Lords Sitting of 19 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 Hereford

REPORT OF THE PIPPARD COMMITTEE
2.35 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: 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 Her Majesty's Government whether they can say when the Ministry of Housing and Local Government expect to publish the report of the Pippard Committee on the effects and treatment of Effluents and other discharges into the River Thames.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I understand that the Committee are working now on a draft of their Report, which they are anxious to complete as soon as possible. But I cannot yet say when it will be published.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Pippard Committee was appointed by my noble friend, Lord Dalton, when he was the Minister concerned, in another place on April 4, 1951—over nine years ago. Probably this is a record for departmental delay in matters of this sort. Is the noble Earl aware that the whole country is aroused and disturbed about the polluted condition of our rivers, estuaries and coasts and that public authorities are anxious to make a new attack on this problem? Is he further aware that although this inquiry relates to the River Thames, and the Port of London Authority and the London County Council are primarily responsible, other pollution and sewage authorities up and down the country are
456
awaiting this publication for their guidance before completing their own plans for dealing with the treatment of effluent and sewage disposal? The matter is now of great urgency, and I hope there will be no further delay in the publication of the Report.
LORD DALTON: My Lords, as the noble Lord has recalled one of the events of my past life, may I ask whether the Government will not make some effort, for the honour of the Conservative Party, to stimulate the early production of the Report of a Committee appointed in an earlier régime?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I hope and believe that the honour of the Conservative Party is quite intact in this matter. The point is that this is a matter of considerable difficulty. The research into this problem is being carried out under the direction of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. It has proved extremely difficult and has taken a very long time; I admit that it is nine years since the committee was set up. But the difficulty really is whether this Committee has yet sufficient evidence to make a Report. It thinks that it has come to a time when there is evidence at least for an Interim Report, and, as I said, there is a draft Report in preparation. I should like to answer one of the supplementaries, as it were, of the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter. Work is not being held up pending this Report. I am advised that no work has been held up to await the Report. For instance, the London County Council Northern and Southern outfall works improvements have been put in hand at a cost of about £20 million.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that work is being held up in river boards, and even in the Port of London Authority, because it is hoped that this Report will be the textbook on the treatment of sewage and effluent. Before spending large sums of money the authorities want to know they are on the right lines. I beg the noble Earl to hurry it up by every means in his power.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I appreciate the urgency of this matter. Of course, it can be said that research in this kind of matter is never finished;

457
there is always fresh evidence being brought before the Committee. It is for the Committee to decide, and it is an extremely difficult decision, when they have got enough data on which to base reasonable recommendations. As the noble Lord said, if this is going to be taken (I think he used the word) as a "textbook" on the subject, to apply to the whole country, it is of the greatest Importance that the evidence should really be complete before the Report is produced. We can say that the Chairman is most anxious to produce the Report as soon as possible and a draft Report is in existence.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBROUGH: My Lords, do I understand from the noble Earl that in fact work by local authorities is not being held up? If that is so, what technical advice exactly is being given to local authorities on this matter?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My information is that from Teddington to Southend on the River Thames a considerable number of sewage schemes have been put in hand and completed since 1951, and my advice is that work is not being help up purely on the basis of waiting for this Report.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, is the Report now finished?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I think I was perfectly clear in my first Answer. There is a draft Report under consideration at the present moment. I cannot tell how much redrafting there will be, but there is a draft Report in existence at this moment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: This is really very unsatisfactory indeed. This has been going on for nine years. The Minister says that work is going on on these sewage schemes. Where is the Government technical advice coming from if this Committee has not been able to obtain sufficient evidence to make its Report? What advice is being given by the Government to local authorities in each of these areas?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I would assume, and surely the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition would agree, that though we are all
458
looking forward with the greatest possible interest Ito the Report that the Pippard Committee will produce, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is not, entirely bereft of technical advice in his Department at any time. He has certainly got advisers at the moment who can give advice to local authorities before this Report finally comes forward.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is not the case that in the past 30 years, during which I have lived on the banks of the Thames, the condition of the water that flows by my house has immensely improved?

CLINICAL AND TROPICAL MEDICINE RESEARCH
2.43 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: 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 Her Majesty's Government whether any progress has been made towards the setting up of a hospital or special centre for clinical research; and whether any further progress has been made in the provision for research in tropical medicine.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the Medical Research Council's Report for the year 1958–59, which is published, to-day contains details both of the proposed Clinical Research Centre and of, a New Tropical Medicine Research Board. The Council have appointed Professor J. R. Squire, who at present holds the Chair of Experimental Pathology at Birmingham University and is Honorary Director of the Council's. Unit for Research on the Experimental Pathology of the Skin, to take charge of, the Clinical Research Centre and to advise on its design and organisation, and on the selection of a suitable, hospital in which it can be incorporated.
As regards the Tropical Medicine, Board it has been agreed that the Medical Research Council should take over, responsibility for co-ordinating and promoting research in the field of tropical medicine supported from public funds, and it is to advise them in these matters that they propose to set up the Board.

