answer is, No."
Having thanked the noble Earl for that incisive Answer, I then asked him this:
"May I ask whether nothing can be done to prevent these human pests from desecrating the countryside and the beaches with eyesores wherever they go? Is it not a shockingly bad example for the young to see their elders indulging in these disgusting and abominable habits?"
The noble Earl said:
"I agree that it is a shocking example for the young to see older people leave litter all over parks, highways, commons and open spaces …"
Again, on July 25, I asked [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 199, col. 199]:
"May the House take it that Her Majesty's Government are pursuing every possible means and investigating everything that it may be possible to investigate in order to put these abominable litter-mongers and human pests 'on the spot'?"
To that the Earl of Munster replied:
"My Lords, the answer is …in the affirmative"
I pass that over. I leave your Lordships to draw what deductions you may like from that Answer and its consequence. But, at any rate, we have now arrived at the stage, I am glad to say and I feel the country is glad to say, when thanks to Mr. Speir and his associates in the House of Commons, and the noble Earl to-day, we have a measure which will bring into operation, as I hope, the objectives which so many people in this country have in view.
The success of this measure depends fundamentally upon making the people of this country litter conscious. I feel sure that when this Bill becomes law, Her Majesty's Government and the various bodies who have been engaged in doing everything they can to push forward the objectives which the Bill has in view will
388
put their heads together and evolve some scheme or schemes in order to carry out the Bill's objectives. As the noble Earl has said, these apply to the old as well as to the young—I am not sure that they do not apply more to the old than to the young. The noble Earl said that sometimes when he puts something to young people their answer is, "So what?" That carries the noble Earl no further, and carries us no further, but we all know that if we can get the young young enough and put them through an intensive course, they will respond to it—that has been instanced in other countries, for example, by the Hitler youth. I believe it to be the case that the schools in this country are doing that very thing.
But the youth will not respond unless they see their elders doing the right thing, and I feel sure that it is to the elders that the main plea should be made. What is the use of the British and Scottish travel organisations inviting foreigners to this country to see the beauties of our countryside if, when they arrive and go to such beauty spots as the Surrey hills, which have only recently been declared to be a place of natural beauty, they see one mass of abominable litter. I feel that the noble Earl would agree that the main plea should be to the old, and that some method should be evolved whereby they can be made litter conscious. I think that these are the objectives we have to achieve and which I hope that this Bill will achieve. I give it my hearty support.
4.3 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, and to the honourable Member in another place who introduced this Bill. I am particularly glad to note that the local authority organisations have supported it and have admitted that proceeding by by-law is ineffective in matters of this kind and requires to be supplemented by general legislation. There is another aspect of the matter which is closely related to what is contained in the Bill but which. I am afraid, is not covered by it—that is, the nuisance and offence which is caused by dogs, particularly in large cities. Attempts have been made to deal with this by by-laws, quite ineffectively, and I venture to throw out the suggestion that there is an opportunity some day for

389
another Public Bill which will deal with this question and help to put an end to a noxious, disgusting and injurious practice.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, before we pass from this Bill there is one aspect I should like to submit to the noble Earl. Anybody who drives along the roads of this country will have noticed that wherever motor coach parties stop to have a picnic meal at the side of the road there is a shocking display of litter. Would it not be possible in this Bill to hold the motor coach companies responsible? It would be impossible for the police, subsequent to the committing of the offence, to find out the identity of the individuals responsible for throwing the stuff out. Would it not be possible under the Bill to find some system whereby we should be able to "go for" the driver or conductor, or better still, the motor coach company concerned?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am glad to be able to express the Government's support of this Bill. As noble Lords have already said, it was welcomed in another place and outside Parliament as well. It is a short and simple Bill, but I do not think it is any the worse for that. I hope that it passes in its present form, so that there will be no doubt in anyone's mind that the dropping of litter is a statutory offence which renders the offender liable to a maximum fine of ten pounds. I hope that this will re-enforce the National Parks Commission, the Keep Britain Tidy movement, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and all the many private and public associations who have to deal with these matters and will bring about a great improvement in the appearance of our countryside and streets.
4.8 p.m.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I have only a word to add in support of this very necessary measure, and that is to call attention to the fact that in many cases the local authorities, those who draw up the by-laws, will be guilty of an offence under this Bill—and for two reasons. One is that, as we have all seen, they have by-laws on high poles so defaced by the weather and lack of renewal that nobody can read them and much too high for children to read. The second is that they provide litter baskets made of
390
very open wire mesh with open tops; and when they are full and a strong wind conies along, it gets underneath and scatters the litter out of the baskets all over the surrounding country. I have stood and watched that happen. Why cannot local authorities have solid containers made, with tops shaped something like a milk can, so that litter, once inside, could not be removed by any wind that happens to pass? I would also put in a plea that the local authorities should empty them rather more often and not allow them to get filled right to the top so that, at the first wind, out goes their contents, making more mess than any casual passer-by could be guilty of.
4.9 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, perhaps before the noble Earl replies your Lordships would allow me to say a word in commendation of the Bill and to underline what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton? Getting this Bill on to the Statute Book is hardly halfway in dealing with this problem. I have been actively engaged for thirty years or so in the work of the National Trust and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and this has always been one of the worst problems we have had to tackle. The National Trust have power to make by-laws, and in many instances have made by-laws under which the depositing of litter is an offence. But the making of a by-law of this kind is only a short step on the way to abolishing litter. It is extraordinarily difficult to enforce a law of this kind, and unless the noble Earl and all of us can succeed in persuading the local authorities, in particular—because they are in the best position of all to enforce a law of this kind—to do their bit, and unless more urgency and enthusiasm is put into enforcing this Bill, when it becomes an Act, I am afraid that we shall see litter deposited just as much in the future as we have done in the past. Therefore, I hope that attention will be paid to the problem of enforcement, which is a real problem.
4.11 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, there is one point that I should like to mention, following on what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said. I think it is important that there should be instituted a

391
certain number of prosecutions when the Bill becomes law; but it is even more important that these prosecutions should be given a good deal of publicity, both in the local and in the national Press. I am sure that it is far more important to do that than to put up notices such as we see in the parks: "This park is beautiful. Please keep it so". That, I think, is a pure waste of money. However, if a good deal of publicity can be given to the fact that Mr. Jones or Mr. Brown has been fined £10 for leaving the paper that wrapped his sandwiches lying about, that would go a long way to stop people from doing it. I trust that prosecutions will be given the fullest possible publicity.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I should like to draw the attention of the noble Earl to one further aspect of this. Your Lordships have been thinking and talking in terms of litter in the form of confetti, banana skins, orange skins and so on. I know of people who abandon motor cars in the countryside. Will it be possible for them to be moved and the offender charged?
4.13 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and for the warm welcome and support that this Bill has received. I do not think there are many specific questions that I need answer. The question of the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, came last, but perhaps I might deal with it first. Undoubtedly, an abandoned motor car, an abandoned bedstead or an abandoned piece of balana peel, would be classed as litter; and one of the matters that was considered at great length in Committee in another place was the dumping of old iron, and so on, on bombed sites, which it is thought will be caught under this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, did not actually ask a question, and it would not be for me to say what will be the proper practice in the Scottish courts of first instance, although I have no doubt that what the noble Lord said is correct.
The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, said that we should all have to become more litter-conscious, and indeed, we must. He invited me to put the young through an intensive course, as I understood him. I will give serious consideration to that—
392
and especially my own young. I do not think this Bill can be held to cover the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, but I do think it is a serious matter. The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is an excellent one, and I think it links up with the matter of prosecution that was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Amulree. Obviously, it will be desirable that there should be one or two prosecutions quite soon after this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will. Those points will then come out. I am sure they will be give publicity by all the organisations who are so anxious that these powers should be known—the "Keep Britain Tidy Group "and the other organisations with which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is associated. I think the prosecutions will come, and I hope no difficulties will arise. I am not a lawyer, and I should not like to say" off the cuff "how we can cope with the litter from the charabanc if we cannot identify the actual person who deposited it. However, that point will have to be looked into.
I do not think there are any other points to which I need reply—noble Lords will forgive me if I have omitted any—and I will only say how glad I am that there is this general welcome for the Bill, and express my gratitude to the Government for giving it their support.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FIRST OFFENDERS BILL
4.16 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Templewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Restriction on imprisonment of first offenders]:
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or commit such a person to prison for failure to pay a fine". The noble Viscount said: Those of your Lordships who were here for the Second Reading of this Bill

393
will remember that I said that upon the Committee stage I should move an Amendment to exclude from the scope of the Bill defaulters on fines. An undertaking to this effect was given in another place; indeed, it was only after that undertaking was given that the Bill went through unopposed. The Committee will remember that the object of the Bill is to make magistrates pause before they impose a sentence of imprisonment and consider whether there are other alternative punishments that could be equally good or better. In the case of defaulters on fines something like this procedure already takes place.
A defaulter upon a fine, I am informed, cannot be sent to prison unless he appears before the court and unless the Bench have made an inquiry into his financial means. So that in the case of fines very much the kind of procedure that we are asking for other offenders already takes place. The result has been that the Justices' Clerks Association, and other experts upon the question, have suggested that the defaulters on fines should be excluded altogether from the scope of the Bill, because the procedure that we want already takes place in their case and to duplicate the arrangement would merely mean creating delays and unnecessary work. From that point of view, therefore, the Bill would not only be simpler, but better, if the Amendments in my name were carried.
I have put down four Amendments on the Marshalled List, but they are all part of the same point. They all have the same object, and they are all part and parcel of this one intention—namely, that defaulters on fines should be kept out of the Bill altogether. The undertaking was given in another place that they would be excluded, but quite apart from that, on the merits of the case, I put it to the Committee that these defaulters should be taken out of the Bill. I therefore beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name, and at the same time to point out to the Committee that the other Amendments are all consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out from ("twenty-one") to ("unless") in line 7.—(Viscount Templewood.)
LORD CHESHAM: As the noble Viscount has told us, these Amendments
394
are agreed in all quarters, and no doubt will be as acceptable to your Lordships as they are to Her Majesty's Government.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("or committed to prison as aforesaid").—(Viscount Temple-wood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 26, leave out from (" offence ") (" shall ") in line 27.—(Viscount Temple-wood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (4).—(Viscount Templewood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed.

