Lords Sitting of 12 July 1960

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield

SHEERNESS HARBOUR BILL
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask the Chairman of Committees when the Report of the Select Committee on the Sheerness Harbour Bill will be submitted to this House.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, the Report from the Select Committee to which the Sheerness Harbour Bill was committed, was, printed in the Minutes of the House for Thursday, June 23, as follows:
"That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, as I understand it, therefore, the Bill is dead on the decision of the Select Committee—a Bill which received a Second Reading in this House—after consideration of an Amendment which was subsequently withdrawn. What opportunity has the House of expressing a view on the decision of the Select Committee?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, the only course open is for a Member of the House to move that the Bill be recommitted to another Select Committee. That has been done, but it has not been done for a very long time. The House might be interested to know that the last occasions I can find when it was done were in the 1880's. It was done on two occasions then and, as a matter of fact, on both those occasions the Bill was subsequently passed. But as far as I can find, it has not been done in this century. That, my Lords, as far as I can see, is the only course open to a Member of your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House—I have not given him notice of this question—whether, if one is completely dissatisfied with a decision arrived at, based upon the manner in which the evidence for the Petitioners against the Bill was either not presented or not represented by witnesses, it would be quite in order for a noble Lord to put down a Motion to call attention to it and to debate it?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I think it is very important that the House generally should support the decisions of the Select Committees of this House which it appoints. Of course, I cannot myself control the actions of any noble Lord. If any noble Lord feels sufficiently strongly on a matter, then it is certainly open to him to do as the Lord Chairman suggests. I would only say that in the long history of this House it has very seldom been done. But if the noble Viscount, or any other noble Lord, feels that he wants to move that another Select Committee be appointed, then I could not prevent him.

SOVIET NOTE ON SHOT DOWN AMERICAN AIRCRAFT
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I wish to ask a Question of Her Majesty's Government, of which I have given them Private Notice. The Question is: To ask if Her Majesty's Government will make a statement about the Note received from the Soviet Government relating to the American aircraft shot down over the Barents Sea?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, if it is convenient to the noble Viscount, I should like to answer that Question about half-past three or a little after that time.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (COLLEC TION OF LEVY) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1960
2.39 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the first of these two statutory instruments, which is concerned with the collection of levy, arises principally out of the abolition of entertainments duty in the Finance Bill. It is generally agreed, I think, that the producers as well as the exhibitors ought to share in the benefits of that abolition. Accordingly, it is proposed that the levy should be increased from one-tenth to one-ninth, but at the same time some modifications in favour of the exhibitors are proposed. First, there have always been some exhibitors who have been exempt from entertainments duty, and the existing regulations exempt these exhibitors also from payment of levy. But they do so in language which would result in those exhibitors becoming liable for levy now that the entertainments duty is being abolished. That anomaly is corrected by the amended Regulation 3 (2) (a) of the first instrument, and also in the Schedule. It is further proposed that the exemption limit shall be increased from £150 a week to £250. At the same time we have agreed to a request put forward by the exhibitors that in calculating the amount of takings for the purpose of exemption the receipts from charitable entertainments and children's entertainments shall be disregarded.
Then, in order to protect any exhibitor who might in exceptional circumstances actually suffer loss from these changes, it is provided in subsection (4) of the new Regulation 3 that the amount payable in levy shall not exceed the amount which would formerly have been payable in entertainments duty and the old levy combined. The intention of these changes, of course, is to ensure that the additional levy for the benefit of producers shall be paid mainly by the larger exhibitors who can afford to pay it and not by the smaller exhibitors whose financial difficulties are usually more acute. The result of the various modifications which we propose is that although the levy is increased from one-tenth to one-ninth it is estimated that the additional amount of levy available for distribution among the producers will only amount to £100,000.
124
The other instrument, which deals with the distribution of levy, gives effect to one or two undertakings made during the passage of the Cinematograph Films Act of this year. Your Lordships will remember that newsreels were brought in for the first time, but we promised that they would only receive the levy at the basic rate of their rental without the benefit of the two-and-a-half times multiplier; this is now provided for in paragraph 1 of this Statutory Instrument. Then we also promised that a newsreel which was classified as British on the understanding that over a period of three months it contained a certain proportion of British material, and failed to fulfil that undertaking, should cease to be qualified for receipt of levy and that is given effect to in paragraph (3) at the bottom of the first page of these amending Regulations. The only other change which we make in these Regulations is that we have met a request from the British Films Fund Agency that their balances of money may be invested in Treasury Bills instead of being left on deposit at the banks, so that they will get the benefit of the higher interest which is payable from Treasury Bills compared with the very meagre interest which is paid by banks to their clients on deposit.
We have consulted the Cinematograph Films Council about all these changes, and the Council has agreed to them. When they were approved last night in another place I notice that of the only two non-Government speakers who said anything, one remarked that this was the only thing the Board of Trade have ever done which had been received with unanimous approval by the film industry, and the other speaker remarked that the unanimity of the trade was so astonishing that it left her speechless. While I am not entitled to assume that your Lordships will be equally uncritical or equally speechless, I hope I may now move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations, 1960, be approved.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl if he would help me? I find myself in some difficulty. I thought I had read the Regulations on the collection of levy

125
very carefully, but I can see no reference in it to the increase in the amount from one-tenth to one-ninth. Could he tell me precisely where it is?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It is less than half-way down the first page, paragraph 3 (1):
"Subject to the provisions of this Regulation, the levy shall be computed by reference to the payments received by the person liable to pay the levy for admission to entertainments taking place during any period mentioned in Regulation 2 of these Regulations at any theatre and, in respect of each such payment, at the rate of one-ninth …"
I am sorry these lines are not numbered. It is on the first page of the Collection of Levy Regulations. The amount used to be one-tenth.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sorry, but I have another print. This slays "payment, at the Irate of 10 per cent."
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: These are the Regulations I am moving.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: And these are the Regulations I have. Have there been two editions? This is the print I got from the Printed Paper Office. It is 1960.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: They are all 1960.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My copy (says "Made…" then the date is blank. "Coming into Operation 17th April, 1960".
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think perhaps the noble Lord has got hold of the old. Regulations, which I moved on the 5th April this year.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: These are the only copies available in the Printed Paper Office.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords may I say that I have just been at this moment to the Printed Paper Office to find out whether they have a copy of the draft Regulations which are relevant to the speech the noble Earl has made, but I can only get the old Regulations to which my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth is referring.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am not responsible for the Printed Paper Office, but these are the amended
126
Regulations which I am moving. It seems to me that the noble Lord has a copy of the old Regulations which I remember moving on April 5 last, and not the new ones which I am now moving. If they are not available, I am sorry; but I did not know that they were not.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Well, I am certain that I am not going to delay the proceedings by asking that we adjourn this debate so that the Printed Paper Office can be properly instructed. But I think it is very remiss, to put it no higher, that the appropriate Government Department cannot see that the proper documents are in the Printed Paper Office for the benefit of Members of your Lordships' House. I have been trying to follow the noble Earl's speech with my draft and I have not been able to do so. However, I listened to it most attentively, and I am not going to delay the approval of the Regulations.
Having some knowledge of the discussions that have gone on with the film industry, speaking for myself, and I think for other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, who holds a prominent position in the film industry and can comment for himself, I do not think we shall wish to delay these Regulations. There is only one point about which I want to ask the Minister. He said that these Regulations arise from the abolition of the entertainments duty. Before the noble Earl was such a prominent member of the Government Front Bench, from this side of your Lordships' House I raised a question in the debate in 1957 on the Bill which later became an Act and which set up the British Film Fund Agency. My question was as to who was going to pay for the collection of this levy, and was it going to be a charge on the fund. I wanted to know why the cinema industry was going to be charged by Customs and Excise for the cost of collecting this levy when, on behalf of Customs and Excise, the British film industry collected the entertainments tax for nothing. All I was told by the Government spokesman was "After all, it is only going to be a trivial amount."
I remember asking the Government spokesman how much it was going to be, and the first Government spokesman said that it was going to be less than one-half of one per cent. on the anticipated

127
revenue of £3¾ million. By a quick mental calculation I made that something in the region of £18,000. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who then occupied a similar position to that of the noble Earl, later on said, "There is going to be no mystery about it. On my humble reckoning, the sum is about £10,000 to £15,000." In the first report of the British Film Fund Agency I see that the amount for collecting this Fund was £34,100—another example of the inability of Her Majesty's Government to forecast what it costs to collect taxes.
What I want to ask the noble Earl is this: if it cost £34,100 for Customs and Excise to collect this levy when at the same time they collected the entertainments duty, now that there is no entertainments duty, what is the estimate of the noble Earl of what it is going to cost in future to collect this money? It is a charge on the Fund and I think we should know something about it.
I was going to make a suggestion to him—I do not know whether it is a good one; it may be a good one from one point of view and a bad one from another. Before we set up the British Film Fund Agency, this levy was operated on a voluntary basis by the industry itself. My information is that in those days it cost about £20,000 to collect. Now there is a statutory body and a statutory levy. If I were to suggest to the noble Earl that if the Government at some time thought it wise to revert to its being a voluntary levy it might cost less to collect, I have the unhappy suspicion that his answer to me would be, "Yes; but when it is a voluntary levy there is no enforcement of payment. The advantage of having a statutory levy is that everybody has to pay, because payment can be enforced." So I am not going to press the point of turning it over once again to the industry. But I should like him to tell the House—I gave him notice that I was going to ask this question, so perhaps he has come armed with the information—what is the approximate estimate of the cost in the future. I ask that because next year, or when the British Film Fund Agency produce another annual report and statement of accounts, I do not want to see the costs go up. Because they have only to collect this levy and they will not be able to
128
offset any of their costs against collecting entertainments duty. That is all I have to say. I wish the industry well. I think perhaps the Fund may be a little bigger in the future. Broadly, I believe it has been received well by the industry and by every well wisher of the industry.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, the only thing I wanted to say was that 23 or 24 years ago your Lordships were often put in great difficulties because Departments laid Orders in blank on the Table and noble Lords who were interested in them could never draw them to ascertain what was in the Order. It was an abuse which was most strongly protested against, and I had hoped that it had been cured by now. I am sorry to see that it has been creeping back, and I hope that the noble Earl will make such representations as will prevent its happening again, so that when Orders are to be approved by your Lordships they should be made available to your Lordships from the Printed Paper Office.
2.59 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, I do not want to delay the approval of these Regulations. I must say that the absence of the correct draft Regulations put me in no difficulty—
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if I may just interrupt the noble Lord, immediately this point was raised my noble friend beside me went to the Printed Paper Office to see what was the matter, and he has come back with a copy of the amended Regulations which I am now moving. So they are there. I do not know by what misunderstanding some of your Lordships have an out-of-date copy instead of the amended Regulations which are on the Order Paper. But they are in the Printed Paper Office; I gat this one some minutes ago from the Printed Paper Office.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, did the noble Earl's colleague find out at what time they were there? I had two copies yesterday afternoon and another one to-day at a quarter to one, and those were for April, 1960. So they must have realised their mistake and substituted the right ones for the wrong ones.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I will inquire at what time they were in the Printed Paper Office, but they were certainly there at the moment when the noble Lord made his protest.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I do not want to labour the point, but when I heard the noble Earl speaking I could not relate the points he was making to the numbers of the paragraphs in the draft that I had had from the Printed Paper Office, and I went back to that Office and asked that a search be made for the draft on which the noble Earl was speaking. It was not available then —which was not more than two minutes before his noble friend found them there; so the mystery, I suggest, is still unsolved.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we seem to be reducing the period during which the crime took place to narrow limits.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I must confess, that I had no difficulty in following the noble Earl, because naturally I was familiar with the proposals which were contained in the draft Order which I had been unable to obtain; and I followed the matter, therefore, from pre-knowledge and not through having the advantage of the printed sheet. In an industry like the cinema industry, where there are naturally very divergent interests as between, so to speak, producer, wholesaler and retailer, it is very difficult to get complete unanimity with regard to proposals of this character; and I should like to pay a tribute to the Board of Trade, and particularly to the officials concerned, for the ingenuity which they have shown in producing Regulations which are not opposed (and I will not put it higher than that) by any section of the industry but which, on the whole, are accepted, if not corn-mended, by all sections of the industry. I believe, therefore, that it would be true to say that not only has the Cinematograph Films Council given its blessing but that, by and large, the industry is also in agreement with these Regulations. I am, naturally, still anxious to hear the reply to the question of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not take too seriously his suggestion of reverting from statutory to voluntary levy.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I have just been informed that these Orders which I am now moving were published on June 21. With regard to what might be called "The Mystery of the Printed Paper Office" and the question of why they were not there and, so to speak, "who done it?", I will do my best to examine the question and let both noble Lords know.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, did the noble Earl give the date as June 31?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, the Orders were published on June 21—quite a long time ago.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, when the noble Earl has made inquiries and obtained the information, will he let the House know about it? Because this is not a matter that should be treated lightly. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth thinks it right (and my noble friend Lord Archibald has concurred) to let this Regulation go through; but it is a very serious matter if a Regulation is before the House and if noble Lords have asked for the text of that particular amending Regulation and have been given the wrong one; because the House does not know what it is doing. This is rather a mockery of the responsible conduct of Parliamentary affairs. I think there is a responsibility on the Government to find out what happened and for the noble Earl to make a public statement to-morrow, or on some other day, on what occurred.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, but I am at a disadvantage because the only pieces of information I have are, first, that the Orders were published on June 21, and, second, that. I found them in the Printed Paper Office about a quarter of an hour ago when clearly they were there. But I will certainly find out what has gone wrong and let the House know.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for giving me notice that he intended to ask about the cost of collection. He is quite right in saying that the original estimate of the cost, which I believe was one-half of 1 per cent.—which he worked out at £18,000 —was an under-estimate. In the last year for which we have a published figure