LAND POWERS (DEFENCE) BILL
4.23 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.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Power to require use of land for limited training purposes]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS- BOROUGH: I wish to raise a point at this stage of the Bill because I am particularly interested in Clause 6. Speaking from memory—I have not the Bill in my hands at the moment—Clause 6 is one which, with certain amendments of the Act of 1897, gives authority for temporary occupation and the like. I am concerned as to the effect of this particular clause in the case of farm lands of varying character—land bearing different crops and things of that kind. In order to arrive at his exact position, if the ordinary farmer gets a notice he has

395
somehow or other still to refer to the Act of 1897.
What occurred to me—I do not know whether your Lordships will agree—is that when there is what becomes almost a major Bill of this kind, consolidating the powers of a whole range of former Defence Orders, it is a pity to include a considerable amount of legislation still by reference. It seems to me rather too much that the ordinary farmer or similar person who comes under (as is quite right and proper in the security of the country) orders of this kind should be able to check them only by going to a lawyer and finding out exactly what the powers of the 1897 Act are. I should have hoped that, even if the Government cannot do anything about this Bill, in future Bills they should endeavour to leave out as far as possible legislation by reference.
EARL BATHURST: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to remind the noble Viscount opposite that we went into all the purposes of the Bill a little while ago in your Lordships' House. I assure the noble Viscount, and all noble Lords, that in fact the measures under Clause 6 have been most carefully considered with regard to farm land; farmhouses and all farm buildings are, of course, out of any form of temporary training area. It will be only with the previous knowledge of a farmer or owner or occupier that such small areas of land will be used, and after reasonable notice—fourteen days in fact. If that particular area proved inconvenient, it is quite obvious that the powers that be might be able to vary their needs for that piece of land to suit the circumstances of the farmer or occupier concerned. I assure your Lordships that in every way Clause 6 will work for the convenience of farmers especially, and of occupiers of land, and it is believed that it will work even better than the old Manœuvres Regulations which were in existence before the war, when very little trouble was experienced.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Prevention of obstruction of airfields]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "occupier",
396
where that word first occurs, and to insert:
"owner or (in the case of a movable structure) the occupier",
The noble Earl said: This clause deals with the removals of obstructions to airfields. If the Minister desires to move an obstruction he has to follow the procedure laid down in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Bill, and if, in spite of this procedure, the object is not removed, then under Clause 10 the Minister has to issue an order to the occupier of the land—not the owner—on which that object is situated requiring him to remove it. In subsection (2) the objects referred to are described as:
"trees, hedges, fences, poles, masts, cables, wires, walls (other than a wall forming part of a roofed structure)…"
Many of those, of course, may be the property not of the occupier at all, but of the owner. It is difficult to see why, in the case, let us say, of half a dozen trees growing in a field which is rented by a farmer, but which do not belong to the farmer, it should be the farmer and not the owner of the trees who may be required by the Minister to remove them.
In subsection (4) it is laid down that if the Minister requires the removal of trees, the Minister shall issue instructions to secure that the removal is carried out "in a woodmanlike manner". It seems to me a little unreasonable that the tenant farmer should be required to remove trees which do not belong to him in a manner which he may never have had the opportunity of acquiring. I am told that the reason the occupier, and not the owner, is made the object of the order is that in some circumstances the Minister might find that the owner of the land had got lost and could not be found. It may therefore be convenient to the Minister to issue the order against the occupier, who is there and can be found, instead of against the owner who is not there and cannot be found. But even if this difficulty should arise, it does not seem to me to justify the Minister's issuing an order requiring an occupier to remove some object which is not his property. It seems to me that in those circumstances the Minister, if he really cannot identify the owner or discover his whereabouts, should remove the obstacle himself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 15, leave out ("occupier") and insert ("owner or (in the case of a movable structure) the occupier").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
EARL BATHURST: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Dundee for placing this Amendment before your Lordships, because it does bring to light some small point in this very complicated measure. I assure your Lordships that in fact both the owner and the occupier will always be notified of any obstruction, and in fact of any step that may be needed to be taken throughout this Bill; and when that is done the full measures that have been recommended by the Franks Committee will of course apply. Such fears as my noble friend has will, of course, be effective only if the owner flatly refuses to comply with the Minister's request, or, as the noble Lord so rightly said, if the owner is away or it is quite impossible to find him. In such a case, however, my right honourable friend finds that it is often easier and causes less disturbance if the occupier carries out the work himself on behalf of my right honourable friend or his Department. On the other hand, quite obviously, should the occupier be in no position to do that, my right honourable friend and my noble friend from the Admiralty have powers to carry out the work themselves. Again, full compensation will be paid for all damage that may occur and for any rights that the owner or occupier may lose. Of course a full inquiry will already have been held before such measures take place. I will look into this extremely complicated clause on behalf of my noble friend, and perhaps at a later stage I shall be able to give a still further assurance that in fact all the fears that my noble friend has stated are unfounded, as indeed I believe they are because of the safeguards in Part I of the Second Schedule.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation. The only point I am not quite sure about is why the onus of having to do this should be placed on the occupier if the owner cannot be found. As my noble friend has been good enough to say he will look at the point and give further explanation at a later stage of the Bill,
398
I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Interpretation—general and in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out all words from "undertaking" to the end of the paragraph. The noble Earl said: Subsection (1) (b) of Clause 25 defines the word "owner" in the case of land in Scotland. The Subsection reads:
"'Owner' … in the case of land in Scotland, includes any person who, under the Lands Clauses Acts, would be enabled to sell and convey the land to the promoters of an undertaking and a tenant of the land under a lease the unexpired term of which exceeds three years …"
My Amendment proposes to omit the words "and a tenant of the land under a lease the unexpired term of which exceeds three years." My reason for moving this Amendment is to ask for an explanation of what is meant by the Government draftsmen in defining an owner of land in Scotland, because only a few weeks ago your Lordships passed a measure which has now received the Royal Assent, the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, under which the owner of land in Scotland is defined in a very different way. That Act says that the "owner" of land in Scotland, if the land is not held on a long lease
"means, if the land is feudal property, the proprietor of the dominium utile"—
that is, the feuer—
"or, if the land is not feudal property, the owner of the land."
If the land is held on a long lease "owner" means the lessee, and a "long lease" is defined as
"a lease …capable of being recorded in the Register of Sasines under the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act, 1857."
Under that Act, the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act, 1857, leases of 31 years or more, or which contain an obligation for renewal so as to extend for that period, can be registered under the 1857 Act to give the leaseholder a real right under the lease.
I am quite willing to believe there may be good reasons for having completely different definitions of an "owner" of land in Scotland in two different Acts which are passed and receive the Royal Assent in two successive months. There may be good reasons for having different definitions of the word "owner" in every piece of legislation we pass, but I think we ought to have some explanation of the reasons for these differences in definition. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 28, leave out from ("undertaking") to end of line 30.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
EARL BATHURST: When my noble friend was moving his last Amendment he explained how difficult it was at times to locate the actual owner. Landowners, no doubt, are called a good many names in various places, and I understand that in Scotland they are all called one and the same. I assure the noble Lord that the precedent for the wording in this Bill is covered by two previous Acts, with which I will not weary your Lordships. Nevertheless, we shall look into this wording and the precedent, and I hope to be able to assure the noble Lord, the next time the Bill comes before your Lordships' House, on Report stage, that the wording is in order.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: In view of my noble friend's assurance, which I appreciate, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

PARKING PLACES (WESTMINSTER) (No. 1) ORDER, 1958
4.40 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Parking Places (Westminster) (No. 1) Order, 1958 (S.I. 1958 No. 549), dated March 27, 1958, laid before the House on April 2, 1958, be annulled. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it was on April 30 that I brought before your Lordships' House a Motion
400
"to call attention to the enormous cost of the control of parked cars by the use of parking meters as compared with the disc system as used in Paris, and various other questions involved; and to move for Papers."
Encouraged by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on that occasion, I now venture to submit the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I particularly do not want to weary or unduly detain your Lordships by again raising all the arguments which I used in the debate which took place so recently, but there are just one or two points that I must ask your Lordships to allow me to submit to you. First of all, I will deal with the replies which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, made to me in that debate. The first remark he made to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention is [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208 (No. 61), col. 1158]:
"it is no good arguing that everything is right with the meter system, and that no faults can be found with it, nor that the disc system is wholly wrong."
I was encouraged by that remark. But the noble Lord then proceeded to adumbrate a whole series of arguments to show that if the disc system was not wholly wrong, it was certainly first cousin to it.
Much has been made in argument, particularly by the noble Lord in his remark in col. 1159 of
"…how much narrower our streets are than the main streets of Paris."
Of course, that in its way is something of a platitude. But there are streets in Paris, particularly streets covered by the blue zone, which are every bit as narrow as, if not narrower than, the streets of London. The noble Lord went on to talk about the Champs-Élysées. Everybody knows that the Champs-Élysées is one of the widest streets in any great city in the world. The same is equally true of many other streets, the names of which I need not recite. There are many wide streets in Paris and, equally, there are very narrow streets—if anything, narrower than the average street one finds in London.
Then the noble Lord said [col. 1160]:
"All the disc system in Paris has done is to increase the turnover of cars—if that is the right metaphor to use."
I thought that one of the aims of the parking meter scheme—indeed, of every other scheme that one may consider—

401
was to try to get rid of long-term parkers. That is exactly what the Paris disc system has done; the long-term parker has retired to garages, and the cars that are now parked on the Paris streets, where they can be parked, are short-term parkers. Furthermore, there are not nearly so many of the short-term parkers, for a 10 per cent, reduction in the number of cars parked on the Paris streets has been secured by the disc system. Furthermore, the disc system has enabled the overall speed of Paris traffic to be increased by some two miles per hour. The disc system must have advantages there if it has been able to bring about that result.
One other point that the noble Lord made in that debate was when he said that meters are better suited than discs to control our parking in London. That is simply an assumption by the noble Lord and is unbacked by any sort of experience. It is presumably in order to gain experience that he wants his Order. He says that the meter itself shows where parking is permitted, which the disc does not. I am sure the noble Lord drives a motor car, and when he goes abroad he has to know, or he should know, the international signs. Those international signs include an outstanding sign for where parking is permitted and another outstanding sign for where it is not permitted. The question of where parking is permitted can be taken care of by the use of international signs. Then, further on in the debate, the noble Lord said that it would not be possible to produce any legislation. Obviously there would have to be legislation to legalise the disc system. He said [col. 1167]:
"…there is frankly no room for such legislation either in this Session or the next."
I suggest that it all depends whether or not the Government really mean business on this parking question.
There are these two systems. I submit to your Lordships that the parking meter scheme is rigid; it is inflexible. For example, at the moment one of the quite natural features of London traffic is unilateral parking in certain streets. I should like to ask this specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. One of the streets in the area to be covered by this experiment is Park Street. I happen to know that street very well because I go to a dentist whose consulting rooms are
402
there. At present the street is subject to unilateral parking. If the noble Lord gets his parking meter scheme, the parking meters will not deal with unilateral parking unless one is prepared to put down a whole series of parking meters on each side of the street and to put half of them out of action on alternate days. I do not think that that is really a practical proposition; yet unilateral parking is most necessary in that particular street. You cannot have parking always on one side of the street; you would depreciate the rateable value of the property if you did that. It is not a practical proposition. On the other hand, with a parking disc you could go on as you do now, having your parking alternately on the one side and on the other.
I say that the meter scheme is hopelessly rigid. So it is. It is rigid in this way. Suppose that a mistake is made in the distribution of the parking meters and so on; we shall have gone to considerable expense to decorate the streets with them and shall have to incur considerable further expense to dig them up and put them somewhere else. With the parking disc scheme, on the other hand, there is no expense whatever to anybody.
There are various other matters to which should like to refer, but I will switch to what was said in a similar debate in another place by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 587 (No. 103), col. 992]:
"In Paris, with its wide streets and boulevards, it is quite easy, over a large area, to allow parking on both sides of the street without impeding the traffic flow,"
It is quite easy to do so in the Champs-Élysées, as everybody knows, but one of the features of the disc system in Paris is that whereas there was a great deal of double parking on streets much too narrow for it, double parking has now disappeared and it is much easier to park one's car. For example, shopkeepers in Paris have stated that their financial returns have been going up since the disc system has been in operation, due to the fact that the short-term parker who wants to go to a shop for a few minutes is able to get there without too much difficulty, whereas before, with long-term parkers, that was quite impossible. The result is that in Paris shopkeepers are asking the authorities to extend the scheme as rapidly as they

403
can; and the authorities are doing so in order to make things considerably easier in that great city.
Then the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, referring to the parking meter scheme, said [col. 993] that the motorist
"would be allowed to set down, but not to park"
in certain places; and he followed that by saying:
"I would not regard this feature of the limitation that the disc system can control only time and not space as being conclusive."
I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will remember that point, for it is one which he used in replying to the earlier debate. It has been said that the disc scheme will require much more supervision than the parking meter scheme. Speaking on the volume of prosecutions, of which a lot has been made, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said [col. 996]:
"The general estimate which is made is that it will not be substantially more than that we are now dealing with."
The prosecutions in Paris have been running at a high level, as I believe everybody knows; but at first it was an experiment there and was not understood. We must remember however that while the number of prosecutions is much larger than, I hope, we in this country are likely to contemplate, the area in Paris covered by the blue disc scheme is actually ten times larger than the area proposed to be covered in the Order which I am praying to annul.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary went on to say:
"The parking meter system has the further advantage that the cost of operating it is paid directly by the individual parker who is benefiting by it, as opposed to the alternative scheme "—
that is, the disc scheme—
"where the cost falls on the taxpayers generally."
I could not follow the reason for that last remark, but I would point out that all the cost of the parking meter scheme falls on the man who keeps the law, while the cost of this scheme falls on those motorists who break the law; which seems a rather important point. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary also said [col. 997]:
"I hope that the average motorist will accept that this is the right thing to do "—
404
that is to say, that there would be willing co-operation on the part of the motorist,—
"but there is nothing to show that more off-street garages would be used if they existed."
Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, told the House that he had gone for a little hike round the purlieus of Montagu Square and had found some garages with a certain amount of accommodation available. But the official figures given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in another place showed that all told there is off-street garage accommodation for 1,580 cars. We are told that there are 1,300 cars parked in the experimental area covered by this Order and that we are to get rid of a half of those. That means that 650 or so have to go somewhere else. Whether or not they will go to the garages recommended to us by the noble Lord the other day as having a lot of surplus accommodation I do not know; but if we extend the parking meter scheme over the whole of the West End of London, the City of Westminster and the City itself, we shall have to find garage accommodation for an enormous number of cars running into several thousands—accommodation which simply does not exist at all.
It seems to me that it would be much better and more in accordance with practical politics to have the disc scheme, which is flexible and, as I pointed out before, costs absolutely nothing. The disc itself—I have one here—costs less than ld. It is said that this system is more easy to evade, but that remains to be proved. I am going to ask Her Majesty's Government to give me an assurance. Would the noble Lord first of all give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will either promote legislation or give assistance to legislation to legalise the disc system? Will he assure us that the experiment will be one equivalent to the experiment in Westminster? I do not mean that it shall necessarily be made in London (though it would be better if it were), for if that were too difficult it could be made in any city subject to considerable congestion of traffic.
If the noble Lord is not able to do this, would he give us an assurance that he will not authorise any further extension of the parking meter system, either in London or elsewhere, until it is possible to have such an equivalent experiment? If the noble Lord is able to

405
answer those questions or any one of the three in the affirmative then I shall be able to accept his assurance and we shall all be able to go home; but if he does not, I am afraid I shall have to press my Motion to a Division.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Parking Places (Westminster) (No. 1) Order, 1958 (S.I. 1958 No. 549), dated March 27, 1958, laid before the House on April 2, 1958, be annulled.—(Earl Howe.)
5.5 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, replied on April 30 to the debate to which the noble Earl has just referred he said—and I now quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT [Vol. 208 (No. 61), col. 1158]:
"Somebody has to try to solve this problem, and that is what the Government are doing."
Now I wonder, if I may say so with great respect, whether the noble Lord or the Government know the problem they are trying to solve. It is popularly supposed that they are trying to solve the parking problem. Nothing of the kind! This scheme will not solve any parking problem. As I pointed out in the speech I made upon the last occasion, all it does is to shift the parking from one area to another; it does not solve the problem at all. What the noble Lord really means when he says "solve this problem" is "solve in the West End of London the problem of the congestion that is caused by parked vehicles". That is what the noble Lord means. The noble Lord and the Government could cure that congestion in five minutes, without having any parking meters or anything else. They could prohibit anybody from parking a car for over two hours anywhere they liked to designate. That is what they could do. Why do they not do it? No!
One can see the attraction to the Government of this parking-meter scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, let that out of the bag later on, as did his noble friend Lord Selkirk two years ago—and I am very glad to see the noble Earl here, because in a minute I am going to quote what he said concerning the Road Traffic Act.
406
But the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, went on to say, in the debate on April 30:
"And, of course, by introducing a charge, the parking meter reduces the demand for the use of parking places."
That is the secret. The Government think that they will put up these parking meters—640 of them, I think it is, or something like that—in Mayfair, and nobody will be allowed to park a motorcar anywhere except beside a parking meter; then the charge will be made. And I suppose, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, hinted when we were discussing the Road Traffic Act—at least, he did not deny my challenge—the success of this scheme will be when the charge is so high that nobody will be able to afford to park a car by a parking meter; and the very start of this iniquitous imposition is in these Regulations, to which I shall come in a minute.
I find it easy to follow the noble Lord, because if the price mechanism was not behind the Government's thinking in this, they could very well try the parking meter experiment with the scheme of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Both schemes are precisely the same, except that they do not collect any money under the blue disc scheme, and that is why it is so unattractive to them. They could do everything with the blue disc scheme that they can do with the parking meter scheme as an experiment, because they could designate various streets where the blue disc scheme would operate. They could have an area for it. And that, of course, would prevent the defacing of some of our streets in London with these hideous monstrosities of parking meters. There is only one place where I am rather glad they are going to put them, and that is Grosvenor Square. It will at least make our American friends feel at home. But that is about the only useful purpose they will serve.
I want to ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether he will tell me, in the experimental scheme that is contained in these Regulations, how many of these parking meters that are going up in these streets will be placed outside houses or private residences. That is what I want to know; because they cannot all be in Grosvenor Square; they cannot all be in Berkeley Square. Are the Government, in order to collect money, going to prevent the shopkeepers from allowing anybody to park outside their shops? Are they