131
the cost was £34,000, which is about 0·92 per cent. But the noble Lord is not quite correct about the cost under the voluntary levy. The figure of £20,000 which he referred to under the old voluntary levy represented the cost of administration, not collection. At that time the Customs collected the tax freely, at a cost to the public and not to the film industry. That is not so now. Under the 1957 Act the cost of collection is borne by the Fund and not by the taxpayer.
The Board of Trade have considered whether collection could be made more cheaply from the distributors, but they reached the conclusion that there was no point in contemplating a change in the law; and for a number of reasons they considered that there would be grave difficulties in collecting levies from distributors of films, so that it will continue to be done by the Customs. As the noble Lord rightly said, since we cannot now divide it up between entertainments duty and levy, the amount applicable to the collection of levy will be considerably more than £34,000. It is very difficult to give an estimate of the cost of collecting the levy in a full year when entertainments duty is abolished. The Customs can make only a tentative estimate, and they have suggested a figure of a little over £50,000; but that must be treated with considerable reserve as it is only a provisional estimate. I should have expected it would be something in that region, because when we consider that they collected both taxes—the levy and the entertainments duty—it seems clear that there must have been a very considerable saving in the amount applicable.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Earl be kind enough to explain to the House why it should cost £34,000 when entertainments duty also is collected and that when we take off the cost of collecting the entertainments duty the figures should jump to £50,000? Surely they will employ less. Has the British film industry to subsidise the Customs and Excise in duties outside the collection of this levy? That is what it sounds like to me. I should have thought it would not cost any more, because it would take less trouble and less expense, with less staff.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl has taken into account the much smaller number of exhibitors from whom the levy will have to be collected, in view of the raising of the exemption limit for levy from £150 to £250?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that illustrates the great difficulty the Customs and Excise are under in making any estimate at all. They did not want to make an estimate, but after the noble Lord had given me notice that he was to raise this matter I have got from them the best figure I could; and I was asked to make clear that it was a very provisional figure which must be treated with great reserve, for reasons such as the noble Lord, Lord Archibald has mentioned. It is obvious, however, that the figure of £34,000 was not the whole cost, but that part of the cost of collecting the two taxes in one go which was allocated to the levy. The cost of collecting the levy and entertainments duty together must have been more than £34,000. That figure was what the Customs considered was a fair proportion of their work to allocate to the collection of the levy. Now that they do not have to collect any entertainments duty they still have to have a fairly large amount of correspondence with people who used to pay both levy and entertainments duty, and that will be about as expensive as sending out one notice to collect both.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (DISTRI BUTION OF LEVY) (AMEND MENT) REGULATIONS, 1960
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations, 1960, be approved.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (FOWEY) BILL
Read 2a(according to Order), and referred to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT)) BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND BILL
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

MENTAL HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Establishment and constitution of Mental Welfare Commission]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking made by my right honourable friend on Report stage in another place. Its effect is to write into the Bill what, in any case, my right honourable friend would have ensured: that the position of Commissioner in the Mental Welfare Commission cannot be held by anyone while he is a civil servant, which includes medical commissioners; so that medical officers employed by the Department of Health for Scotland are barred. There can thus be no doubt about the impartiality of the Mental Welfare Commission in the exercise of its new duties to protect the interests of the patient. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) No person who for the time being is employed in the civil service of the Crown whether in an established capacity or not, and whether for the whole or Part of his time, shall be appointed to the Mental Welfare Commission; and for the Purposes of this subsection civil service of the Crown includes the civil service of Northern Ireland, Her Majesty's Foreign Service and Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service.").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 agreed to.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR moved, after Clause 7 to insert the following new clause:
Proposals for provision of services by local health authority
".—(1) Every local health authority shall, within such period as the Secretary of State may specify, submit to the Secretary of State proposals for carrying out their duties under this Act.
The Secretary of State may specify different periods under this section for proposals relating to different duties.
(2) Not later than the day on which any proposals are submitted to the Secretary of State the local health authority shall serve a copy thereof—

(a) on every voluntary organisation with which the local health authority proposes to make arrangements for the purposes of section twelve of this Act;

(b) on the Executive Council constituted under Part IV of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 and the Regional Hospital Board for the area in which any part of the area of the local health authority is situated;

and any such voluntary organisation, Council or Board may within two months of the service on them of a copy of the proposals make recommendations to the Secretary of State for modifying the proposals, and shall, not later than the day on which such recommendations are made, serve a copy thereof on the local health authority.
(3) The Secretary of State may approve the proposals with or without modifications, which may include additions or exceptions, or may remit to the local health authority to submit new proposals, and it shall be the duty of the local health authority to carry out their aforesaid duties in accordance with the proposals submitted and approved for their area under this section.
(4) A local health authority may at any time, and if directed by the Secretary of State shall within such period as he may specify, submit new proposals, and the last two foregoing subsections shall apply to any such new proposals.
(5) If any local health authority fail to submit any proposals which they are required to submit within a period specified by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may himself make proposals, and they shall have effect as if they had been submitted and approved under the foregoing provisions of this section:
Provided that, before making any such proposals, the Secretary of State shall serve a copy of the draft proposals on the local health authority and on every voluntary organisation which to the knowledge of the Secretary of State provides in the area of the authority services of the kind dealt with in the proposals and on the bodies mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section, and give an opportunity to that authority and

135
those organisations and bodies to make recommendations to him for modifying the proposals."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name upon the Order Paper. I may explain that my noble friend Lord Greenhill should be moving this Amendment, but unfortunately he is delayed in Scotland; so he has asked me to look after it for him and to do my best. If I display a lamentable ignorance of Scottish local government and Scottish Mental Health Service provisions, I hope that the Committee will excuse me, but I have had very short notice to cope with this subject.
The purpose of the Amendment is to strengthen the Secretary of State's hand in seeing that the local authorities actually implement the schemes which are the essential basis of this Bill. As the Committee will be aware, this is Mental Health Week, and The Times newspaper to-day has a very fine leading article on the implementation of an Act on this subject dealing with England and Wales. The one point about which The Times newspaper expresses doubt is the capacity and enthusiasm and ability of the local health authorities to do the actual work of carrying out the creation of these new community services, which is essential if the Act is to mean anything at all. The Times points out the shortage of expert workers, of psychiatric social workers, and of the homes, and so on, and it says:
"Nor is there any evidence that local authorities by and large have carefully ascertained what the precise needs are going to be. What sort of care will they need? How many will be capable of doing work? That the authorities have by and large accepted the principle that something must be done is easier to believe than that they know exactly what it is."
If we had been perhaps a little quicker off the mark when dealing with the England and Wales Mental Health Bill, before it became an Act, we might have suggested a similar provision to that which I am now proposing on behalf of my noble friend.
The point here is that we have lifted a clause out of the National Health Service Act. We have simply taken the section in the National Health Service Act which provides for the local authorities: to take the necessary steps to make a
136
scheme and submit it to the Secretary of State by a certain day, and then to make sure that they carry it out. In fact, if one takes the new clause, subsection by subsection, as we have put it down, it well be seen that it falls into a series of parts. First, it enables the Secretary of State to specify a date by which schemes have to be submitted. It makes a sort of "appointed day" for the submission of schemes. Secondly, it makes sure that all the parties concerned know about these schemes. The third thing it does is to make it a duty on the local authority to carry out the scheme once it has been approved. Fourthly, it enables the local authority to submit new schemes if things have changed; and, finally, it contains a sanction: that if a local authority fails to submit a scheme, then the Secretary of State may himself draw up a scheme.
I am sorry that this is such a formidable-looking new clause, but its purpose is quite simple. It is to make sure that the Secretary of State has the power to make this Bill a reality. Needless to say, we are not in any way wedded to the wording; we are concerned with the reality. We want to make sure that there is a service such as we all want to see, and that the Secretary of State has the power to see that the local authorities do the job. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Taylor.)
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for entering the lists on behalf of Scotland. He expressed doubts about the ability and enthusiasm of the local authorities to do this work. That is a task for all of us, and we must be especially glad of the growing interest taken by the public generally in mental health, which so much helps all concerned. The question that faces me is whether the Bill would be strengthened, or whether our efforts would be strengthened, by putting this new clause in this Bill. I must agree with the noble Lord that its provisions are necessary.
Except for two necessary drafting points, the new clause is an exact duplicate of Section 21 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, which deals with the local health authority's duty to

137
submit to the Secretary of State proposals for the provision of services under Sections 22 to 27 of that Act. The noble Lord will remember that Section 21 applies to Sections 22 to 27 of the 1947 Act. So far as training and occupation functions of the local health authority are concerned, if the noble Lord will look at Clause 12, he will see that it specifically applies Section 21 of the 1947 Act to the Bill; in other words, the new clause is specifically applied to the training and occupation functions. So far as the general functions of the local health authorities are concerned, Clause 7 of the Bill adopts Section 27 of the 1947 Act, which automatically applies Section 21 of that Act. What Clause 7 does, as well as adopting Section 21, or applying it, as the noble Lord wishes, is to expand Section 27 of the 1947 Act to cover mentally disordered people as well. I must tell the noble Lord that I am advised that the intentions of his new clause are already fully achieved in the Bill as it stands, and that there would be no advantage at all in giving my right honourable friend the power that the noble Lord wishes by re-enacting Section 21 of the 1947 Act at length in this Bill. For that reason, I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord, and I must ask your Lordships not to accept the new clause.
LORD TAYLOR: Could the noble Lord explain two points? Will there in fact be an appointed day, as it were, by which time schemes must be submitted; and, having been approved, will these schemes then be mandatory on the local authorities for them to carry out?
LORD CRAIGTON: As I explained on Second Reading, we must go very gently here. We must not make any scheme mandatory on a local authority that the local authority cannot properly carry out. What we are therefore going to do is to ask the local authorities to submit schemes, then get all concerned to examine them, and then, in the end, we shall have to make mandatory a scheme which the local authorities feel that they are able to carry out in a proper manner.
LORD TAYLOR: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation, and on the undertaking that he has given I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.22 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR moved, after Clause 7 to insert the following new clause:
Provision for training of psychiatric social workers and occupational therapists
"The Secretary of State shall make provision for the training of psychiatric social workers and occupational therapists and shall co-operate with local authorities and other employing bodies in providing field work training of the necessary standard."
The noble Lord said: This second new clause deals with something which my friends in another place found was out-with the scope of the Bill. In other words, they were trying to implement the Younghusband Report by adapting this Bill, in so far as it affected psychiatric social workers and occupational therapists. Having found that it was impossible to introduce a training council for social workers, we thought the best way to tackle it would be to make sure that the Secretary of State had powers to assist in and to encourage the training of psychiatric social workers and occupational therapists, and power to co-operate with the local authorities in this matter.
I understand that the situation with regard to trained occupational therapists in Scotland is a very serious one. Apparently, there are only about 47 trained occupational therapists in Scotland, and at one hospital, the Hartwood and Hartwood Hill Hospital, there is not a single trained occupational therapist. Clearly something needs to be, done. How it should be done I do not profess to know for certain, and I am not at all sure that the wording of my new clause is the right wording. One might have preferred to say that the Secretary of State shall have power to assist in the making of provision rather than that he should himself make provision, because it might be that it should be done through some voluntary agency with his assistance; but we should like to feel sure that he has the power to provide the raw material for the working of this Bill, because unless he has these trained social workers and occupational therapists, then these local authorities cannot really do their job. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Taylor.)
LORD CRAIGTON: We have no quarrel at all with the intention behind this

139
new clause. We have carefully considered it and have decided that it would not be right to put into the Bill this obligation on the part of the Secretary of State, and I hope to be able to convince the noble Lord that we are right. First, let us take the training of occupational therapists. These skilled people are only one group of a number of medical auxiliaries employed in all types of hospitals, not merely in mental or mental deficiency hospitals. There are also, for instance, radiographers or physiotherapists. It would not be appropriate, therefore, to single out one type of medical auxiliary for specific statutory provision of this kind, especially in a Statute dealing only with mental health. However, I agree with the noble Lord that the training of occupational therapists is a serious matter, and it is being treated very seriously. There is a long-established training school at the Astley Ainslie Hospital in Edinburgh, and the Western Regional Hospital Board are, at the request of my right honourable friend, investigating where in Glasgow a second Scottish school should be established.
Then there is the training of psychiatric social workers: the actual provision of training for psychiatric social workers is a matter for the university authorities, with grant aid from the Department for individual students where it is appropriate. So it really would not be right to transfer this function from the university authorities to my right honourable friend. But this training, too, is not being neglected. At present, there is a year's university course, and my right honourable friend has already arranged for his Department to discuss with the psychiatric social workers how best their numbers can be increased. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will appreciate that, in rejecting this Amendment—on the grounds, as I have said, that it would not be appropriate to put into a Mental Health Bill one of a number of medical auxiliaries, or to transfer from the university the functions they are already carrying out—we are already doing what this Amendment seeks to do, and that it would not be appropriate to write into the Bill the new clause which he desires
LORD TAYLOR: I have never been really satisfied that if one could not go, the whole way one should not do any-
140
thing at all. I must say that I should have liked the noble Lord to take back this clause and look at it again, to see whether there was not some way by which he could at least permit himself to assist in these processes without specifying the nature of the professions supplementary to medicine which would require assistance—and I do see the difficulty there. For example, I should like to feel that he had the power to make grants to assist in the maintenance of such persons during their training period. One knows that it is the most difficult thing at the present time to get girls (these are primarily women) to come forward for this type of work, and one would have hoped that he could say something a little more positive on the subject of training, although I admit at once, of course, the validity of his claim that the mechanism by which the machinery of training should operate should continue to be through the universities and the regional hospital boards.
LORD CRAIGTON: If the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting, may I point out that I did say that in the case of psychiatric social workers my right honourable friend has power to make grants in appropriate cases.
LORD TAYLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord. What about occupational therapists? Has he the power there?
LORD CRAIGTON: I should like notice of that question.
LORD TAYLOR: I hope that the noble will look at it; and, if he has not the power, perhaps we can persuade him to put down an appropriate clause on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 8 to 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Detention or guardianship of certain patients after the age of twenty-five]:
LORD CRAIGTON: With your Lordships' approval, I will mention with this Amendment Nos. 5 and 6. These are all drafting Amendments. After Amendments in another place, subsection (1) of Clause 40 has become too long. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 18, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(2) Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection,").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 19, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 21, leave out ("said age") and insert ("age of twenty-five").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 26, after ("patient") insert ("and").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: Under the Bill, the Board of Management or local health authority concerned receive reports from the responsible medical officers which renew authority for detention or guardianship after the special review when the patient reaches the age of twenty-five. By this Amendment, the Board of Management or local health authority, on receiving such a report, must forthwith inform the patient, and his nearest relative. This is important, as the patient or relative has only twenty-eight days from the patient's twenty-fifth birthday in which to decide whether to exercise his right of appeal to the sheriff. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 27, after ("informed") insert ("forthwith").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Requirements as to medical evidence]:
LORD CRAIGTON: By leave of the Committee I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together. They are required as they apply to children or young persons compulsorily detained after being brought before a juvenile court the right which is given
142
to others in subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 57, for the child or his guardian to arrange for a medical examination, in private if so desired, for the purpose of producing evidence to rebut the medical reports on which he was committed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 24, after first ("person") insert ("that subsection (4) shall have effect as if for the reference to an accused person there was substituted a reference to a child or young person").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 26, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("the said subsection (3)".—(Lord Craigton)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 58 to 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Removal of alien patients]:
3.32 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR moved, after "there" to insert:
"and that it is in the interests of the patient to remove him,".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is rather unusual. When a person who is mentally ill is to be moved from Scotland to England or Wales, or from England or Wales to Scotland, under the terms of the Bill, there is a provision stating that it must be in the interests of the person to remove him. When, however, an alien becomes mentally in Scotland, these words are omitted. It seemed to my honourable friends in another place that this was a little hard and that aliens should not be treated differently from citizens of the United Kingdom, particularly in so much as we all feel, that the National Health Service is something of which we are very proud and should be available to everybody who lives in this country. Therefore, they proposed twice, once on Committee and once on Report stage, that the same words should apply to aliens as apply to natives of Scotland, England and Wales.
We now hope that the Government may have had second thoughts, or that perhaps they may be prepared to accept the slightly altered wording of my Amendment, and make it so that at least it

143
should not be against the patient's interests if he were removed to another country. In the old days, patients in mental hospitals for treatment were usually there for prolonged periods but nowadays, thank goodness! most new admissions are there for short periods and, therefore, in future it will be very rare that an alien, having been admitted to a mental hospital, will remain there for a period of more than six weeks or so—at least we hope so. However, there will be rare cases, of the senile patient or the patient who dements, and the mental hospital in question will apply to send that patient off to his distant domicile, wherever it may be. All we ask is that, before any such removal is contemplated, not only should the Secretary of State make sure that arrangements at the receiving end are adequate, as he already does under this clause, but he should also assure himself that it is not against the patient's interests to make this removal. I hope that, having given way on the two previous Amendments, the Government may feel that they can accept this Amendment, or at least look at it to see whether, in a slightly altered form, it may be acceptable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 28, after ("there") insert ("and that it is in the interests of the patient to remove him,")—(Lord Taylor.)
LORD CRAIGTON: This is a borderline case. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is not asked more often to bat for Scotland. The Government are convinced by what the noble Lord has said, and I would ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
LORD TAYLOR: I thank the noble Lord very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 83 to 118 agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Third Schedule [Transitional Provisions]:
LORD CRAIGTON: Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are both drafting Amendments. I beg to move the first one.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 14, after ("thirty-nine") insert ("and section fifty-one").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 18, leave out ("that section") and insert ("the said section thirty-nine").(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: This is a drafting Amendment, consequential on Amendments having been made in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 51, after second ("of") insert ("section eighty-nine of the Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1857,").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
LORD CRAIGTON: With your Lordships' approval, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 15 to 18 together. This Bill introduces the one concept of mental disorder as covering all forms of mental illness and mental deficiency. So it is essential to replace the obsolete and less acceptable forms of description contained in existing Statutes. Your Lordships will be as glad as I am to see the last of "lunatics", "idiots" and "fatuous or furious" persons. Many of these have already been disposed of in the Fourth Schedule. The task of tracing references in so many Acts could not be completed by the time the Bill left another place. This series of Amendments, and a few to follow in a few minutes, add, in their correct chronological order, what I hope are the remainder of the Acts to be amended. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 9, at end insert—
("The Land Tax Redemption Act, 1802 (42 Geo. 3. c. 116)
In section fourteen, as it applies to Scotland, for the words lunatics or of idiots' and `lunatics, idiots', wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
The Admiralty (Signal Stations) Act, 1815 (55 Geo. 3. c. 128)
In section three, as it applies to Scotland, for the words lunatics, idiots' there shall be substituted the words persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act. 1960'.
The Defence Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 94)
In sections ten and eighteen, as they apply to Scotland, for the words 'lunatics, idiots' there shall be substituted the words 'persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act. 1960'.
The Companies Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 17)
In section eighty-two, for the words 'be a lunatic or idiot, fatuous or furious person, such lunatic or idiot, fatuous or furious person' there shall be substituted the words 'is suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, and is incapable by reason of his mental disorder of managing and administering his property and affairs, he'.
The Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 19)
In section seven, for the words 'lunatics or idiots, fatuous or furious persons' and for the words 'lunatics, idiots, fatuous and furious persons', wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
In section sixty-seven, for the words 'lunatic or idiot, fatuous or furious person' there shall be substituted the words 'person suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
In section sixty-nine, for the word 'lunacy' there shall be substituted the words 'incapacity by reason of mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
In section seventy, for the words 'idiotcy, lunacy' there shall be substituted the words 'incapacity by reason of mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Her Majesty's Government are very much to be congratulated upon the introduction of this series of Amendments. Of this matter I can speak with some personal knowledge, having been for over twenty years a director, and for the greater part of that time chairman, of one of the Scottish royal mental hospitals. We are now, thank Heaven! approaching the time when the public at large will realise that a mental illness should be treated mutatis mutandis in exactly the same way as physical illness, and that there is no reason why a person who suffers from some form of mental illness should not be restored to as complete health as, say, someone who has broken a leg. In the past this stigma of "lunacy" has been one of the greatest deterrents to the
146
recovery of patients. We are now trying more and more to get them to enter mental hospitals as voluntary patients, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has said, fortunately the duration of their stay there is now one usually of weeks rather than of months, or even of years, as used to be the case. There is no doubt whatever that the abolition of this deplorable word "lunacy" will do a great deal to induce people to take this early treatment, which is often imperative if they are to be restored to complete mental health.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to the noble Earl for voicing in such wise words the growing understanding of mental illness in the mind of the public today.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 37, at end insert—
("The Defence Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 112)
In section eleven, as it applies to Scotland, for the words 'lunatics, idiots' there shall be substituted the words 'persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.")—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 43, at end insert—
("In section twenty-four, as it applies to Scotland, for the words lunatics, idiots, and furious and fatuous persons' there shall be substituted the words ` persons suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.").— (Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 6, at end insert—
("The Building Societies Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 42)
In section twenty-six, as it applies to Scotland, for the words becomes a lunatic' there shall be substituted the words 'is suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
The Trade Union Act, Amendment Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 22)
In section four, as it applies to Scotland, for the words 'becomes a lunatic' there shall be substituted the words 'is suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I think that for the purposes of the statement I have to make, it will be as well to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

SOVIET NOTE ON SHOT DOWN AMERICAN AIRCRAFT
3.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lards, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, asked a Question in similar terms to the Question which is being asked by the Leader of the Opposition in another place. The terms of the Question, I would remind the House are:
"To ask the Leader of the House if he will make a statement about the Note received by Her Majesty's Government from the Soviet Government relating to the American aircraft shot down over the Barents Sea."
The Prime Minister is answering a similar Question, and I will give the Answer in the terms that he uses. They are as follows:
"Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow was handed a Note on the evening of the 11th of July stating that on the 1st of July an American RB-47 aircraft on an intelligence mission violated Soviet air space in the Barents Sea near the Kola Peninsula and was shot down over Soviet territorial wasters. The Note said that according to captured members of the crew the aircraft had left a British base on the 1st of July with orders to return there an the conclusion of their mission. The Note ended by protesting to Her Majesty's Government against the use of its territory on this occasion.
"The Note, which was of some length, was given to the Press by the Soviet Government yesterday evening. It is now being studied and a reply will of course be sent in due course. Meanwhile I would prefer to make no further statement to-day."
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Earl for making that statement, but the position of the present
148
relationships between East and West seems to be so serious that, while we should in no sense get over-excited about statements made from Moscow and the like, it surely is becoming essential that the public, and especially Parliament, should know the facts, and know them from the Government.
I could understand in a way what the Prime Minister has said about having time to study the Soviet Note, but I would point out to the noble Earl, first, that this plane was shot down on July 1, and to-day is July 12; and that the twelve days have included a prolonged search for the plane. It is true that Russia has taken the extraordinary step of not revealing the shooting down of the plane for several days, but there has been ample time to get the real facts of the situation and what the public want to know since July 1. Did we have any knowledge of U.2, for example? Did we have any consultation with the American authorities about the plane leaving the base in Britain for this flight on which it was shot down over the Barents Sea?
The Prime Minister says that the Government want to study the Note before they give an answer. But I must point out to the noble Earl, in case they are having another ministerial meeting to-day, that over the tape this morning I got this:
"The Moscow announcement came as a genuine surprise to British and United States authorities. The act was described in Defence Ministry circles as appalling'. Nothing was known of the whereabouts of the aircraft, and the 10-day search was a genuine one. The Ministry spokesman reiterated that the flight was a perfectly legal one for scientific purposes, and the route was known to the Ministry. It is in fact virtually impossible for any clandestine mission to be made by a foreign aircraft from a British base, since the flight plan must be made known and all necessary steps taken to ensure the aircraft's security."
If the Ministry of Defence can issue that in reply to Press questions, how is it that the Prime Minister cannot inform Parliament of the situation in more up-to-date terms than the Answer that has just been given to us?
Moreover, on the tape came over only an hour ago now the statement by Mr. Hagerty, the Press Secretary to the President of the United States, which is as follows:
"He accused Russia of a deliberate and reckless attempt to create an international incident by shooting down"

149
et cetera. He said:
"RB-47 was over international waters and at no time was over Soviet territorial waters, or Soviet air space."
If the United States are in close consultation with their principal partner in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, is it not possible for the Prime Minister to inform Parliament with equal celerity and factuality? How is it that we are still to be delayed? Have the Government seen, not the leader in the Daily Herald this morning, which was quite moving, but the leader in the Daily Mail this morning, usually regarded as a strong Government paper, in which it evinces anxiety about the position of the public and what they are doing.
If I may come more up to date than that, as I understand it—I have not the actual terms—in reply to Questions on the U2 incident in another place to-day, after Question Time, the Prime Minister said that it had never been the practice to discuss such matters in the House and it would be contrary to the public interest to depart from precedent now. I suggest to your Lordships and to the noble Earl the Leader of the House that, in those circumstances, if there is something about the situation which cannot be discussed in public, if we could have a private session of Parliament we could get at the facts and avoid all unnecessary panic thinking in the country, which we all want to avoid. We are not accustomed to panic in this country. I think that the further delay in getting at the facts, either about the U2, or about this latest incident over the Barents Sea. is hardly to be justified.
3.50 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I think there is a great deal in what the noble Viscount has said, but I am not in complete harmony with him. After all, the statement which we should like to have from the Government is in answer to this allegation made by Russia only a few hours ago. I think it is only reasonable that the Government should be given time to digest this rather lengthy Russian document before they can refute it. On the other hand, the facts of the operation, which occurred some eleven or twelve days ago, must be known, and if the Ministry of Defence have thought fit to publish some statement on it, then I think the public would like something from the Government. I would support
150
the noble Viscount in suggesting that we might have some sort of private session in which this matter could be discussed further. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Earl the Leader of the House knows that we have no desire to ask embarrassing or difficult questions. On the other hand, I am sure he also knows that we rely upon him, as we always have done, to inform the House as much as he can and as soon as he can.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I remember private sessions in another place quite often, and I am sure they never did anything to allay public anxiety; on the other hand, often they rather increased it. I think the noble Viscount is right. Of course, this is a serious situation in which we find ourselves to-day, and such matters as this aggravate the seriousness of it. What we are not anxious to do is to have information coming out in bits and pieces, a snippet here, in answer to a supplementary question, and another piece there. The intention is that the Russian Note should be answered, and our answer, of course, will be made available to the House after it has been delivered to the Russians.
I do not think that the noble Viscount's complaint of delay is really justifiable. The Russians behaved in a very peculiar way. They said that for the first few days they were helping to hunt for the plane, but in fact they knew all the time that they had shot it down. We have only very recently received this Note. All I can say is that we will answer the Soviet Note; that, having ascertained all the facts and mobilised them, they will be available to Parliament. I think that that will be the time to give it the consideration which the noble Viscount wishes.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, it seems to me to be a rather extraordinary position. Exactly what arrangements, in this period of world tension, the Government make to prevent mistakes being made, I do not quite know. Have they been warned at the Ministry of Defence not to hand out some pieces of partial information as were handed out this morning, which was to be denied apparently in the Prime Minister's reply to Parliament? Are precautions being taken in these matters at all? With