407
going to deny the householder the right to pull up outside his own front door? These are the things that I do not like about this meters scheme.
After lunch I refreshed my memory by reading Hansard of July, 1956, and the debates we had on the Road Traffic Act. How any noble Lord in this House can find anything fresh to say about parking meters or parking places—I cannot—is very difficult to see. We all argued it then. It was the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who said that the reason they were having a charge, and an excess charge over the standard charge, was first of all to act as a deterrent; and, secondly, to act as a pseudo, quasi-fine—a fine. If people were to be summoned for staying after two hours, all the attendants attending to the parking meters would have to spend their time in police courts. So they thought that fining on the spot was a very good idea. I will quote the noble Earl's own words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 198, col. 1130]:
"…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 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…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."
My Lords, in this regulation which we are discussing upon the noble Earl's plea for annulment you are going to pay 10s. 6d. if you leave a vehicle parked for sixty-five minutes. The standard charge here in these regulations is one shilling for two hours. If you think you want parking space for only an hour you can put in sixpence; but if you find you are going to be an hour and a half you cannot put in another sixpence. Just as you have exceeded your first sixpennyworth, the extra charge is ten shillings, and the limit of time during which you can leave your car is two hours.
One of the disadvantages from which we suffer in having an Order subject to the Negative Resolution procedure is that we cannot amend the Order. I suggest to your Lordships that it was never intended by either House that an iniquitous
408
charge like this should be made. When I first read it, I thought it must be a mistake; but no, it was done with malice aforethought, again, I suppose, as a deterrent. That is why the Government stick so closely to the meter scheme and do not like the blue disc one, because the latter scheme does not give such a chance of bringing in a deterrent. I suggest to the noble Lord that for an experimental scheme it is quite wrong to have a charge of this kind. I suggest that it would be better for him to take the regulations back and then re-lay them with this one altered, because I am sure that no Member of your Lordships' House thought that a temporary experiment would include such an iniquitous charge as this. The Minister of Transport and the Government must accept responsibility for this. They cannot put it on to the Westminster City Council. On the last occasion, I expressed the fear that when we get these 640 meters erected the cost of dismantling them and remaking the pavements will be so great that this temporary experiment will be as permanent as Nelson's Monument. Will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that that will not be the case? I do not suppose that he will be sitting on that Bench when the experiment comes to an end, and I am not going to deny him the experiment.
I should find it very difficult to advise any noble Lord on this side of the House, or any noble Lord who would take my advice, to follow the noble Earl, Lord Howe, into the Division Lobby, for this one reason: we debated this matter fully when the Road Traffic Bill was in your Lordships' House in 1956. If the noble Earl will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to refresh his memory, he will find that he is allied to what I am going to say now. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, gave the undertaking that no further experiment would be made outside the London area and that these parking meters would not have Government sanction until an Affirmative Resolution was brought before Parliament. On that undertaking, the Amendments to the Bill that opposed the designation of parking places and the erection of meters were withdrawn. I think that that is within the memory of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
Where the Government are not playing fair is to bring in these regulations. I

409
refer to paragraph 8, which starts off by saying:
"The standard period for which a vehicle may be left in a parking place during the permitted hours shall be two hours …"
Those are the permitted hours, and one shilling will give the motorist two hours' parking. The paragraph goes on to say:
"Provided that the initial charge for a vehicle left for a time not exceeding one hour shall be sixpence …"
That is not the permitted charge, I beg your Lordships to understand; the permitted charge is one shilling for two hours. But if you put in sixpence, you cannot put in another sixpence to get the two hours. Paragraph 9 says:
"If a vehicle is left in a parking place during the permitted hours 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 an additional amount of ten shillings…"
If you think that that is fair, I do not, and I do not think that it is in line with what your Lordships were given to understand when we agreed to this experiment, or with what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said as spokesman for the Government during the debates on the Road Traffic Bill.
I do not think it is worth debating this matter much longer. If the Government want to stop the garaging of cars—and I use the word "garaging" as opposed to stopping for two hours for the legitimate purpose of shopping—it is easy to stop it. They could stop it to-morrow without all this ridiculous paraphernalia of parking places and everything else. They could do it by prohibiting the stopping of cars anywhere, or in designated streets, for longer than a certain time—I say, two hours. It would take no more police to enforce regulations of that kind than it would take to enforce the regulations in this document before us.
The excuse for not allowing another sixpence to be put in the meter to make up the initial one shilling charge is that it may lead to "fiddling" of the meter. But nothing is going to stop that. It will be the easiest thing in the world to do, unless there is one attendant per meter and he is the most honest man that was ever born. I acquiesce to this experiment
410
with great misgivings. It could be done in a far better way. I want the noble Lord, if he will, to give the House these undertakings: first, that this initial charge, the amount of which I say is a breach of faith, will be altered; secondly, that he will tell us quite definitely that this will be only an experiment; next, that the blue disc scheme will be tried, either in London or somewhere else. I join with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in that request.
It is no good the noble Lord coming to your Lordships' House and saying that there will not be Parliamentary time this Session or the next. There are too many old campaigners here for him to get away with that statement. There is never Parliamentary time for anything that a Department does not want to do; there is always plenty of time for what a Department wants to do. That is an old story that all of us who have been on the Government Front Bench have used. I have been as guilty as everybody else, but I am converted to the truth now. If the noble Lord will give those assurances, I, for my part, will not find it difficult to support him. I think he has a difficulty, because I know what taking these regulations away would mean, but I think it is iniquitous that something like that should be put forward in an experimental scheme in a set of regulations that we cannot amend. With those words, with reluctance, I support this experiment. I do not think it will cure anything; and I am afraid it is going to be like many other things, difficult to get rid of.
5.20 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and I certainly agree that the excess charge of ten shillings which was not indicated at the time when the Act was going through is far too high. I do not seek in any way to delay the proposals of Her Majesty's Government to carry out a trial of the parking meters under the terms of the Order which is before the House to-day, as the proposal has already been agreed to by the House and embodied in an Act of Parliament. On the other hand, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, Her Majesty's Government have said that in order to carry out a trial of

411
the Paris disc system in London, legislation would be necessary and that time could not be found for such a proposal. I must say that I do not feel that that is a valid excuse Surely it would be perfectly possible to move a short amendment to the Road Traffic Act, 1956, and pass it through both Houses in quite a short time, if the Government so wished.
However, what I am anxious to do today is to get an assurance from the Government that they will in fact support a trial of the disc system in one of our great cities if the local authority is prepared to initiate such a trial. I do not know whether legislation would be necessary outside London, and perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to enlighten us on that point. If legislation is necessary, I ask Her Majesty's Government to undertake to put forward a necessary amendment to the Road Traffic Act to enable a local authority at, say, Birmingham or Manchester to carry out a trial of the disc system. I also hope that the Government will give an undertaking that no further extension of the parking meter scheme will be proceeded with until a trial of the Paris disc system has been carried out.
I would point out that under the Road Traffic Act. 1956, Parliament gave the necessary powers to the Minister of Transport to enable him to authorise only an experiment, and not to go any further. I am sure it would be the greatest mistake to litter London with parking meters, when perhaps the Paris disc system might well prove equally suitable and a great saving in money. It was suggested by Her Majesty's Government, I think in the recent debate, that the cost of the parking disc system would fall on the taxpayer. That is quite true. But the revenue from fines would probably exceed the cost of this administration, which would be low. If the scheme should be so successful that the revenue from fines did not cover the cost of administration, the benefit to the community as a whole would be well worth while. Under the parking meters scheme finances are extracted from the motorists who are obeying the law, but under the disc system from those who break the law. Surely the latter is a far better basis.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, with such a wealth of knowledge and
412
eloquence from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who moved the Motion, and from my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I should be a brave man indeed if I rose to speak in opposition. Mine is a far simpler and humbler venture: it is merely to ask Her Majesty's Government one or two questions. The first question I should like to ask is this. Is it a fact that acknowledged traffic experts, including an Assistant Commissioner of Police, visited Paris to study the working of the disc system, and reported against the adoption of that system here? The next question I want to ask is: what staff would be involved? Is it a correct estimate that for the experimental system seven men and a supervisor would be necessary, whereas for a similar area working the disc system at least 200 men would be required?
I suppose one might say that this system works all right in Paris; there are plenty of men there to do the job. Without being unkind to our near neighbours, anyone who has visited Paris will be aware of the French temperament and that large numbers of police are required, and are in fact there, to maintain law and order; though as we have seen recently they are not always successful in doing so. When they are not called upon to perform those tasks, obviously something must be found for them to do, because, as we all know, Satan always find something for idle hands; and so the police are allocated to looking after the disc system. That is my information, and I should like to know whether that is correct or not.
The next question I want to ask—and I do it with great trepidation—is this. We all know that motorists are among the most honest of people, but is it correct that the disc system could lend itself to bribery, whereas the parking meter system would not? Then, is it correct that the parking meter system provides appropriate gaps where unloading from commercial vehicles can take place, whereas in Paris, with the disc system, it is a "free-for-all" and whoever gets there first leaves his car there? That may be a very happy system, but I suppose that in Paris, as in other cities, vehicles have to unload sometimes. If they find a place where they want to unload, do they have to form a double line; and does that help the movement of traffic or not?