151
regard to the U.2 incident, we have had nothing but stonewalling from the Prime Minister on the basis of the answer again given this afternoon—that because it is a matter of intelligence it cannot be discussed in Parliament. What the public want to know is whether we were ever consulted on this matter, and they want to know on this occasion officially, and not merely by a haphazard "handout" to the Press by the Minister of Defence.
THE EARL OF HOME: I am not fully acquainted with the procedure in the Ministry of Defence, but I notice that what was put out on the tape at 10.12 was cancelled at 10.29, so perhaps the House would do well not to pay too much attention to what was said by somebody on that occasion.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLS-BOROUGH: It seems rather a pity that it was cancelled without any effect, because here it is in the second edition —not the first—of the Evening News. If you come to the Evening Standard, apparently all kinds of information has gone from the Ministry of Defence. It describes, which I think it is perfectly proper to describe, the R.B.47 as a ten-year-old obsolete plane, but with extraordinary camera equipment, capable of taking coastal photographs of up to 150 miles. They excuse that from the point of view that it could do so without harm to themselves, so long as they were not attacked by aggressive fighters. How you are going to prove whether they were nearer to territorial waters than that, I do not know. But is it not extraordinary that the conversations between our Government and the United States have been so unsatisfactory since the failure of the Summit; that these assays by aircraft might have been cut right out until there was a more solid basis on which we could take up further negotiations?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should have thought that the complaints which the noble Viscount made about partial information coming out rather reinforces my point that, before we come to any definite conclusion, we ought to get all the facts and the whole story placed into the Note to the Soviet Government, which Parliament will have at its disposal. On the second matter, we
152
have had working arrangements (as the noble Viscount knows, we have had them for many years, ever since the Attlee-Truman agreement with regard to the use of bases in this country) with the Americans, and whether they can be improved or modified in any respect is a matter which no doubt the Prime Minister takes up from time to time with the Americans. But, of course, this working with the Americans has been going on for many years.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, what has happened to-day suggests a lack of control at the Defence Ministry, which is generally in close touch with the Prime Minister, at least in my experience. If statements are made, and then apparently have to be revoked, it rather suggests lack of co-operation.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it is not just this country or this Parliament which is interested? The whole world is looking on. We may be silent, but other people will not be silent. First of all, our Allies in America have several Departments giving several statements—none of which many people believe—on these subjects. Then we have the Russians. They have this plane. It is very peculiar that, if it was not in a territorial area, it fell into a territorial area. That is the first thing. It is very queer. The second thing is that they have the evidence of the crew, and the evidence of the U.2 and Captain Powers. The world will not wait to hear what is the final reply of the Government. They will put all these things together and make their judgment. And the issue of peace and war now depends upon the judgment of the world. I think myself that the situation is as terrifying as the one that I remember in August, 1914.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: The noble Viscount opposite is apparently prepared to take the Russian report as accurate in all respects.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Not at all.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: If the noble Viscount is not, does that not reinforce the view of my noble friend the Leader of the House, that we should find out exactly what has happened before the Government attempt to provide any further information to Parliament or the public?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Before that point is answered, I think I am within the recollection of your Lordships in all parts of the House that when this plane was first missing it emerged, I think, in The Times that in fact the plane crew had been instructed not to send any messages. It seems to me to cast at least some doubt on some of the assumptions that are being made at the present time as to the mission of the plane. I do not say they are wrong—that has yet to be proved. But may I ask the Leader of the House and the Government that there will be no further partial statement by any Government Department until we get the authoritative statement from the Prime Minister? This statement, which was put over this morning after 10 o'clock and cancelled before 10.30, is in the Press to-night. That will go on being so. May we have a guarantee that if Parliament is to be denied information, there will be no issue of partial statements through Government Departments? I think that as a matter of control that is fundamentally important.
THE EARL OF HOME: I quite agree with the noble Viscount. Indeed, it is what I am trying to achieve—that we should wait until we get a final authoritative statement from the Government on the matter of this particular flight. I think perhaps the noble Viscount over-emphasised the importance of what he calls a statement from the Ministry of Defence. I think that what happened was that one of the newspaper correspondents rang up on the telephone and got an answer, which was then cancelled. But I gather that it was not a statement, in that sense, put out by the Ministry. I do not think we can properly pursue that matter, because I am not completely informed as to what took place.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: In one of his remarks the noble Earl suggested that there was a working arrangement for years past allowing this sort of thing. It is important for the reputation of our country that the public and the world
154
should know whether we have been giving our assent to these flights by the loan of our air bases.
THE EARL OF HOME: The noble Viscount is on a slightly different point. The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition was on the point of what happened inside the Ministry of Defence—on the working arrangements. I was talking about arrangements which we have with the Americans on the use of our bases.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I know that. That is exactly the point that I raised. Did the noble Earl mean that there has existed for some time a working arrangement by which American aircraft can use our bases with or without our having knowledge of these flights?
THE EARL OF HOME: I am not prepared to go into any details to-day. The only thing I have said is that there are working arrangements which we have had with the Americans. If they can be improved or modified, they will be.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But that leaves us under the cloud of being suspected of being a party to this business.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I think I may just say this, in conclusion—it is very important, in view of what my noble and gallant friend has just said. Certainly during my ministerial connections with the Fighting Services, in the war and in peace time, we were never responsible for reconnaissance flights over foreign territory in peace time. I hope that, before this is over, the Government will be able to say the same thing.
THE EARL OF HOME: I do not want to continue this discussion, because it leads us into the kind of difficulties I have described. The noble Viscount must not assume these things. Aeroplanes of all countries fly about their legitimate business over international waters. They may drift off course, either because of bad weather or for other reasons—there may be 101 explanations. It is the explanation of the facts that we want to get and to make plain to the House in due course.

MENTAL HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.6 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
LORD CRAIGTON: Your Lordships will observe that, apart from the first two lines, this Amendment substitutes for existing terminology the description of mental disorder as in the last series of Amendments. With your Lordships' permission I should like to discuss the first two lines together with all the Amendments from No. 23 to the last one, No. 28. The effect of this Amendment is to repeal in various Acts provisions for a special procedure for the reception into mental hospitals of Service personnel discharged as of unsound mind. A process begun by the Mental Health Act, 1959, is thus completed for the whole of the United Kingdom. After this, Service personnel discharged because of mental disorder and detained in hospital will be dealt with under the appropriate legislation of the country concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 47 and insert ("Section three shall cease to have effect.
The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60)
In section fifty-five, in subsection (1), as it applies to Scotland, for the word 'lunacy' there shall be substituted the words 'mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
The Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 25)
In section thirty-four, as it applies to Scotland, for the words 'becomes lunatic' there shall be substituted the words 'is suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I should like to discuss this Amendment with No. 21. The latter part of No. 21 is again an alteration in the nomenclature. The rest of these Amendments gives patients in Northern Ireland who are receiving treatment for mental disorder the same protection from recall to the colours as will be afforded elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 8, at end insert ("or in a hospital or institution within the meaning of the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland), 1948,").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 10, at end add ("or, as the case may be, of the Northern Ireland Hospitals Authority.
The Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1949
(12 & 13 Geo. 6. c. 63)
In section nineteen, in subsection three, for the word 'insanity' there shall be substituted the words 'mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960'.
In the Fifth Schedule, for the word 'insanity', wherever occurring, there shall be substituted the words 'mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960; in paragraph 4, for the words 'upon an order or warrant being granted for the detention of a solicitor as a lunatic' there shall be substituted the words 'where in pursuance of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, a solicitor is, by reason of mental disorder, admitted to a hospital and becomes liable to be detained therein or becomes subject to guardianship,', for the words 'any such order or warrant remains in force' there shall be substituted the words 'he continues to be so liable or so subject', and in the proviso to the said paragraph, for the words 'the order or warrant ceases to be in force' there shall be substituted the words 'he ceases to be liable to be detained or subject to guardianship'.").— (Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 35, leave out ("and (3)") and insert (",(3) and (4)").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 6, leave out lines 6 to 11 and insert—
("The Army Act, 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz. 2. c. 18)
Section sixteen shall cease to have effect.
The Air Force Act, 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz. 2. c. 19)
Section sixteen shall cease to have effect."). —(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 18, at end insert—

("47 & 48 Viet. c. 46.

The Naval Enlist merit Act, 1884.

Section three.")

—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 105, line 10, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert ("Section sixteen".).—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 105, line 16, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 and insert ("Section sixteen").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 105, line 21, at end insert—

("3 & 4 Eliz. 2. c.20

The Revision of the Army and Air Force Acts (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1955.

In the Second Schedule, paragraph 2 (entry relating to the Naval Enlistment Act, 1884); sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 14; sub-paragraph 18." —(Lord Craigton.)

—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 105, line 54, column 3, leave out from ("II") to the end of line 58 and insert ("the amendments to the Naval Enlistment Act, 1884, the Army Act, 1955, the Air Force Act. 1955, and the Revision of the Army and Air Force Acts (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1955")—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

ROAD TRAFFIC AND ROADS IMPROVEMENT BILL
4.8 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Punishment without prosecution of offences in connection with lights, reflectors, obstruction, &c.
Enforcement and Administration of traffic Laws
I.—(1) This section shall apply to any offence created by or under an enactment and punishable on summary conviction, being an offence committed in respect of a vehicle—

(a) by its being left or parked on a road without the lights or reflectors required by law; or

(b) by its obstructing a road, or waiting, or being left or parked, or being loaded or unloaded, in a road; or

Provided that this section shall extend only to such areas as the Secretary of State may by order specify, and he may by order exclude the application of this section to any offence.
(2) Where a constable finds a person on any occasion and has reason to believe that on that occasion he is committing or has committed an offence to which this section applies, he may give him the prescribed notice in writing offering the option of payment of a fixed penalty under this section without prosecution for that offence; and no person shall then be liable to be convicted of that offence if the fixed penalty is paid in accordance with this section before the date on which proceedings are begun.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "road" to insert:
"during the hours of darkness (as defined by the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957)".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment which stands in my name is one that I undertook to move at Committee stage, having accepted the principle of an Amendment moved at the time by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The principle was quite acceptable. It was a question of being certain that the words of the Amendment were sufficiently precise for the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after "road" insert the said words.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for inserting the words he has, because he has done precisely what I wanted. As

159
he might have told your Lordships, the hours of darkness as defined by the Road Transport Lighting Act are a regulated time, after sunset and before sunrise. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think the Amendment has cleared up a slight anomaly, and I am happy to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.10 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
"(b) by its waiting in a road or being left or parked or being loaded or unloaded in a road, contrary to directions given by a traffic sign or by carriageway markings; or".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment of substance. I cannot help regretting that, although the noble Lord opposite has met me in many Amendments—I think I can say almost all of them—that I withdrew for his consideration, he could not go so far as to meet me on this one. This is a matter of great principle, and I want to explain to your Lordships what the principle is. I shall be as brief as I can. I think the best way I can do it is by reading to your Lordships precisely what the noble Lord said on Second Reading of this Bill and also upon the first day of the Committee stage. These are the noble Lord's own words [OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 224 (No. 91), col. 408]:
"Under Clause 1 it is proposed to introduce a standard penalty for certain minor offences in which there is no doubt of guilt."
In saying that, the noble Lord only repeated in precise language what all the Government spokesmen had said during the passage of the Bill through another place. Obviously, there was no intention to apply the ticket system of punishment to any offence which was in any way disputable.
He went on to say to me across the Table—I quote his words from Col. 983 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of July 4:
"I am quite prepared to give him an undertaking that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, when he makes the first Order applying the ticket system to London, will exclude from it, under the powers he has in the proviso to Clause 1 (1), the offence of obstruction."
That is why in this Amendment, standing in the name of myself and my noble friend Lord Silkin, I have taken out the
160
word "obstruction". I will explain why I have done that. First of all, in having a car waiting or being left or parked or being loaded or unloaded in a road, there arises a question of fact. That is self-evident. But obstruction can never be a question of fact. Your Lordships will see that among the ordinary grounds for prosecution for obstruction as set out in Regulation 89 of the Construction and Use Regulations 1955, No. 1482, it says this:
"No person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer shall cause or permit a motor vehicle or trailer to stand on a road so as to cause any unnecessary obstruction thereon."
"Unnecessary" is a matter of opinion and not a question of fact.
Then, if your Lordships would look at Section 16 of the 1960 Act, you will see that it says:
"If a person in charge of a vehicle causes or permits the vehicle or a trailer drawn thereby to remain at rest on a road in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger to other persons using the road, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months."
That is the top and the bottom of the law of obstruction. It can be a minor offence, or it may be a really serious one for which a sentence of imprisonment can be inflicted.
The noble Lord has met me on one point in a subsequent Amendment, when he has said that a traffic warden cannot issue a ticket for obstruction; so that clears that away. But I maintain that to leave obstruction in the ticket system is going against what the noble Lord said when he referred to there being "no doubt of guilt". And it is not a minor offence; it can be a most serious offence. He is not really putting into effect what he undertook when saying that
"the Home Secretary, when he makes the first Order applying the ticket system to London, will exclude from it, under the powers he has in the proviso to Clause 1 (1) the offence of obstruction."
This question of obstruction is a serious one. I suppose that no prosecution for obstruction is brought that is not resented in the vast majority of cases by the vehicle owner. It is the cause of all the bad blood—what bad blood there

161
is—between the motorist and the police. I say, quite frankly, that not only is the Bill as it stands not carrying out the expressed intention of the Government to remove obstruction from the ticket system, but that obstruction should not be dealt with by means of a penalty of £2, because in some cases obstruction can be a most serious matter. That is my ease for removing obstruction from this Bill.
I have left in the words that I had in my Amendment on the Committee stage, namely:
"by its waiting in a road, or being left or parked or being loaded or unloaded in A road, contrary to directions given by a traffic sign or by carriageway markings."
The basis of that is that we must try to snake the traffic laws of this country understandable to the ordinary individual. They are not now. An offence of waiting, parking, loading or unloading, or the words that are in this Amendment and are in the original clause, can only be self evident; there can be no doubt of guilt, only if it happens within a clearly defined area which is quite open for observation by the public. In point of fact, the law upon which the Government rely is contained in the Road Traffic Act, 1960. If your Lordships have in your possession a copy of that Act you will see that Section 14 says—I should like to read it because it is important:
"Where a police constable is for the time being engaged in the regulation of traffic in a road, or where a traffic sign, being a sign of the prescribed size, colour and type, or of another character authorised by the appropriate Minister under the provisions in that behalf of this Act, has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who

(a) neglects… to stop… when directed… by the police constable… or

(b) fails to comply with the indication given by the sign,"

and the provision goes on to say, later:
"and where the indication mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection is of the general nature only of the prohibition, restriction or requirement to which the sign relates a person shall not be convicted of failure to comply with the indication unless he has failed to comply with the said prohibition, restriction or requirement."
So the law as it stands to-day is that a person cannot be convicted in respect of a vehicle waiting, being left parked, or loaded or unloaded on any road where
162
there is not a clearly defined sign. That is my interpretation of Section 14 of this Road Traffic Act. Is it not right then, when we are dealing with a new system of issuing tickets for these offences, that we should, in all common sense, put in
"contrary to directions given by a traffic sign or by carriageway markings"?
If I went on to talk for twice the length of time I do not think I could make that any clearer. I believe it is the sense of the House that we do not mind traffic wardens giving tickets in properly prescribed areas, but not in any area. But I believe I am voicing the opinion of the majority in the House in saying that we object to a ticket being given for obstruction by either a policeman or a traffic warden, because where action is taken on obstruction it should be taken by a policeman in the proper process of prosecution. I hope, therefore, that I have explained the reason for my Amendment and that your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.23 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am really very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, although he may be a little surprised that I am. The Amendment he has now put down has clarified a situation which I believe was badly in need of clarification. Although his previous Amendment, in effect, only moved obstruction out of the Bill by rendering any powers powerless, so to speak, his Amendment to-day makes it quite clear that he now wants to move obstruction out of the Bill. I am sorry that in our consultations we did not get further. I am going to claim that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has recognised, I have gone a considerable way to meet the wishes of your Lordships on this. I say the issue needed clarification because when we discussed this point in Committee last Monday, the matter became inextricably confused between whether offences of obstruction should be "ticketable" (if I may use such a horrid word) and whether traffic wardens should issue tickets for such offences. I believe a careful study of Hansard will prove my point that confusion arose.

163
The main point of difference between the noble Lord and myself in our discussion was a difference of assessment of the feelings of the Committee in this matter. The noble Lord, as he has stated, took the view that your Lordships were worried about obstruction being a ticket-able offence. I took the view, which I still hold, that the Committee were worried about traffic wardens giving tickets for the offence of obstruction; and that is the basis upon which I have rested my view. Certainly the majority of noble Lords who spoke voiced opinions on the traffic warden aspect, and expressed misgivings and concern upon that.
We believe that we shall be able to recruit wardens of good character and ability. At the same time, I can understand that your Lordships would probably prefer to see what kind of men we get before accepting that the power to issue tickets for offences of obstruction should be granted to them; and that we should first see how they get on in the use of the ticket system for the simpler type of parking offences. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, specifically asked for this to be done. He was supported by my noble friends, Lord Hawke and Lord Waleran. Therefore, when we come to Clause 2, I am proposing to move an Amendment which will state quite specifically that the first Order made by the Secretary of State under Clause 2 (3)—that is, the Order which will be subject only to Negative Resolution procedure—cannot prescribe for wardens the duty of issuing tickets for obstruction.
Under paragraph (b) of that subsection, when the Secretary of State decides (if he comes to that conclusion) that the time is ripe to make an Order permitting wardens to operate the ticket system, that Order becomes subject to the Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. That is exactly what was asked for. Your Lordships will therefore have ample opportunity to discuss the question properly before that provision comes into effect. Traffic wardens, therefore, are out of the consideration that we are now giving to this matter and I do not propose to mention them again. Until a later stage, when the House gives approval by Affirmative Resolution, they are not to operate the ticket system for offences of obstruction. We can, if necessary, discuss the Amendment further when we
164
reach it, but I make that point now so that your Lordships may be perfectly clear on the position.
We are left with the straight issue of whether or not the regular police are to use the ticket system for offences of obstruction. In fact, the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, as he has said, goes rather further than that. Its effect is to omit obstruction altogether from offences which are ticketable. In addition, as he has explained, it provides that the ticket system can be used for offences under specific regulations restricting parking only if the nature of those offences is stated in traffic signs or carriageway markings. If necessary, I will state later my objections to this aspect of his Amendment; but for the moment I want to deal entirely with the question of exclusion of obstruction from the list of ticketable offences.
I believe we should think for a moment about the functions of the Bill. One of its primary or major functions—in this part at any rate—is to get the streets cleared for smooth and safe circulation of traffic by means of effective and speeded-up enforcement of the existing laws about parking, waiting and so on. There is a secondary result which arises from all this: by the ticket system we lighten considerably the load on the police. Not only is it lightened by wardens, which is another matter, but there will be a considerable reduction in the administrative work of the police if they use tickets; and it is most important to bear that point in mind.
I want to assess what is the size of the problem. In the Metropolitan Police district obstruction accounts for over 50 per cent. of all the parking offences—the static offences, one might call them—which are dealt with by prosecution or by caution. I do not want to produce a lot of figures, but in 1958 there were, in round terms, 27.000 summonses issued for obstruction, as against 17.000 for all other parking and waiting offences put together. In 1959 it had gone up to 37,000 for obstruction, and parking and waiting offences had gone up to 20,000. So those figures, I think, prove what I say about the seriousness of the problem.
I appreciate that obstruction is distinguishable from the other offences, because it is not in the same sense self-evident. I agree there, and that is one

165
reason why I am going on to talk about the delayed start, and I shall be returning to what the noble Lord said about my earlier words. But, despite the question of bad blood and resentment, and so on, caused by obstruction, it is a fact, as I said before in Committee, that 90 per cent. of those charged with obstruction plead guilty by post and do not contest the matter in court. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the Committee stage, said that the fact that this was so did not mean at all that they were confessing guilt but merely that they did not wish to hang about the court, or they wanted to take a cheap way out, or some reason like that. I myself thought that he was being over cynical, but he may possibly be to a certain extent right. It does not matter in this case whether he is right or whether he is not, because the offender remains in exactly the same position with the ticket system as he did before. What we are doing is speeding up the process of clearing the streets of obstruction and, as I said, reducing the load on the police, which is very desirable, as your Lordships have said on many occasions.
The noble Lord and critics of the clause as it stands have argued that a motorist ought not to be prosecuted for a parking offence unless it is made clear to him where he may park and where he may not; and since, also, there may be room for argument as to whether he has caused an obstruction or not, that the ticket system should not be used for it. This is, I think, in substance, a criticism more of the existing law relating to obstruction than of Clause 1. I know perfectly well that it is convenient and desirable for a motorist to know where he may park and where he must not; and we shall certainly try to make additional specific regulations wherever possible so that there is not room for doubt. But there is a practical limit to the extent to which specific regulations can be used.
It is perfectly easy and all right to make regulations in some circumstances—and, let us face it, it is widely done to-day. They are applicable certainly to main roads and to areas which are constantly liable to become congested, such as shopping centres and so on, but outside those areas one does not want to impose on the lighter-used streets and residential areas a lot of restrictions which will be quite unnecessary for a lot
166
of the time. In some areas and sonic streets parking may cause obstruction on only, maybe, Saturday afternoons, or, as my noble friend Lord Teviot pointed out, only at certain times of day—in the rush hour or something like that. Wherever we draw the perimeter of an area covered by specific regulations, there will always be another area beyond it in which obstruction may occur, and, if so, it can be serious and must be checked.
We want to introduce the ticket system for obstruction because we believe that it is necessary if there is going to be adequate enforcement. In the light of the figures for the prosecutions over the last two years, which I have just mentioned, and of what I said on the limits and extent to which we can physically make use of specific no-parking regulations, we shall have to continue to rely on enforcement of the law relating to obstruction to maintain the free flow of traffic, which is what everybody wants. I believe that we really need to retain the provision for the regular police to use the ticket system for obstruction when this system has proved its worth for the simpler types of parking offence.
I spoke on Second Reading, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has drawn attention to what I said. I talked about self-evident offences and the desirability of using tickets only for them. I have to-day laid stress on the necessity for tickets for obstruction; but, at the same time, I recognise that, to begin with, it is better to keep to the self-evident offences. Later, when there is more experience of how the ticket system is 'working, offences of obstruction—tickets to be served, of course, by constables only—can be brought in. I do not think that there is anything very inconsistent between what I am suggesting now and what I said on Second Reading about introducing the system solely for the other offences and bringing obstruction in later on.
I should like to repeat to your Lordships the undertaking that I gave on the Committee stage, and I would, perhaps, even venture to remind your Lordships that undertakings of Ministers are not just lightly given; nor do they merit being lightly brushed aside. The undertaking I gave, and which I repeat, was that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, when he makes the first

167
Order extending Clause 1 to the metropolitan stipendiary courts area (which, in short, is London), will exclude the application of the clause to obstruction. This will mean that, at the beginning of the ticket system, neither constables nor wardens will be able to use it for obstruction. It will be possible, when we have experience of how the ticket system works, to empower constables to use it for obstruction, by an Order of the Secretary of State, which will be subject to Negative Resolution procedure. But my right honourable friend has no intention of doing so until the system has been given a thorough trial; and, in any event, the Order would be subject to annulment by either House.
May I finally summarise the joint effect of the Government Amendment to Clause 2 and the undertaking which I have given as to Clause 1? The position when the Bill came into force would be this: the ticket system would be available in the metropolitan stipendiary courts area—that is what we generally know as London—in respect of the offences mentioned in Clause 1, subsection (1), other than obstruction. Neither wardens nor constables would be able to issue tickets for obstruction, and drivers who committed the offence of obstruction would be dealt with as they are at present. If the ticket system is found, as we believe it will be found, to work well, my right honourable friend, by an Order subject to Negative Resolution procedure, could make it available, for use by constables only, for obstruction—and, as I have said, either House could pray against it.
I hope your Lordships will agree that the Amendment to Clause 2 which I have put down, together with the undertaking I have just repeated as clearly as I can, go a very considerable way to meet the points of view expressed on both sides of the House on Committee stage. If this compromise proves, as I hope it will prove, generally acceptable, I will invite the noble Lord not to press the Amendment which we are now considering. I have no desire to lengthen this debate any more, but if he did press it I should have to ask for permission to speak again in order to deal with the practical difficulties which this Amendment would create in respect of the offences other
168
than obstruction—that is, the "No waiting" and similar regulations. I think that what I have suggested is entirely reasonable and in accordance with the feeling of the House, and I believe that your Lordships will agree with my views on this Amendment.
4.43 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords. I rise to support my noble friend Lord Chesham on this occasion, because I am on record as having disapproved very strongly of extending the powers of traffic wardens to deal with obstruction, and I want to make my position quite clear. I have objected to that; I do object to that, and I have little doubt that in the future, after this scheme has been tried out, I shall still object to traffic wardens dealing with cases of Obstruction. But what the Minister is asking in the case of police constables is, I believe, reasonable.
First, permission will not be given for the ticket system to be used by a constable for obstruction offences until the ticket system has been tried out. That, I think, is important. Secondly, it is quite obvious that, not only where obstruction is a very serious offence but even where it is a moderately serious offence, we who break the law, if we do it in that way, will not get a ticket. I should hope that, if I caused a serious case of obstruction, I would get a ticket, but I am afraid that I should be prosecuted. In the case of what we might almost call a technical obstruction, I think it will save the time of the police and of the motorist if tickets are given; and, if one has an objection to a ticket, one can do what I did on the only occasion on which I was "run in" for obstruction. I was annoyed because I thought that the charge was unreasonable, so I went to court; and got off. But if I had not thought it very unreasonable, I should willingly have accepted a ticket and, speaking for myself, should have been glad that I was not prosecuted.
I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with whom I agree on most of these matters, is putting the case a bit too high. I think this power should be given to the Minister. I do not believe that it will be unfair to the motorist. It will not only ease the burden of the police, but may