413
My final question is this. I am sure it would not be in the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, or in any way bearing on the problem, but I am assured that the motorists themselves will pay for the meter system, whereas the cost of the disc system will fall on the taxpayer. If that is so, we can congratulate the motorists on their advocacy of the disc system. But whether that is a solution of the problem which would commend itself to your Lordships I can only leave to your discretion in the subsequent debate.
5.30 p.m.
Lotto DERWENT: My Lords, I trust that noble Lords who have already spoken will forgive me if my speech does not follow any of theirs, except to say that I wholeheartedly support my noble friend Lord Howe in asking for certain assurances. If the assurances are not given, I shall feel inclined to follow my noble friend into the Lobby. If they are given, then I think we ought to go on with this experiment. I am going to be so hold as to suggest that this Order should be now withdrawn on the grounds of bad drafting. I am submitting that certain sections of this Order contradict other sections of the Order, and that, in effect, the Order does not carry out the intentions of the Minister. I need hardly say that I am not making this submission without expert advice. There may well he an answer from my noble friend Lord Mancroft, but experts who have studied this Order are in agreement with me that it is contradictory and does not do what is intended.
May I first draw your Lordships' attention to Article 2 of the Order, "Interpretation"? Amongst the list of things for which an interpretation is given is a "goods vehicle." There is no interpretation later in the list for a "vehicle", and it is quite clear from the way the Order is worded that a "vehicle", without the word "goods" in front of it, includes a private motor car. I merely want to state that at this point so that your Lordships can follow my argument. I would then draw your Lordships' attention to Article 8, paragraph (2), which without reading it all to your Lordships says in effect that if a vehicle stops on a parking meter site in a parking bay, and the initial charge is not paid, the attendant on duty shall put a notice on the car saying that an offence has been
414
committed. The reason why I mention this particular Article is that it is quite clear from it that, before an attendant can do such a thing, he must be quite satisfied in his own mind that an offence has been committed.
Now we come to the nigger in the woodpile, which is Article 23. Article 23 states:
"Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions"—
that is, everything that has gone before—
"with respect to vehicles which are left in a parking place …any other vehicle may wait during the permitted hours—

(a) anywhere on the carriageway in a parking place if "—

and then come a whole series of vehicles which may wait in a parking place in a parking bay without charge, such as Post Office vans, commercial vehicles loading and unloading, and so on. Subparagraph (viii) says:
"in any other case the vehicle "—
mark you, my Lords, not a "goods vehicle" but "a vehicle," which includes motor cars—
"is waiting for the purpose of delivering or collecting goods or merchandise or loading or unloading the vehicle at premises adjacent to the parking place in which the vehicle is waiting and the vehicle does not wait for such purpose for more than twenty minutes or for such longer period as a police constable in uniform may authorise "
I am advised by the experts advising me that that means, in effect, that a vehicle, a private car, may stop outside a shop in a parking bay and wait there twenty minutes, provided that the driver —a lady, shall we say?—either takes into the shop a parcel which she wants to change, or goes into the shop, buys something, and comes out. I am advised that the effect of this wording is that she can do that on a parking place for twenty minutes without charge. If that is the case, how is the attendant on those parking meters to put a notice on her car to say that she has not paid her initial charge, and that she has committed an offence? Because if our reading of this Article is right, she has committed no offence; she is allowed to stay there for twenty minutes. As I say, there may be an answer to my point, but so far I have not heard one. If there is an answer, well and good. If there is not an answer, this Order cannot be amended. If there is no answer, this sub-paragraph makes

415
nonsense of the Order. And in my submission, if that is the case then the Order should be withdrawn and a new one issued.
5.36 p.m.
LORD CRAIGMYLE: My Lords, it is difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in what he himself has said is rather a different approach to this question from the approach of most of your Lordships. We have now reached the stage towards making this experiment where, if we approve this Order, we shall have a system of the control of parking in a small area in London on July 10 of this year. If we now support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and pray that the order be annulled, whatever system we ultimately decide to have we shall not have this summer. So it seems to me it requires some urgent proof that something is seriously wrong if we are, at this late stage, to annul the Order.
The arguments which the noble Earl has put forward are arguments that have been expressed before in your Lordships' House by the noble Earl himself and by others. Other than those which relate directly to the disc system, Which is a comparatively new scheme, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, pointed out, many of them date back to the discussions on the Bill. The scheme outlined in the Order is certainly not going to cure everything, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said. But it is intended to be only an experiment. It is admitted that it covers only a small area. I venture to suggest that the fact that it covers only a small area reduces to some extent the importance which should be placed on the off-street parking aspect. Obviously, before control of parking can be enforced over a wide area, such as the whole of this city, one must have adequate off-street parking. My noble friend Lord Mancroft has pointed out that there is more off-street parking than is used, and so long as that situation obtains it appears to me quite permissible to have an experimental meter scheme in a comparatively small district before you start additional off-street parking.
There are arguments against the scheme—most of them have been mentioned, though I think not all. My own objections are the excess charge scheme, which I mentioned in the debate the other
416
day, and the objection which I heard only to-day and which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, put very forcibly. That is the objection of a man being able to use only half his share of the normal period, and then not being able to come back, as it were, for his second helping. That certainly needs re-examination. I do not know whether it would be possible to redraft these regulations and to re-lay them again so as to take the place of the present Order. If that is possible, it might be the best thing to do. In the meanwhile, however, from the point of view of getting the scheme working I am sure we should support the Order, and if it is necessary to redraft it, as my noble friend, Lord Derwent, thinks it is, perhaps that can be done as soon as possible after the scheme is started.
5.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate, one of many debates on this subject, with great expert knowledge, and I am sure it is very helpful. The point I want to make I can express quite briefly. On what I consider to be the correct constitutional practice, it would be quite wrong for this House to negative an Order which has already received the approval of the House of Commons. It is quite true that Statutory Rules and Instruments have to be submitted to both Houses, but in these Orders the powers of your Lordships are exactly equal to the powers of the House of Commons: that is to say, if there were a change of Government and they were to propose such an Order and it was necessary for their legislation, your Lordships, not under any measure of the Parliament Act, with no powers of suggesting Amendments but by a simple phrase, could negative the policy of the Government elected to power in the other House.
Therefore, although constitutionally—or statutorily I suppose is the word—the noble Earl is perfectly right to discuss the matter and move his Motion, when I heard him say he was going to a Division I thought it right to put this point before your Lordships. What would happen then? This is not a question of which Party is in power; the Government is a Conservative Government at the moment. But they have passed this Order with the assent of the properly elected Chamber. Yet a number of noble Lords can then come and, without any

417
appeal to any Parliament Act, negative the policy of the Government. I say that constitutionally that is wrong.
What my noble friend said about not voting certainly applies to me and I imagine to other noble Lords; I shall certainly riot take part in any vote on this subject. We have to establish use here, and that is what I am endeavouring to do. Your Lordships may think this is a large issue to raise on what is a very small matter, but it is not small; it will be a very important thing in the future, because a great deal of legislation, especially colonial legislation, is at the present time being passed under the Statutory Instruments Act. Take as an example the question of the Rhodesian Constitution or the constitutional position in East Africa. In all these matters, if changes have to be made they will probably be made by Statutory Order, and it would be quite wrong for the House of Lords to claim in this matter to have a power independent of and contrary to that of the House of Commons. Therefore, I respectfully submit to your Lordships that the correct thing for us to do, and certainly the course I. shall follow, is to take no part in any Division called by the noble Earl.
5.44 p.m.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I will not join issue with the noble Viscount opposite on the constitutional point he has just raised, except to say this: we are, amongst other things, a revising Chamber, and here is a Statutory Instrument which contains certain things with which your Lordships may not agree.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, that is just the point. If we are a revising Chamber there is something to be said for the noble Earl's Motion. But we cannot revise this Order; we cannot amend it. We can only reject it, and counter the settled policy of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, I am fully aware of that. I was only pointing out that we are a revising Chamber. That is one of our functions; it is generally recognised, even if the noble Viscount does not agree. And when circumstances are such that the only method of revision is to reject an Order or ask the Government to withdraw it, it leaves us very little opportunity to do anything else.
418
With regard to the main issue, London traffic has been in such a mess ever since the end of the last war that naturally one is very loth to criticise any genuine proposal to try to improve it. Therefore I have asked myself whether this scheme will improve the situation and if it is the right way of trying to do so. We have been told by Her Majesty's Government that this is an experiment. I think that is agreed. I find nothing in the Statutory Instrument, however, about an experiment; I see no time limit in this Statutory Instrument. We have been told by Her Majesty's Government that one of the plans in this experiment is to collect some money with which to create garages and parking places. If we are going to wait for the end of that experiment, it will take a great many years. Just to build one of them will absorb many years' revenue from such an experiment as this.
Therefore I would ask the noble Lord who is going to reply if he will give us an assurance, first, that if this scheme is unsuccessful it will be withdrawn after a limited period, let us say two years; and, secondly, that he will at the same time promote and encourage— not merely permit, but promote and encourage—an experiment in the disc system. The disc system has a great many merits which have not been fully canvassed in this House. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, told us of many of them. One merit is that it is much fairer to the residents to have a disc system. If your Lordships have looked at the map which accompanies this Order, you will have observed, for example, that in Upper Brook Street (I may say that I am in no way interested in Upper Brook Street in particular) there are to be parking meters on the whole of the north side but none along the south side. The fortunate residents on the south side of Upper Brook Street will have no parking meters outside their front doors. They will be able to drive up to their doors; their visitors will be able to come; their laundry will be delivered. They will have all the amenities of a front door. But the residents on the north side of that particular street will have none of these amenities.
Then again, this scheme is designed to reduce traffic congestion. I observe here that in several streets parking is to be allowed on both sides. Much of the