169
well ease the burden of the motorist. If I were summoned for obstruction today, I Should be a little doubtful whether I was wise not to go to court, whereas if I was given a ticket I should know I need not do so; and, if I had committed an offence of obstruction, I would prefer a ticket. I suggest, my Lords, that we ought to support the noble Lord, Lord Chestham, in this matter.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I am very glad to be able on this occasion to support my noble friend. I sometimes am afraid that he must wonder whether I am not becoming a persistent renegade. I hesitate to question the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with his tremendous road experience, but he must remember two things. First of all, a constable is not forced to give a ticket. Subsection (2), as he will see, merely says that he "may give him the prescribed notice". Therefore, if he finds a very severe case which he considers worthy of a much higher fine, he need not give a ticket. Secondly, of course, there is the fact, as my noble friend Lord Chesham said, that this really is not doing anything at all to alter the law except to save a lot of paper work for the police, for which I am sure they, and we, should be most grateful.
As the law stands at present, a constable can always use his own judgment as to whether or not a car is causing obstruction. He has to do so, of course; and whether he decides to issue a ticket or whether he decides to prosecute does not seem to me to make much difference. So far as the ticket is concerned, it will be accepted, of course, only by those who, as my noble friend Lord Derwent has just said, are quite convinced that they are guilty. It will be very easy for them just to pay the standard fine. If they are convinced that they are innocent, then under the ticket system they will still be perfectly free to go to court and contest their case. So I cannot honestly see that this is going to do very much harm, and. I personally support the argument nut forward by my noble friend Lord Chesham.
LORD GRENFELL: I also should like to support my noble friend. The first point we have to keep well in mind is that this Bill is not only to keep the traffic moving but also to keep the police moving, if I may put it in that way—to
170
keep them on the beat, rather than standing around, having to watch carefully every car that stops, wherever it may be. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said that some of these cases of obstruction may be so serious that they might even warrant imprisonment. In that case, we must remember that the regular police, if I may so call them, are trained to decide in their own minds between what are serious cases and what are not serious cases. Of course, in a serious case they would not give a ticket but would prosecute in the normal way. I feel convinced that this system, when eventually it has proved itself, should be given to the regular police, just as much as I feel convinced that it should not be given to the wardens who, after all, will not be so carefully trained as the police. I support most strongly my noble friend Lord Chesham in this matter.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I feel sure that the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, ought to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. So far as I am concerned, it goes further than I should like to see it go. I greatly believe in and welcome the wardens, for I believe that, under any terms of pay or conditions of service, there is no chance that sufficient young men will be forthcoming to be recruited into the police for this particular job.
If there is going to be no ticketing by police or wardens, there seem to me to be only two alternatives. One is to cover every road in the country with signs as parking or non-parking areas. Incidentally, that would greatly reduce the parking areas, and would lead to great complication over occasional congestion and loading and unloading. The second is, as at present, to limit the number of prosecutions for obstruction according to the ability of the police to spare the time to appear in court to deal with them. The first of these alternatives seems most unwise and the second would completely hamstring the Bill. And I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, wishes to hamstring this Bill. I would entrust to the wardens the leaving of tickets for obstruction, but I understand the reluctance to do so, and I think that it would be right to wait until there has been more experience of the system. But I believe that it is vital to give this power to the

171
policeman very soon, because the Bill is going to be useless until the police get it. I hope that there may be some loophole by which, if the traffic wardens appear satisfactory in every other respect, this power can be extended to them in due course.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said, and say that I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I deplore the fact that wardens will not be granted power to give tickets for obstruction, although I agree that they should be given that power only after it has been given to the police. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, I regret that the police will not be empowered to give tickets for obstruction. I think that it has been proved in a number of countries over the last 30 years that the ticket system is indispensable in regulating parking and the flow of traffic. There is one aspect of the system which I should like to mention, because it may go a little way to please the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with regard to his Amendment concerning obstruction. I have a copy of an ordinance of a city in Kentucky which provides for the impounding of vehicles parked in violation of the law. Under this, the offence of obstruction can be committed only if a vehicle is unoccupied. This is Commercial Ordinance No. 25 of 1957, passed on May 25, 1957. It says:
"Any vehicle parked upon the streets of the city at a place, in a manner and for a length of time prohibited by this ordinance is, if unoccupied, declared to be an obstruction on such streets and a public nuisance."
If your Lordships do not wish to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, I wonder whether the Government would consider amending the Bill in such a manner that obstruction would take place only if a vehicle was unoccupied. In other words, a police officer could not give a ticket for obstruction if a vehicle was occupied. Perhaps the noble Lord would look into this point and deal with it at a later date.
4.55 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments on this Amendment, as I listened to a similar discussion on Committee stage. While not having anything like the
172
detailed knowledge of the Bill of the noble Lord in charge of it, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I am not at all sure that the suggestion now made by the Minister is not to some extent going to defeat the object of the Bill. As I understand it, the noble Lords. Lord Chesham and Lord Lucas of Chilworth, are using obstruction in a technical sense, as something that can be punished under a definition in another Act, not in this Bill. It is difficult to see how anybody who is loading or unloading a vehicle in a road, unless it is a cul-de-sac, can be guilty of anything but obstruction. If a man is unloading a 3-ton vehicle, he must be obstructing the road. As I understand it, that is a purely technical offence. I think that it is going to cause a great deal of difficulty to those who have to interpret this Statute. Could it not be made more clear? I leave this, for the moment, merely warning the Government that it is going to cause a lot of "headaches" to magistrates and others, if they have to interpret this without any interpretation in the Bill.
My second point is more important. The Government have produced this Bill in order to keep the traffic flowing, and are introducing the system of tickets and wardens for this purpose. If a warden feels that a more serious offence than mere waiting is being committed, then there is an element of obstruction in it. Why cannot he give a ticket? I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is right on this point. We are going to have the extraordinary position that a person who waits in a road for a short space of time and who does not technically commit an obstruction will immediately have a ticket presented to him by a warden and will be fined automatically, whereas a man who commits a serious obstruction—unless a policeman happens to come along (and there are many areas where it takes a long time for a policeman to come along, particularly when you want him), sees the obstruction and makes a case—is going to get away with it altogether. There will be no case because the warden cannot give the man a ticket for obstruction. The warden will either have to wait until a policeman happens to come along or he will have to give the motorist a ticket for something that is not technically obstruction.

173
Would it not be better to deal with this matter in a reasonable way? We have set up this system of wardens. Let them act and give tickets for any of the offences that are mentioned in the Bill. If a person who has been given a ticket thinks it should not have been presented to him, he has his right under the Bill to take the case before the court and have it tried there. What do we risk? If we accept the Government's proposal, we hamstring the Bill. These wardens will be so frightened that it may be a question of obstruction that in borderline cases they will be afraid to give a ticket at all; or, if they give a ticket in cases where it is really obstruction, the man will be getting away with a minor offence when he ought to be charged with a more serious one.
What do we risk if we allow the wardens to do as they should do under the Bill? All we shall risk is that someone who is not going to bother to take the proceedings open to him under the Bill may be charged with obstruction—and he may have committed obstruction—merely on the ticket of the warden and not of a police officer. I feel, in those circumstances, that if we want to keep the streets free and to keep the traffic flowing we should take the bull by the horns and give the power to the wardens straight away, and not wait for an undisclosed period. That will avoid chaos; it will avoid unfairness and it will enable the Bill straight away to be brought into effect, as I believe it ought to be.
LORD SPENS: My Lords, I have listened to all the discussions on this Bill on all its stages, and had I still been in another place as the representative for South Kensington I should undoubtedly have taken a very active part. I cannot let the Bill pass, and particularly this Amendment, without saying a word or two on it, particularly in regard to that part of the Metropolitan Area. The Bill creates no new offences whatsoever. The situation at present is that anybody who obstructs a road—and there are hundreds, if not thousands, who do so every day in Kensington—can be dealt with only by a police constable, who has either to give him a warning there and then or to summon him. Obstruction is a matter of opinion, but in many cases it is a quite obvious and patent offence. In a number of cases it is an offence
174
which the accused very often denies, and he thinks fit to go to court. But as the situation is at present, if the police want to take action in respect of a patent offence they have to go through all the procedure of issuing a summons to a person. I have not been guilty of the offence of obstruction; and on the two occasions when I have been summoned, the summons only reached me weeks after the offence was committed. My convenience was not consulted, of course, as to the day on which the case should be heard, and I was one of the many people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred on the Committee stage who preferred to send a letter and accept the fine (which was I think £2 on each occasion) rather than go to court.
It seems to me that the object of the Bill is to get rid of obstruction on the highways so as to keep the traffic flowing. I can only tell your Lordships that although after the Cromwell Road was broadened and opened the traffic flowed, and still flows, well, one still finds constantly that there is obstruction where there are bottlenecks—obstruction which does most serious damage and is a patent offence. I cannot believe that it is not highly desirable that the police should be given as soon as possible the right to give tickets in cases which are obvious cases of obstruction. While I absolutely support everything the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has said, my only hope is that the present system will come to an end fairly soon; that the police will be allowed to apply the ticket system, which I am sure they will only do in obvious cases—I think that will make an enormous difference to the flow of traffic—and that in due course trained wardens may be given the same powers. Only in that way, I believe, will the object of the Bill be achieved.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, like a good many other members of the Committee I have been impressed by the reasonableness of the case put by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill; and like everybody else, I suppose I am a motorist who has some concern for the position of the other motorists who may be charged with an offence. While the discussion has been going on I have been exercising my mind as to where the balance of advantage lies in securing that

175
the motorist will not be improperly fined, or even imprisoned, for an offence which he is alleged to have committed. I think, in the first instance, there can be no argument at this stage, at all events, against the warden system as a system. First of all, it is in operation in quite a number of countries. I have seen it in operation in New Zealand where, upon an inquiry, I was quite satisfied that the system operated fairly. It is not at this stage a matter of argument as to whether the system ought or ought not to be introduced in this country. The real point of argument is: what are the offences for which this system can be used?—and that is the point in front of us now.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, feels strongly that obstruction should be kept out, and, in passing, I think we must all be impressed by his vigilance and his desire to see that the dice is not loaded against the motorist or that offences are committed in ignorance of what the regulations or the law may provide. The Minister has said in substance, that for a time obstruction will be eliminated from the offences on which prosecution can take place. That is what I understood him to say—I hope that I am right.
LORD DERWENT: In the case of the giving of tickets.
LORD CITRINE: I am referring, of course, to the ticket system. Obstruction remains an offence under the law and the offender can be proceeded against, as at present, by prosecution; that is quite clear. I was really addressing my remarks entirely to the option of issuing a ticket to the alleged offender in a case of obstruction. At the present time the motorist has no alternative at all; he has to go to court whether he likes it or not—or, at any rate, he has to go to court unless he likes to send a letter and plead guilty, which is not usually the best course for a man who feels that he is not guilty of the offence to adopt.
The reason why so much emphasis has been put by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on this point, as I understand it, is that obstruction is one of the arguable cases. A constable may allege that obstruction has been created, and
176
the motorist may feel strongly that it has not, and may prefer to go to court. I cannot see that that position is altered very much. If the ticket system is in operation, the constable, if he feels so disposed, can offer a ticket to the alleged offender; and if the offender feels that he is not guilty he will do the obvious thing and say: No fear! I will go to `court and argue this thing through." There, so far as I see it, is the first safeguard. Surely we all recognise that, on the balance of what I would call administrative convenience, there should be an alternative given to the motorist, apart altogether from the question of the administrative burden on the police. It is the fact, too, that probably in the realm of motoring offences more bad blood is created between the police and the public; and that factor, also, would be abated, in my opinion, by the incorporation of this ticket system.
But there still remains the point as to whether it should be exercised for the offence of obstruction. If there is a period allowed by which first the working of the ticket system is permitted, with the temporary exclusion of obstruction as one of the offences, we shall get a chance to see how the whole thing is going.
If it is thought that obstruction should be introduced into the ticket system, then, as I understand it, regulations will come before this House. That is right, is it not—a regulation will be brought to this House if it is proposed to introduce obstruction into the ticket system? Surely that is what the noble Lord has said.
LORD CHESHAM: That Order would be subject to Negative Resolution.
LORD CITRINE: That is to say, we say "No" to it. But it comes before us, and we can argue the merits of it. Surely that is right?
LORD CHESHAM: We pray against it.
LORD CITRINE: I am not sure of the degree of piety which my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has, but I feel sure that he would be one of those to make a Prayer if he thought that the introduction was wrong.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask whether this is new procedure; because in the past the Labour Party have never prayed in this way, so far as I am aware.
LORD CITRINE: I do not know whether one prays or not. That is a matter for individual conscience. I do not suppose there is any Party discipline imposed.
LORD OGMORE: But there is, and there always has been. I am asking whether the noble Lord is telling the House that the Labour Party are going to have a new procedure.
LORD CITRINE: What the noble Lord is telling the House is that he will speak freely on those matters where he thinks the merits of the case justify it. I think the safeguards are reasonable, and I see no personal objection to the view which has been put forward by the Minister regarding those safeguards.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if you will not think I am being disrespectful, may I say that I think that this debate has taken one of the most amusing turns that I have ever experienced in your Lordships' House. I will tell your Lordships why. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for his most lucid explanation. If he will not think me impertinent, I congratulate him, because it is the first time I have really understood what the Government view was. But in that explanation, and telling us what the Minister or the Home Secretary intend to do in future, there is not one word of what is set out in this Bill. This is the amusing part. If the noble Lord's right honourable friends bring regulations to this House in the form I anticipate, you will find me taking the 'advice of my noble friend and praying against them, because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that it is just—if I can use a vulgarism which I hope your Lordships will not mind—kicking the "guts" out of this Bill.
I have been labouring under a great difficulty. I must say this with respect. If Government spokesmen in another place had not been bending over backwards to assure everybody that they were not really going to do anything very terrible, and that this was only for very minor offences—and even the noble
178
Lord himself used language like that—I should not have taken all the trouble I have, because all I want to do is to try to interpret what the Government want to do. I do not want to cut down punishment for obstruction by the smallest extent. Obstruction is one of the biggest curses we have on the roads of this country. But, as I have tried to point out, obstruction is an arguable thing. I have always been taught that one of the basic principles of British justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. It has been blown out of the window by the ticket system. The noble Lord can contradict me when I am finished. If I leave my car for five minutes while I go into a shop, I can get a ticket for obstruction. It is the only ticket I can have outside a signed area. If I leave my car in a dangerous position which might put the life and limb of a pedestrian in danger, I can get a ticket for £2. The noble Lord himself said that a policeman can give me a ticket, and that one of the objects of this Bill is to save the policeman's time and paper work. The policeman can give me a ticket, and that is supposed to save a lot of time. I should think that that would be the natural inclination of the police.
It will be, if they take the views noble Lords have expressed, because this is where I 'have been able to understand what the noble Lord has been driving at. Would he tell me whether I am right, because I think this is in essence what he said? I will use my own words. The interpretation of "waiting, parking, being left, loading and unloading" is embodied in the Road Traffic Act, 1960. No motorist can be convicted of any of those crimes (I will call them) if he commits them outside a signed area. So the only alternative the police have is to bring a prosecution for obstruction for any one of those offences outside a signed area. The noble Lord said that, in effect, and I understand it, and I do not know that I disagree with it. Because you cannot or will not designate where a man cannot park his car to the satisfaction of the Act, it is necessary to have obstruction under the ticket system

179
in this Bill. Put like that, I do not know that I disagree.
But do not let us delude ourselves that in agreeing to this Bill we are carrying out what the noble Lord and his ministerial colleagues have said. Some of these offences need not be trivial offences. I maintain that we are making such a departure from recognised practice of having standard fines to fit any type of road offence—parking, waiting, obstruction and anything else—that experience will teach us that we are making a mistake. I am not going to labour this matter any longer. I am rather amused by the lack of support I have had on this stage of the proceedings, when I was overwhelmed with support on the other stage. And the Amendment is precisely the same. But noble Lords opposite have a habit of changing their minds—I do not blame them for it; they are at perfect liberty to do so—
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? What impressed me was this question of traffic wardens being taken out by a later Amendment. It certainly altered my view.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I just do not agree with the noble Lord. Many noble Lords argued the case against obstruction being a ticketable offence. One of the difficulties in which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and the Minister of Transport find themselves is that although you have hundreds and thousands of "No waiting", "No parking", "No loading or unloading" signs you have never yet seen a sign "No obstruction". That is the basic difficulty, and that is why I agree, after listening attentively to the noble Lord, that you must have the power of ticketing for obstruction, because if you did not you would be so hamstrung that you would not be able to do a thing outside a signed area. My intrepretation is correct is it not? If that had been said first of all, it would have saved us a lot of time. At the start of the scheme all that is going away, so what the wardens will do with their tickets and what the police will do with their tickets remains to be seen.
180
However, it has been most interesting. I think that for the first time since I have been in this House the traffic law of this country as it affects these offences of parking has, if I may be allowed to say so, been intelligently discussed, and it is far clearer now to everybody what is the law and what is not the law. I shall now reserve any fire that I have left on this matter for the regulations when the noble Lord brings them forward. I want him to consider one thing, if he will. The London regulations will be by the Negative Resolution procedure. If the regulations are extended outside London they would have to be by the Affirmative Resolution procedure, and even relating to London after October 1 they have also to be by the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
LORD CHESHAM: I am not completely following the noble Lord. Is he talking about obstruction now as a ticketable offence, or wardens; because they are different?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am talking about both. The Minister does not have to make an Order, now that obstruction will be taken out of this Bill for a temporary time; he simply does not make an Order to bring it in. He can do that in both ways, for any area and any type of offence. He can make that Order in any area in London and for any one of these offences. The proviso to subsection (1) of Clause 1 says:
"Provided that this section shall extend only to such areas as the Secretary of State may by order specify, and he may by order exclude the application of this section to any offence."
Subsection (11) says:
"The power of the Secretary of State to make orders or regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
That is the Negative Resolution procedure. I am quite agreeable to the original idea that up to October 1 he should have powers to proceed in the Negative Resolution way. But if the Minister can vastly extend what these Orders can contain, I think the noble Lord should give consideration to that point between now and the next stage.

181
The Minister by Order can really rule out the whole operation of this Bill as regards Clause 1. I rather thought that the list of things which the Minister is not going to do had that effect. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps when I read in Hansard what the noble Lord said, I shall find it is different. The noble Lord might give consideration to that point, as to whether it does not alter the outlook as regards the Negative Resolution procedure. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have been patient enough and willing enough to take part in this discussion, and with those remarks I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.26 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "offering" and to insert instead:
"the opportunity of the discharge of any liability to conviction of that offence by payment of a fixed penalty under this section; and no person shall then be liable to be convicted of that offence if the fixed penalty is paid in accordance with this section before the expiration of the twenty-one clays following the date of the notice or such longer period (if any) as may be specified therein or before the date on which proceedings are begun, whichever event last occurs."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 is a rather lengthy re-draft, which I move because the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, expressed himself at the Committee stage as not being particularly satisfied with the wording of the Bill at that particular point with regard to the question of the option which is referred to as being offered to a motorist if he receives a ticket. No doubt, I should think that in the overwhelming majority of cases, if the fixed penalty is not paid proceedings will be taken; and for practical purposes, therefore, I suppose one could say that the choice before the driver is to pay or be prosecuted. But the Bill does not commit the police to prosecute regardless of the circumstances, and there may be exceptional cases in which, after they have inquired into them, they will decide not to prosecute. Therefore, a more accurate description of the choice offered to the driver is that he might pay and so avoid any possibility of prosecution and conviction or he might do nothing and
182
run the risk of proceedings being taken against him if the police think fit.
In the clause as drafted "option" was the word used in order to make it quite clear that the person liable was not bound to pay the fixed penalty unless he wished. It is arguable—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, made the point in Committee—that the word "option" is not entirely appropriate here. More precisely what is offered is the opportunity to compound, or perhaps in more explicit words to discharge, the liability to be convicted of the offence by payment of a fixed penalty, and this is what the Amendment does. It is a more precise statement of what the effect is than what was in the previous draft. The liability to conviction which would have been discharged by payment remains if there is no payment. But it is a liability and not a certainty. I hope that this makes it clear to the satisfaction of noble Lords who wanted it in this way. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out from ("offering") to end of line 13, and insert the said new words. —(Lord Chesham.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Once again, I express my thanks to the noble Lord for meeting the point I made. He has put in "offering" because I objected to "option". That, I think, is much better and it sets the point out concisely. I think it is a better Amendment than the next one, which is in my name, and I would accept it and advise the House to accept it; and when we come to the next Amendment I shall not move it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the next four Amendments in my name, Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9, are all drafting Amendments made necessary in consequence of the acceptance of Amendment No. 4. I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, leave out from ("may") to end of line 19 and insert ("have been specified therein").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("of the option given by the notice") and insert ("during which, by virtue of subsection (3) of this section, proceedings will not be taken for the offence").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, at end, insert—
("(b) In subsection (2) the words 'before the expiration of the twenty-one days following the date of the notice or such longer period (if any) as may be specified therein or' and the words whichever event last occurs' shall be omitted.").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, at end insert ("and for the words 'have been' there shall be substituted the word be'.").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Traffic Wardens]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice of his intention to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "control and regulation of road traffic or with the enforcement of the law relating to road traffic" and insert:
"enforcement of parking regulations other than the enforcement of regulations relating to obstruction of the highway".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise only to say that I do not intend to move this Amendment, because I prefer the wording of Amendment No. 11 which is to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. I think he will say that he has drafted that Amendment and put it down to meet the point I made. So, with your Lordships' permission, I will not move this Amendment.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (3) (a), after "sixty" to insert:
", not being an order authorising the employment of a traffic warden for the purposes of section one of this Act in so far as it relates to a vehicle's obstructing a road,".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 is the one to which
184
I referred and which I undertook to put down in view of what appeared to me to be the desire of the House, whereby traffic wardens will not be able to operate the ticket system until such time as approval is given for them to do so by Affirmative Resolution in both Houses. Probably I need not go into this matter at any length. I think we have said quite a bit about it. I think it will come sooner; other noble Lords think it will come later; but we will deal with that when we come to it.
There is just one point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Derwent privately with me—namely, that as Orders are sometimes laid in batches, so to speak, it would be rather difficult to give one Order proper consideration. There would be no desire to throw it out—assuming noble Lords felt like doing that—if it was mixed up with a number of others that they wished to keep. My noble friend asked whether it would be possible for my right honourable friend to give an undertaking that such an Order would be laid singly. It is well known, I think, that no Government can bind its successors, but I am happy to give the undertaking on behalf of the present Government that such an Order will be moved singly. I do not think there is much more I need say. The noble Lord opposite has kindly said that he approves the wording of the Amendment, which I think does what your Lordships desired. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 32, after ("sixty") insert the said words.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for the undertaking that has been given on behalf of the present Government. Now that it is on the record I think it may well last for future Governments. I am grateful that this has been taken into the Affirmative Resolution procedure. There is always a little difficulty when one cannot turn out part of an Order and keep the rest. For the undertaking that has been given, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question before we part with this Amendment? I am probably being stupid, but I understood him to say, when dealing with the previous

185
Amendment, that the power to extend to wardens the ticket system for obstruction had been dropped out of the Bill in some way; yet here he is moving this Amendment, in which he seemed to refer to an Affirmative Resolution system in regard to that matter. Can he make quite clear, whether or not under this Bill it will be possible later to extend the power of wardens to give tickets for obstruction?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords; it definitely will. I think I must have chosen my words badly if I gave my noble friend the wrong impression. What I intended to convey was that the use by wardens of tickets for obstruction was removed from our consideration of the offence of obstruction this afternoon. I did not say the power had been removed from the Bill, because indeed it has not. The power is there all right, subject to Affirmative Resolution.
LORD HAWKE: I am grateful to my noble friend, who has allayed my fear.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, may I add my word of appreciation to the Minister for having met this point, upon which I am afraid I was rather outspoken the other day. I still should have preferred not to have obstruction included in the Bill at all; but one recognises that the Government have their difficulties in getting legislation through, and I personally feel that the assurances which we have received as to the limits within which this power may be introduced are adequate protection. I personally think that it never will be introduced; but we shall live to see that result.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12:
Amendment of s. 26 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960
12, In subsection (4) of section twenty-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, the words "if the restriction does not prevent loading or unloading for more than six hours in all in any consecutive period of twenty-four hours" shall cease lo have effect.
5.38 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved to leave out Clause 12. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I owe an apology to the House, in that I did not resist this new clause, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth on the Com-
186
mittee stage. Through no fault of my own, I was not able to be in the Chamber. Had I been here at that moment, I should not, however, have resisted it, because I am in sympathy with the aims behind it. But I think it goes a lot further than the noble Lord anticipated. I did not realise at the time the implications of what has happened, and I must say that, reading my OFFICIAL REPORT I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth was extremely surprised himself that it was accepted in that form straight away by Her Majesty's Government.
Clause 12 purports to alter a section of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. That Act was a Consolidation Act. I would ask your Lordships to throw your minds back to the Act which brought in the subject with which this section deals, which was the Road Traffic Act, 1956. Those of your Lordships who took part in it will remember that in the debate on that Bill in both Houses, two points came very much to the front—I am stating the points broadly. One was that reasonable access should be given to all premises. That point was much debated, and was agreed to by Parliament. There was the other side; that where a local authority produced regulations and an order for limiting loading and unloading, parking, or whatever it might be, in relation to the question of access there should not be unreasonable objection to the order of the local authority and/or the Minister. It was a question of adjusting the two sides so as to get a reasonable compromise; and in the London area, of course, the Minister has very much wider powers than the local authorities have in other areas.
As a method of compromise, in that Act—and it was repeated in Section 26 (4) of the Road Traffic Act. 1960 (the Consolidation Act)—two things were decided by this particular subsection (4). The subsection is in two parts. The first part says that:
"Subject to the next following subsection… no order shall be made under this section with respect to any road which would have the effect of preventing such access as may be reasonably required for vehicles of any class…"
Parliament insisted on that: there was much debate, and it was decided that there must be reasonable access. Dealing with the other side of the question, the