419
difficulty at present in our congestion of traffic in London is simply because parking is permitted by the police on both sides. I cannot understand why the police continue to permit it. I was in one narrow street this morning near Westminster Cathedral where there is just room to get through between two lines of cars. It is perpetually occupied by two lines of cars, and the police make no effort to clear it, though they have power. There are several streets which are quite narrow which are to have parking meters placed on both sides. I cannot believe that that is a sensible plan. I shall be very glad if the noble Lord who is going to reply will tell us why that is being done.
This scheme is going to be very expensive to install. Probably these meters have already been bought. But installing them is a very expensive job, and it is a thousand pities that we cannot, even at this stage, persuade the Government to try for six months or a year the disc system, to see how it works. It would cost nothing, and we should not have to desecrate Grosvenor Street and other places with these hideous meters. If, after six months, it was found that it did not work we could come back to the parking meter system. I think that is a very much better plan, and I should like to ask the Government to postpone this scheme for a year and give a chance for the disc scheme to be tried. I have been told by those who criticise the disc system that it is not perfect, that it deals only with the long-term parker. But he is the man I want to deal with, and I think that the problem of the long-term parker is the main problem we have to face. Therefore, I think the disc system should be tried.
Under the meters scheme, a large number of people will never during the day be able to approach their own front doors, because this is a busy area, and all these parking places will be filled up. Yesterday afternoon a furniture van came to my house, which is not in this area, and spent about half an hour unloading a small amount of furniture. It would have taken much longer had there been more furniture, but at least it was able to approach the door. Had there been a parking meter along my street, the whole of the traffic would have been disrupted during the period of unloading. I do not know
420
whether that would have been a very satisfactory situation.
One other point that I want to mention is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, that all this will do is to shift the parking of cars from one area to another. Here I declare an interest, because I live just outside this area, and all that will happen is that cars are going to be pushed from this area and will crowd into the area in which I live. I know that that is something that one would have to suffer. But I beg the Government to withdraw this Order now —that will obviate the necessity for any Member opposite to vote against a Statutory Instrument—and to tell us that they will try the disc system for six or twelve months. Then, as I say, if it does not work, they can come back and introduce another Order, which I hope will have been drawn to meet the obviously important point raised by my noble friend Lord Derwent. I also hope that the map will be amended a little, so that some of these inequalities of distribution in regard to parking will be put right.
5.51 p.m.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I shall be brief. I should like to say that I fully align myself with my noble friend Lord Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and my noble friend Lord Derwent in regard to the assurance for which they ask. I also agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Clitheroe. One point that has not been made is that when we agreed to this experimental parking scheme and gave it our blessing in the Road Traffic Act, 1956, there was no question of a blue disc scheme—it had not then been started. Surely when you find something that is as good, or, as some people say, better, you should give it a try, if possible in comparable conditions. Lord Lucas of Chilworth said that we should agree to this because we have given it our blessing in the Road Traffic Act. I agree. But we did not at that time know of the disc system.
The next point I want to make is that it has been said that the money coming from the parking meters is necessary to provide off-street parking facilities. I agree that such facilities are necessary, but I do not believe that any money that came from these meters—that is, if there was any net revenue from them, because I think they are going to

421
cost more than we get from them—would ever go to putting up garages. After all, the Road Traffic Fund was robbed and done away with; and the way things are going, all the money coming into the Treasury goes to a general fund. I think many noble Lords will agree with me that money that came specifically from these meters would not necessarily go towards providing off-street parking facilities. One other thing I want to say concerns the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, about traffic experts going out and looking at this scheme. If I am correct, the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee, senior officials of the Ministry of Transport, an Assistant Commissioner from the Metropolitan Police and another official from the Ministry of Transport, not in a technical capacity but in an administrative or secretarial capacity, would all be very good in their jobs. But many people in Germany and other countries have been out and made a joint survey of the disc scheme; and they have written a report. The reports of Mr. Samuels and the others have been compared, and there is a lot to be said for both sides. I do not think it could ever be said that one body only can be said to be the only body of people who know what they are talking about.
5.55 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will not delay the House more than a few moments, but I should like to make one comment. We have had many interesting debates on important matters in which there have been only a few speakers speaking to an empty House. We have had this subject this afternoon which has been debated from time to time by a fair number of speakers speaking to a fairly full House. It seems rather peculiar to me, and I wonder whether it is not a question of our taking far too great an interest in the interests of motorists. I would suggest to your Lordships that there is another section of the community that we should consider this evening—namely, the pedestrians. The vast majority of men and women who live and work in London are pedestrians, and they require public transport as a means of moving from one place to another. We know that public transport is continually hindered and delayed because of parking.
422
I would support any scheme that would clear the roads of parked cars and permit the free movement of public transport and of the motorist using the road legitimately. I would support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, if I believed that his scheme would clear the roads; but frankly, having thought about it, I cannot believe that it would clear the roads. I believe there is a possible hope in the Government's scheme, subject to two conditions which do not exist to-day—and, indeed, there is no evidence that they will exist. The conditions are, first, that the Government and the local authorities will provide off-street parking; secondly, that the charges incurred by a man parking his car in the street will be so high that it will drive him off the roads into the garages. I have my doubts which way I should vote if I were called upon to do so, and I must say that I am much relieved that my noble friend Lord Stansgate has put this constitutional position, which makes it a little easier for me to abstain than to vote with the Government.
5.58 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the Motion before the House to-day relates to a subject on which the views of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has moved it, and of myself must be wearisomely familiar to your Lordships. We had a very full debate on it only three weeks ago, which will be fresh in your minds. What has been said in the debate to-day has for the most part been heard in this House before, and your Lordships will not therefore expect me to cover much new ground.
The Motion seeks your Lordships' approval of a Prayer to annul the Order before the House. The noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Motion have made it abundantly clear that their objection is to the introduction of parking meters in Westminster at all, not (or at least not primarily) to the manner in which the Order would empower their introduction. I may be forgiven, I hope, therefore, if I address myself first to some general considerations that have sometimes been overlooked in our debates.
The Road Traffic Act, 1956, adopted by your Lordships after full argument, empowers the local authorities in the Metropolitan Police District to submit to

423
my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport schemes for charging for parking on the highway, if they wish by the employment of parking meters. While the Act was before Parliament as a Bill, a Special Committee was in being to consider the manner in which such a power, if it were granted, should be employed. The Samuels Survey Committee, as I may call it, recommended that a start should be made with a parking meter scheme in North-West Mayfair.
The Westminster City Council adopted that recommendation, and the present Order before us in effect translates it into legal form. The Order is, therefore, the natural outcome of the passage of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, and, were no such Order before you, there would, I suspect, be legitimate grounds of complaint. The Act goes so far as to give my right honourable friend powers, in default of any scheme submitted by a local authority, to introduce such a scheme himself for the purpose of experiment and—here I may reassure my noble friend, Lord Clitheroe—for demonstration. It has not been necessary to adopt that course owing to the sensible and timely action of the Westminster City Council.
The scheme of the Westminster City Council has been most fully examined in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act. Incidentally, it has also received the backing of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. After due advertisement there has been a long public inquiry conducted before Sir Hugh Dow, at which all objectors have been able to state their case, and most of the points raised by your Lordships in the course of our debates have been exhaustively examined there. The report of the public inquiry has been considered by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. Both the inspector of the Inquiry and the Committee have advised the Minister to adopt the scheme and make the proposed Order, and copies of their reports are available in your Lordships' House. That is precisely what my right honourable friend has done, and in doing so he has fulfilled, I suggest. both the intentions of the Act and his assurances to Parliament before it was passed. Therefore, I make no apology for the Order.
424
My noble friend, Earl Howe, and the other noble Lords who have supported him, now claim that since the Road Traffic Act, 1956, a new factor has intervened which should make the Minister hesitate before he carries out the intention of that Act. This new factor is the introduction, in what has come to be known as the Blue Zone of Paris, of the disc system. From the very birth of the idea of parking discs in Paris, my right honourable friend made it his business to keep himself informed both of what was proposed and, later, of how it was working in practice.
He did so precisely because, like your Lordships, he wished to be satisfied that nothing had occurred which would render out of date the parking meter experiment as envisaged in the Road Traffic Act, 1956. My right honourable friend has no prejudice whatever against the disc system, as some of your Lordships seem to think, and he had a completely open mind about the scheme when he first heard of it; but as a result of preliminary reports on the Paris system, he asked Mr. Samuels to lead the small party to which the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, referred, to inspect the system. This they did in January last, and their report, of which your Lordships have had copies, amply confirmed his own preliminary conclusion that, attractive and ingenious as the disc system is, it is, on balance, less likely to solve our central London parking problem than a scheme for parking meters on the lines before your Lordships at the moment; and I must say that nothing that has been said to-day or on previous occasions has shaken that conclusion.
The essence of any system of parking control surely is that it should be enforceable. There would be no need for meters, discs, or any other device if a simple regulation that motorists may park only in particular places, and then only for a limited period of time, was enforceable. But the plain fact is that it is not, as anyone who uses street parking places where the legal limit is two hours, and unilateral waiting streets where the legal limit has been half an hour, will know. I believe it is common ground between us that if we are to have a reasonable traffic flow and some degree or order brought back to our streets, the parking of private cars on those streets must be restricted to comparatively short