187
second part of the subsection, which was quite distinct, said:
"but for the purposes of this prohibition a restriction on the loading or unloading of goods"—
and it deals only with that aspect—
"shall in no circumstances be treated as preventing such access as may be reasonably required if the restriction does not prevent loading or unloading for more than six hours in all in any consecutive period of twenty-four hours."
The second part of this subsection (4):
"if the restriction does not prevent loading or unloading"
is part of the second part of this subsection, because the words:
"for the purposes of this prohibition a restriction on the loading or unloading of goods shall in no circumstances be treated …"
mean nothing apart from the proviso.
I think I know why the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and Her Majesty's Government wished to cut out those words:
"if the restriction does not prevent loading or unloading for more than six hours in all"
and so on; and I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Chesham and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that that provision has not worked satisfactorily. In London, where the Minister has powers, it will be found that the most successful of his regulations regarding loading and unloading have been those forbidding loading and unloading within very short distances in particular streets—perhaps a distance of 25 yards at the corner of a street leading into, say, Oxford Street or something of that kind. Nearly all the regulations imposed by the Minister have been on a length basis. Under the Acts of 1956 and 1960 a local authority outside the London area cannot do that. They can work only on the time basis. Although he did not say so, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, probably had that in mind; and I am certain that local authorities ought to have those powers.
As amended by this new Clause 12, the original section does not make sense. It reads:
"Subject to the next following subsection no order shall be made under this section with respect to any road which would have the effect of preventing such access as may be reasonably required for vehicles of any class "—
188
that is clear; and it goes on:
"but for the purposes of this prohibition a restriction on the loading or unloading of goods shall in no circumstances be treated as preventing such access as may be reasonably required ".
What, in fact, that now means, if it means anything at all, is that when a local authority come to make orders as to loading and unloading they need not take access into account at all. That is not what the basic Act said or meant. One has only to read the debates to see that. Clearly, in my view, Her Majesty's Government ought to put into the Bill an amendment giving local authorities the powers they want those authorities to have, but preserving the right of access, which is reasonable, and which is taken away by this new Clause 12.
When this point was originally debated in both Houses, in 1956, it was often stated that it could happen, and in certain matters does happen, that regulations and orders are made by a local authority (not by most local authorities but by some, occasionally) which are based not on the public interest but on local politics. It has always been argued, and it may be argued by my noble friend Lord Chesham this afternoon: "Ah! but should that happen?" There is first the public inquiry, which in this case is held under the orders of the local authority and by the local authority. The public inquiry is held, and the local authority are the jury and the judge. They would almost certainly maintain their original order, and this would go into force.
I am sure my noble friend will say, because it has been said by every Minister: "But there is power of appeal to the Minister if the local authority have acted unreasonably." I am not a lawyer, but I am advised that if this Clause 12 is included in its present form the Minister will not have the power of review. There will be power of appeal to the Minister but he will be legally bound by the Statute which says:
"for the purposes of this prohibition a restriction on the loading or unloading of goods shall in no circumstances be treated as preventing such access as may be reasonably required."
That is not what the original Act says, because there is the proviso. But if the

189
new clause goes in, the Minister will not have the power because the Statute says he must not take loading and unloading into account; and therefore the appeal to the Minister in practice is, or may be, of no effect.
I am not going to press this Amendment or divide the House on it to-day, for it was only on the Committee stage that the Government accepted this clause; but I feel that it should be looked at again, for it makes nonsense. What is more—and this is more important than anything—I am advised that if a local authority are unreasonable and play local polities, and the appeal to the Minister is on a ground of loading or unloading, the Minister, in fact, will have no legal power to alter the decision of the local authority. I may be put right about that, but that is what my legal advisers now advise me.
I would therefore ask Her Majesty's Government to do one of two things. First, I would ask them to have a look at this Clause again before Third Reading, to see if they can think of a form of words to be put in as an Amendment on the next stage, giving local authorities the power they want them to have but covering also reasonable right of access; because at the moment that is not covered in either the 1960 or the 1957 Acts. If Her Majesty's Government cannot find the words to do so—if that is too complicated—then I suggest that Clause 12 should be taken out by the Government, as I am not pressing this, and that on Third Reading an entirely new clause should be drafted to be tacked on to a Road Safety Bill—for it is part of road safety—which we understand the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport is to introduce in the autumn. But I should much prefer to see a proper Amendment put down by Her Majesty's Government on the Order Paper for the Third Reading. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 12.—(Lord Derwent.)
5.50 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord and the House that all these considerations were in my mind when I moved that Amendment. My advice is some-
190
what different from the noble Lord's. I have been advised by draftsmen that it is not nonsense; it is only a way to make sense. I think that the noble Lord is worried about two things: first of all, that local authorities who have this power may play politics. The only politics, in my experience, that local authorities have played in this context is in the direct opposite way to that which the noble Lord fears.
We have spent a long time this afternoon talking about the congestion on the roads of this country. The Minister himself said in a speech, not more than a week or so ago, that from a survey that had been made by the Ministry they realised for the first time what a grave contribution to the congestion of our roads was made by this indiscriminate allowance for loading and unloading of goods-carrying vehicles. I should not mind if it were only the loading and unloading; but, although the loading and unloading takes about five minutes, the vehicle is left standing on the highway all day. That is what happens. There is no greater factor in road congestion than these vehicles which are left standing. I think I cited in 1956 the case that The High, Oxford, is an eight-carriageway road in some parts; in others, it is a four-carriageway; and, in effect, it is never more than a two-carriageway because of the vehicles that are lining both sides.
There is another factor that weighs with me. Let us sometimes, instead of looking at vested interests, look at the pedestrian and the common citizen. Thirty per cent. of the casualties to pedestrians that happen to-day in the towns of our country are caused because when they cross the road their vision is obscured by parked vehicles and waiting motor cars. Let us look at that. As I have said when I moved the Amendment, if we are going to cure the congestion on the roads of this country, everybody must give something—the shopkeeper, and even the vested interests of the Road Haulage Association and people like that. We must all give something. If everyone is going to fight to protect his narrow vested interests we shall never cure this problem.
I am quite satisfied that experience since 1956 has proved conclusively—and

191
the noble Lord admitted it—that the present provision of six hours is a farce. The strange thing about it is that no voice has ever been raised against the Minister's having dictatorial powers over the entire London Traffic Area, without consulting anybody if he does not want to. He does not use them. I never envisaged a situation in which a local authority would ban all this—as I saw in a statement given to the Press by one of the haulage associations—and set up a dictatorship by a local authority. The Minister has been "dictator" for years and years on this matter, but has used his powers, I should say, with wisdom. He may have to be far more stern in the future.
The Minister has now overriding power. I can go hack to the arguments we had on this question in 1956, and my recollection—I may be wrong—is that there can be an appeal by any local authority; there can be a public inquiry, if necessary, and there can be an appeal to the Minister. If the noble Lord tells me that the Minister has not an overriding authority, then I should like to see him have one; because, perhaps, while the noble Lord and I share a dislike of, or lack of love and affection for, local authorities, they are a part of the system of this country, and while we have them I suppose they will have to be made use of. The Minister has said that one of the purposes of this Bill is to put all these responsibilities on the local authority.
I ask the Government not to accept this Amendment: I ask them not to delete this clause from the Bill. I ask them not to accept any suggestion of waiting for a Road Safety Bill. This is not a road safety measure; this is a traffic organisation measure: the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill. It will have a marked effect on road safety. But I would beg the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who I always think presents his case with great fairness, to let us look at the whole picture of what has got to happen. Noble Lords on that side say, "We must clear the streets of these waiting vehicles. We must get rid of obstruction". Here is a glorious chance of doing it in a proper and orderly manner, and I hope that the noble Lord will not accept this Amendment.
LORD SPENS: My Lords, I have been asked, on behalf of the large dairy organisations, to express their anxiety as to the effect of this clause as now amended on their right to deliver large supplies of milk. I am all in favour of getting rid of the six-hours arrangement under the existing clause; it does not work and I think it is absolutely hopeless. But, at the same time, I am very puzzled by the fact that the words struck out of Section 26 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, are the words:
"…if the restriction does not prevent loading or unloading for more than six hours in all in any consecutive period of 24 hours";
and there are left in the words immediately before, which are:
"…but for the purposes of this prohibition a restriction on the loading or unloading of goods shall in no circumstances be treated as preventing such access as may be reasonably required".
I should have thought that if the clause had been amended by striking out everything in the second part of the clause, beginning with the phrase, "but for the purposes of this prohibition…", then everyone would be entitled to such reasonable access as a local authority thought fit to give them. I suggest that the whole of the second part of the section should go as well as the words struck out as the clause now stands.
LORD CHESHAM: I find myself in a slightly odd position on this subject. I think one must look at this matter as one faces it in the light of a situation which is considerably different from the situation five years ago, when, in fact, these provisions were considered. I do not think it is necessary or desirable for me to go carefully again through the argument of con, produced by my noble friend Lord Derwent, or the pro (perhaps I have them the wrong way round, but it does not matter) produced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. They have both been very carefully adduced and I do not think there is any need for me to say much about either argument. For reasons which will be obvious, I agree with, and accept, the majority of the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the Committee stage. The Government are certainly not anxious to oppose any extension of local authorities' powers in this particular field, where they show

193
every promise of being extremely useful in contributing to successful traffic schemes.
Equally, however, my Lords, we are anxious to safeguard the legitimate interest of commercial vehicle operators. Therefore, I think I should look at it in this way. I do not think I can do either of the things that my noble friend Lord Derwent has asked me to do. I think that, however long we look, it will be virtually impossible to find a form of words which will do what he asks. Nor do I feel particularly keen about excluding the clause and considering the matter later. I think the best way to approach it is perhaps through the powers of the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was not specifically correct in saying that there was an appeal to the Minister, because in fact there is not one on this matter; but, if I may tackle it from that angle and say a word about the existing position, it might solve the difficulty.
Under Section 27, subsection (3), of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, the Minister has powers, after giving notice to the local authority and holding, if he thinks fit, a public inquiry, to amend, or revoke any order made by a local authority. The snag about that is that the Minister is not in a position to prevent the local authority from making a particular order. If a mischief, so to speak, is created by such an order, he can undo it only after it has been done, and it must necessarily be some time before he knows what has happened and can give the necessary notice and make the amending order. But under Section 29 of the Road Traffic Act, the Minister has power to make regulations which prescribe the procedure to be followed by local authorities when they make traffic regulation orders under Section 26. The regulations which the Minister made in 1957 already say that a local authority shall cause a public inquiry to be held in any case where an order contains a provision for a loading ban, and where there is an unresolved objection. That is the position as at present. The noble Lord said that the local authority was judge and jury in its own case. It does not, I think, work like that.
LORD DERWENT: I do not want to interrupt my noble friend unnecessarily, but he says that at the moment the
194
Minister has not got power to review; but in fact he has, after a public inquiry. That, surely, is correct. I thought that was what my noble friend had just said. There may be a time lag before the order is enforced, I quite understand, but he can overrule it, surely.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, at present he can do it. He can overrule it after giving notice to the local authority and after holding a public inquiry, if he thinks fit. He can then do it. But I went on to describe his power under the procedure regulations, intending to convey that because the local authority must hold a public inquiry in all cases where there is to be a loading ban and where there is an unresolved objection, the Minister is therefore likely to get to hear about it a good deal more quickly.
What I think I could do is this. I could consider whether the Minister could amend his procedure regulations to provide that, where there is an unresolved objection to any local authority order which provides for a loading ban to operate on any particular part of a street for more than six hours in twenty-four, the local authority must send a copy of the inspector's report on the inquiry (which they have already had by virtue of the regulations) to the Minister at least one month before they make the order. This would make pretty sure that the Minister was aware of the possibility of trouble, if there was to be trouble, in advance. He might be able to talk things over, and get a local authority not to make the order, if he thought it unreasonable. If they persisted, where he found it was unreasonable he would be in a position to tackle the matter with the minimum of delay. I should have thought that my advice to your Lordships should be to leave things as they are, and not to accept my noble friend's Amendment at this stage; and, if he is agreeable to that, I will consider the matter with a view to saying more about it at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD DERWENT: I am very grateful to my noble friend for saying that he will go into it again. I hope he will at the same time go into the question as to whether, in fact, by this clause as it stands—I am not asking, for an answer now; it is a highly technical and legal question—the Minister is not debarring

195
himself, by Statute, from interfering. It is beyond my legal knowledge to argue the point, but I am advised that that is so. My noble friend will, I know, look into that, and he will look into this other question as to what can be done by regulation. I know that, generally speaking, the traders would prefer the Minister to have as much power of interference, where he thinks it right, as is possible, under regulation or by other
196
methods. However, in view of what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 17, leave out ("subsection (9)") and insert ("(9) and (10)").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.