425
periods in specified places. To that point I particularly ask your Lordships' attention.
The question now before us is: what is the most effective and cheapest way in which this can be done? Some of your Lordships place your faith in parking discs. Her Majesty's Government believe that the right course lies in the judicious use of parking meters. The first essential difference between the parking meter and the parking disc lies in the scale of enforcement involved. The second is in the treatment of offending motorists. Most of the other differences in the system employed in Paris or contemplated in London, although in my view they favour the parking meter, might be overcome; but the two difficulties I have specifically mentioned seem to Her Majesty's Government insuperable.
Let me take first the scale of enforcement. There is evidence that when the number of attendants in the Paris scheme falls below one for every twenty-five car spaces, the standard of enforcement of the disc instantly falls off. That is what the Paris police tell us. We have no doubt that for the same level of enforcement at least three times as many officers or attendants are necessary to watch the disc system than are necessary to watch the meter system. As I have explained, that is where cost comes in. I explained that to your Lordships on the last occasion that we debated this matter and I will not repeat it, but it is the wages of the extra attendants to enforce the disc system which put up the cost of that system. Evasion is much easier with the discs and less easily detected. We are told that strict enforcement is necessary to ensure that the discs are set correctly and that the observation of each car must take place at the fixed time indicated on the disc.
The Dutch authorities who have also studied the disc system very closely have estimated this figure at not three times but ten times as great. I believe that that is on the high side; but even with three times as many attendants the difference in cost and effort between enforcement of the disc system and of the meter system is, I believe, very considerable. It is, in fact, a determining factor. In the long run the cost of the meters is relatively small compared with the bill for the enforcement of the disc system.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My
Lords, the noble Lord has told us of the great disadvantages shown in the disc system in Paris. Can he say whether the Paris authorities are continuing with the disc system or are discarding it, after their experiment, in favour of the parking meter system?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I understand that at the moment the Paris police are going into a revision of the scheme, trying to overcome some of the difficulties now being revealed by the scheme.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Are they discarding it?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, they are certainly not discarding it.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, may I put a point to the noble Lord? He has said that it is much more expensive to have the additional men with the disc system, whereas with the parking meters it is a matter of the original cost. That is true; but this is an experiment, and if the experiment goes on for only a couple of years how is the economy of cost to work out?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I do not want to explain in detail what I explained so elaborately last time. I believe my noble friend Lord Salisbury was not present at the last debate. But I will not weary your Lordships with that. The matter of cost is not the important one. I have mentioned it only because it has been raised in the debate. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, that it is not by any means the overriding question, for the overriding question should be: will this produce a better flow of traffic in London—not what it may do in Paris. It was also suggested that the figures which I gave last time are deceptive because under the meter system more police would be needed to patrol streets where there are no meters. I think it is clear that for the first few days after the new system is introduced an increased number of policemen may be needed on the job, for it will be essential to ensure that motorists understand the system and realise that in a meter zone they may park only where there is a meter. Once that phase is over and the system is understood and accepted here, I do not see why more policemen should be needed than are needed at present.

427
Indeed, the police will be concerned with shorter lengths of street, since they will not be concerned where there are meters. The enforcement of "No waiting" restrictions under the parking disc system would make exactly the same demands on the police as under the meter system. The only relevant comparison is between the numbers involved in supervising the meters or the discs themselves. On this particular point the comparison is strongly in favour of meters.
My Lords, let us, if we may, consider the point that has been raised several times this afternoon—namely, the treatment of offenders. By introducing an excess charge for the second two hours, the meter system creates something very near to a penalty for over-staying. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, does not like that—he made the point fairly and clearly—but I do not think he can be surprised by it, because it was considerably canvassed at the time the Road Traffic Act was debated.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I accepted the principle in the Bill. I am quarrelling now about the amount.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I grasp that point too; but I think that the figures in the Order were canvassed fairly widely at the time of the Bill. The noble Lord may not have approved, but I do not think he can have been surprised.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think we all clearly understood that the maximum charge for the first two hours would be a shilling, and not, if you were there for fifty-five minutes, sixpence, and if you over-stayed by ten minutes 10s. 6d. We never understood that. It may now well be that one is going to pay 10s. 6d. although one is there under two hours.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it was an essential part of the meter system that motorists should have a real, financial incentive to take their cars away before the time for which they had paid according to the meter had expired. The Paris disc system does not provide any similar incentive. I would ask you to take this point for very careful consideration. In Paris, the results, in the number of prosecutions, have been really fantastic by our standards. In Paris under this disc scheme there were 47,000 prosecutions in January, and 45,000 in February.
LORD TEYNHAM: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. If he will break down those figures I think he will find that 389 were for making an alteration of the time incorrectly on the disc on the windscreen.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, that does not matter. Forty-seven thousand prosecutions is a very large number. If you compare it with the total monthly number of prosecutions for a comparable area of the Metropolitan Police District for traffic offences, you will find that our figures are about 2,000. Prosecutions of the French order would, I think, be utterly beyond the capacity of our courts to handle. In the opinion of some people, the only way to get over that would be to introduce something like the American ticket system. I appreciate that in the Magistrates' Courts Act of 1957 we have adopted a simplified court procedure for minor offences; and I note also that the Samuels Report on the disc system envisages that it might be possible to legislate for the principle of an excess charge to be applied to the disc system. Nevertheless, if the number of offences committed in Paris under this disc system is any indication of the scale of infringements that is likely here, I doubt whether anything short of the American ticket system would be a really effective instrument of enforcement.
Your Lordships will recall the strong opposition to this innovation—this American ticket system—expressed in the Sharpe Report of 1956, which preceded the Magistrates' Courts Act, and I do not really think that at this juncture your Lordships would like to go back on a fundamental principle so recently and so strongly supported. As I have told your Lordships on previous occasions I am not going to stand here at this Dispatch Box and try to suggest that the disc system is wholly bad—I say it for the tenth time. Experience in Paris has proved that it is not. It has nearly eliminated the long-term parker there, and that is all to the good. But I claim that its achievement is more or less limited to that. The aims of the disc system differ from the aims of the parking-meter system embodied in this Order, and they have been bought at the cost of a level of supervision and prosecution which we in this country could not really contemplate. I also I claim, despite the views of some of your

429
Lordships, that when parking space on the streets is in short supply it is entirely right and just that motorists should have to pay a moderate sum for the privilege of using it.
It has been alleged in this debate this afternoon that discs are on their way in and meters are on their way out. I am not certain that that is wholly true. Meters are still on the increase in America, where they began (the figures show that there was a 15 to 20 per cent. increase last year), and they are still spreading in Europe and in other countries, South Africa included. About the time that Mr. Samuels took his party to Paris a similar party were inspecting discs on behalf of the Royal Dutch Touring Club. In consultation with the chief constables of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague, their report has just been published. Briefly, the report concludes that the attractions of the disc system—namely, the absence of a charge, and the fact that with no bays more cars can be parked in a given area—are far outweighed by the disadvantages. That is the point of view I am putting forward to-day. As I mentioned just now, the Dutch consider that up to ten times as many police would be required for enforcement; and they believe that enforcement would be particularly difficult in the narrow streets of their towns—which are no narrower, I venture to suggest, than many of those in London. The Dutch report concludes that parking meters will provide the best solution of parking problems in these conditions. I could hardly ask for a more thorough-going vindication from an entirely disinterested source for some of the views I have tried to put before your Lordships. I do not want to labour this argument any longer—we know the facts backwards—but I should like to recapitulate the more important ones that I have put forward on previous occasions.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has by no means closed his mind to the possibility of an experiment in parking discs; but it is his opinion, which I myself entirely share, that it would be quite impracticable to consider meters and discs in the same area of the same city in the same experiment. I have been asked to give an assurance on this point. Let me, if I may, to put your Lordships' minds at rest, say that if there is any city outside
430
London which would like to have an experiment in the disc system, and it puts forward a workable proposition, my right honourable friend will be only too glad to consider it. We cannot force a scheme on a borough or town that does not want it. There is no point in our taking up Parliament's time with legislation now for a disc Bill if nobody is going to use it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord says, very cleverly, that he will undertake that his right honourable friend will consider it. Will his right honourable friend, if it is wanted by any local authority in the provinces, facilitate its passage and the necessary legislation through Parliament?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, my right honourable friend will certainly not offer any obstruction or any objection whatever to a Bill, measure or proposal, that is wanted and proves workable. That is the thing we have to make quite certain about. But nobody has come forward with such a scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, asked whether we will agree not to have another experiment with meters until a scheme has been tried out with the discs, but no scheme has so far been proposed. If some authority does come forward they will be given a very cordial and interested reception.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the noble Lord said "If the scheme proves workable". No scheme can prove workable unless it has been tried.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, that is what I have been saying for about the last ten minutes on this parking meter business.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I am talking about the noble Lord's answer. If any local authority wants to try it, the noble Lord said that the Minister will consider it if it is workable.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I apologise; that was a slip of the tongue: I meant if it seems workable. So let us be quite clear about this point. The Government and my right honourable friend are not opposed to the disc system. He does not have the prejudice on it which your Lordships appear to think he has. We are solely concerned with Westminster, where we think that the disc system is inferior in promise to the meter

431
system. If anybody wants to bring forward the disc system, to produce a scheme that looks workable, by a Private Bill or any other proper means, it will be given the most warm and cordial reception. But we cannot go on holding up this scheme while waiting for something else that nobody in this country knows about and about which nobody brings forward any plans. I do not think your Lordships would want me to elaborate the reasons why legislation is required. There are technical reasons which my legal advisers have explained on several grounds, but unless your Lordships challenge me, I would ask you to accept that position.
We have heard to-day a good deal of another argument for deferring once again this parking meter experiment—namely, that there is not enough off-street parking accommodation. In this context, it should be remembered that the Minister is required by the 1956 Road Traffic Act not simply to have regard to the extent to which off-street parking accommodation already exists, but also to the extent to which any Order is likely to encourage its provision. I feel little doubt that this scheme, both through the proceeds of parking meters, and because cars will no longer be able to park free, will provide encouragement both to public and private enterprise. Indeed. I have already told your Lordships of the plan of the Westminster City Council to create a multistorey car park for 350 to 400 cars a short distance to the south of the zone, between Audley Street and Waverton Street; and in agreement with them, private enterprise plans are progressing for a 120 to 180-car garage in Bowdon Street. These plans will continue to go ahead.
I mention only these two Westminster plans, since they alone are directly relevant to the Order, but I have made some inquiries since our last debate as to the extent to which the existing parking space in the West End is not fully used at present. I think that this reflects very much on some of the arguments that have been advanced this afternoon. In garages and parking lots with a total capacity of 2,600 car spaces, an average of 1,100 are unused every day. If motorists were willing to use it, there is still much unused parking space off the highway in the West End, and I hope and
432
trust that parking meters will persuade them to use it.
I am trying to convince your Lordships that there are good reasons for proceeding with this present Order. I have said so much on so many occasions with regard to the seriousness of our traffic problems in London, and particularly the part that excessive parking plays in them, that your Lordships cannot wish me to repeat it again. This Order empowers the Westminster City Council to conduct an experiment with the first comprehensive parking scheme ever attempted in London. It does not say in the Order that if the experiment proves a total failure it will be stopped, but I cannot imagine the Westminster City Council, which is a sane and sensible local authority, going on with an Order which proves to be a complete disaster, which I cordially hope it will not be.
The plan accompanying the Order, which the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, showed to your Lordships, indicates the limits within which parking meters may be erected. The sites have been most carefully chosen to provide the minimum interference with necessary accesses and traffic flow and to allow a reasonable allowance of curb space for loading and unloading. I cannot pretend that every syllable in the Order will prove justified and justifiable—it is an experiment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, will the noble Lord at this point acquaint us with the answer to the question I asked him—namely, how many private residences and how many public premises are to have parking meters right outside?
LORD MANCROFT: I can only do that by taking the Order with the map and working through it street by street.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord's advisers cannot tell him the number?
LORD MANCROFT: It will take some time to work out the figure.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It should have already been worked out.
LORD MANCROFT: It may have been, and I will find out for the noble Lord. It is provided in the Order exactly where the first meters are going to be. Somebody is going to be inconvenienced,

433
most assuredly, but already many people are being inconvenienced by parking. The point is that if this plan succeeds it will achieve several things. First, it will remove long-term parking from the streets. It will also provide facilities for a reasonable number of short-term parkers and an incentive to motorists to keep their parking to short periods. It will ensure that such parking will take place only where it can be accepted without detriment to traffic flow or interference with the essential operations of loading and unloading.
My noble friend Lord Derwent asked a question about Article 8. I have taken a rapid glance at that and I am assured that his fears are ill-founded. That matter will be carefully watched, as well as some of the other points that have been raised, and if this experiment proves in need of amendment here and there, it will be amended. I am not going to pretend to your Lordships that this is an experiment brought down from the mountain and that not one single syllable will ever be altered once your Lordships have passed it.
Loan DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to press this point. We are concerned not to make this scheme unworkable but about the actual legal position. What I am submitting makes legal nonsense of it. If any of it is to be amended, cannot an Amending Order be introduced at once?
LORD MANCROFT: I am sorry, but I am assured that it does not make legal nonsense at all.
LORD DERWENT: Well, that is all right.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, let me conclude, because we have little fresh to say. I appreciate that the results we are seeking to achieve will not be achieved without some inconvenience and hardship but, as your Lordships know, that is true of every form of traffic regulation. We have sought, with the Westminster City Council, to keep inconvenience to a minimum, and I hope that we have succeeded. This is an experiment, as I have already said a hundred times. We shall learn by experience, and if we find the need to amend the scheme, it can be amended before we apply it elsewhere.
434
After all the arguments we have had in your Lordships' House, I cannot believe that it is really your Lordships' wish that once again this experiment should be postponed in the hope that some Utopian scheme may be found. If nothing is done about the parking problem, your Lordships complain. When Her Majesty's Government adopt a scheme carefully and properly proposed by the Westminster City Council, threshed out by the authorities, compared with other schemes put forward elsewhere and discussed with experts internationally, some of your Lordships complain again. I must ask your Lordships to believe that we cannot always have it both ways.
A Prayer to annul the Order has been debated in another place arid, after hearing the arguments of my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary, which my noble friend Lord Howe discussed in detail, the mover withdrew his Prayer. (I will not be so rash as to cross swords with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, on the constitutional issues but I listened carefully to what he said.) I invite your Lordships to follow their excellent example. Unless we do something about the traffic in London, nothing will ever be achieved. We shall be talking about it here until I am an old, old Back-Bencher, whether over there or possibly still on this side of the House. Therefore I beg your Lordships not to follow my noble friend Lord Howe into the Lobby, if he should think fit to lead a Division, but to give your approval to this Order and let us get on. Surely after the ocean of talk, we should do something about it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH:
My Lords, the noble Lord is both patient and courteous, but he seems to have overlooked one question I asked him. Can the Government take steps to amend what I think every Member of your Lordships' House regards as an excessive charge and something which the House was not led to believe would be imposed—namely, the charge of 10s. 6d. for sixty-five minutes parking?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I can do no more than bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend and ask him to look at it particularly when the experiment is tried out on the ground.

435
I cannot agree that the Order should be held up now for any point, because, as I say, Parliament was given full warning that this was likely to happen. I cannot say from memory that my noble friend Lord Selkirk or I stood at this Box and said that this will be written into the Order, but it certainly came as no surprise to me. If, however, it proves, as the noble Lord fears it will prove, a great hardship, then I am sure my right honourable friend will be prepared to consider an amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Then may I take it that this will not be taken as a precedent for any other experiment or permanent plan of this kind? Because this cannot be accepted by the House as a standard charge for every local authority to impose.
LORD MANCROFT: I cannot possibly suggest that anything in this Order will be considered as a standard for anything else. This applies to Westminster, and to Westminster only. There may be a dozen different things that will apply differently when put into practice at Land's End and John o' Groats. I cannot say any more than that.
6.31 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said, and I only wish he had listened half as carefully to the few remarks that I made. He has altogether ignored quite a number of them. I told him that the information we get from Paris is that the speed of traffic there, as the result of the disc system, has gone up by 2 miles per hour. He paid no attention to that. I then asked him what he is going to do about unilateral parking under this scheme. My noble friend Lord Clitheroe asked him about Brook Street, and I asked about Park Street, but he has not referred to that in his reply. It is not satisfactory to put questions to a Minister which he ignores so completely as the noble Lord has ignored these two questions that really matter.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl. I hope he does not think I was discourteous in any way; that is the last thing I should want to be. I did make the point that he was making rather detailed comments at this stage of the
436
proceedings, on matters which had already been most carefully considered before. If the noble Earl thought that I was discourteous or not paying attention to what he said, I can assure him that that was far from the case.
EARL HOWE: Of course, I accept the noble Lord's assurance. But still. I put this question about unilateral parking in a debate on April 30; I have put it to him again to-day, and he still has not answered it. Nobody can tell us whether unilateral parking can continue or is intended to continue under the parking meters scheme. If the noble Lord would like to reply now, I will give way. Apparently he does not wish to reply. The noble Lord was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, whether he would facilitate an experiment with the disc system; and I have the noble Lord's reply in Hansard. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208 (No. 61), col. 1167].
"…the disc system requires legislation, and there is frankly no room for such legislation, either in this Session or the next."
So the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, can judge from that how much the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is likely to facilitate such an experiment. I asked the noble Lord three questions, to none of which have I had an answer. The principal one is whether, before extending the meter system or the experiment envisaged under this Order, he can assure us that an experiment will be carried out with the disc system. All he has said on that is what he said in the first debate, that there was no prospect of Government help with legislation. Therefore I can take it that nothing will be done, so far as the noble Lord is concerned, to facilitate a disc system.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Earl must not say that. He is getting things all muddled up. I originally said that there was no point in wasting Parliamentary time by legislating in vacuo in case somebody wanted to try the disc system. If somebody wants to try the disc system, that is a different matter. In either case there must be legislation. But if somebody wants it, and produces a workable and attractive-looking scheme, that will be a different matter from suggesting, as was suggested in the last debate. that we should legislate in case anybody wanted the disc system. I

437
can repeat to the noble Earl and reassure him on this: that if somebody wants to try the disc system, we shall be only too pleased to help in any way we can. We are not going to force the disc system on somebody who does not want it, nor are we going to legislate in vacuo in case anybody wants it.
EARL HOWE: How does the noble Lord reconcile that with what he said on April 30, to which I have just referred? He then said:
"Let me remind the noble Lords who suggested it that the disc system requires legislation, arid there is frankly no room for such legislation, either in this Session or the next."
Resolved in the negative and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

THE WHITSUN RECESS
6.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, it may be for your convenience, before the House adjourns, that I should tell your Lordships that it is hoped that Parliament will be able to adjourn for the
438
If that is not a complete rejection of the idea, then English does not mean to the noble Lord what it means to me. I can only say that I much regret that the noble Lord has not given way in any sense and has not given us the slightest encouragement. I can see nothing for it but to ask those noble Lords who would like to see a workable scheme for the disc system tried out alongside or conjointly with the parking meter scheme to support me in the Division Lobby.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 4; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS

Buckinghamshire, E.

Howe, E. [Teller.]

I Merrivale, L. [Teller.]

I Waleran, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Lansdowne, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Salisbury, M.

Crookshank, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Gage, V.

Denham, L.

Bathurst, E.

Goschen, V.

Dovercourt, L.

Crawford, E.

Hereford, V.

Dynevor, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lambert, V.

Geddes, L.

Gosford, E.

Soulbury, V.

Hampton, L.

Halifax, E.

Tentoy, V.

Leconfield, L.

Home, E.

MoCorquodale of Newton, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Aberdare, L.

Mancroft, L.

Perth, E.

Addington, L.

Merthyr, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Auckland, L.

Milverton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Strathalmond, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Whitsun Recess on Friday, May 23, until Tuesday, June 10. In present circumstances, however, the House must treat this arrangement as provisional. A further statement will be made as early as possible. Your Lordships' House will adjourn on Thursday, May 22, unless some further Business requires us to meet on the following day.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before seven o'clock.