459
The Overseas Research Council, which is responsible for general policy on overseas research, has concurred in the proposals. The new Board will also take over the work of the Colonial Medical Research Committee which will be dissolved. It will advise the Secretary of State for the Colonies, through the Medical Research Council, on all medical research in or for the Colonies financed from Colonial Development and Welfare Funds.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that encouraging Answer, and I should like to ask him two questions. First of all, may I take it that the establishment of this new Clinical Research Centre will not lead to any reduction in other clinical research being done, or to a reduction in expenditure? Secondly, may I take it that the establishment of this new Overseas Medical Research Board will enable research to be carried out in Commonwealth countries, as well as in Colonial territories, and that there will be a career structure for doctors working in these services?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am happy to say that the noble Lord is correct in both his assumptions. The Centre will be an addition to, and not a substitute for, the Council's normal methods of supporting research, such as the establishment of individual research units and the award of research grants and travelling fellowships. In the matter of the Tropical Medicine Research Board, as the noble Lord says, since the war the Colonial Medical Research Committee, which was appointed jointly by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Medical Research Council, had advised on the research which should be undertaken with support from Colonial Development and Welfare Funds. Because an increasing number of overseas territories are passing from Colonial to independent status and leaving the ægis of the Colonial Office, they cease to be eligible for aid from Colonial Development and Welfare Funds. The whole question of the organisation of research in the tropics has therefore had to be reconsidered. It is hoped that by providing, under the auspices of the Board, a career structure such as the noble Lord wishes to see, which will enable interested research workers to
460
devote themselves to tropical medicine, the experience, knowledge and resources of modern medical research may be brought to bear on problems of disease in this field, and that co-operation with tropical countries will thereby be facilitated.
LORD TAYLOR: Tropical countries outside the Commonwealth as well?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I cannot give a specific answer on that point, but I should not have thought that it would be restrictive by its constitution. I was trying to answer the noble Lord's question on the Commonwealth. I have no reason to think that it will be restricted to the Commonwealth.

SHOT DOWN AMERICAN AIRCRAFT
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I gave notice—namely, whether they will be making a statement to-day on the reply of Her Majesty's Government to the Russian Note on the shooting down of a plane over the Barents Sea?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STALE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, yes. With the permission of the House, at about half-past three, or soon after, I will give Her Majesty's Government's reply to the Soviet Union.

PRIVATE BILL STANDING ORDERS
2.47 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name. In doing so, I should like first of all to take the opportunity—I am sure the House will join with me in this—of thanking the Joint Committee on the Promotion of Private Bills which sat for seventeen days last year, and in particular the Chairman, the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and other Members of your Lordships' House who sat on that Committee, for their exacting and detailed work and for the time they devoted to its deliberations, for it is to implement

461
in part this Committee's recommendations that I have put this Motion on the Order Paper to-day.
The Committee's Report contains three paragraphs recommending Amendments to the Private Bills Standing Orders. These are Nos. 23, 26 and 29; and the Amendments that I now move are designed to implement, as far as has been found practicable, these recommendations. There will in due course be other Amendments consequential upon those which I am asking the House to approve this afternoon. These Amendments are concerned with some of the more detailed aspects of Private Bill procedure, and in view of the form they take, in that they are largely additions to existing Standing Orders and not merely insertions, I did not consider it practicable in this instance to follow the suggestion made, by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to print in special type those parts of the Order which are new. I hope, however, that your Lordships will find the Amendments are set out sufficiently clearly.
The Amendments to Standing Order 1 are supplemental or consequential to those that follow. The Amendments to Standing Order 4 and the new Standing Order 4A, taken together, carry out, subject to modifications, paragraph 26 of the Report of the Select Committee. They do not give effect to that part of paragraph 26 which requires Bills to be deposited with parish councils and parish meetings, but instead require deposit at an office in the rural district in which the parish is situated. Nor do they insist that the notice must be inserted in a newspaper published, as distinct from circulating, in the locality. Subject to these modifications, paragraph 26, except for its last two sentences, is implemented by the new Standing Orders 4A and 10.
The new Standing Order 124A implements, in part, paragraph 23 of the Report. It does not do so wholly, because it is, in my judgment, imperative to preserve the ability of a county council to confer a power upon a district council against the wishes of that council, as was done, for example, in the Kent Water Act, 1955. Paragraph 29 of the Report is implemented by the new Standing Orders 1 (a), 4A and 10 (2) (a).
462
The Committee came to some other conclusions, but these, in my opinion, have wider application than those recommendations dealing with the Standing Orders which we are considering to-day. In particular, paragraph 20 of the Report deals with the joint promotion of Private Bills by two or more district councils in the same county; and the implementation of the recommendations it contains for an alteration in the practice of the House ought not, in my view, to be accomplished by an Amendment to Standing Orders such as I am moving to-day. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the following Amendments be made to the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills, etc.—
Standing Order 1, page 11, line 7, leave out ("4, 10.")
Standing Order 1, page 11, line 9, at end insert ("the term 'county district' means a non-county borough, an urban district or a rural district")
Standing Order 1, page 11, line 17, at end insert ("the term 'functions' includes powers and duties")
Standing Order 1, page 11, leave out lines 20 to 31 and insert—
("the term local authority' means any of the following:—

(a)the council of a county,

(b)the council of a county borough.

(c)the council of a county district,

(d)the council of a rural parish or group of rural parishes or the parish meeting of a rural parish which has no separate parish council,

(e)the Common Council of the City of London,

(f)the council of a metropolitan borough,

(g)a county council in Scotland,

(h)a town council in Scotland;")

Standing Order 1, page 11, line 35, leave out (" 4, 10")
Standing Order 4, page 14, leave out lines 21 to 44 and insert—
("(2) The notice shall also state that on and after the Fourth day of December copies of the Bill, or as the case may be copies of part of the Bill, may be inspected, and at a reasonable price obtained, at the offices required by the next following Order, which offices shall be named in the notice.")
Standing Order 4, page 14, line 47, at end insert—
("Copies of Bill to be made available
4A.—(1) The Promoters shall on and after the Fourth day of December make available for inspection, and for sale at a reasonable price, copies of the Bill at an office in

463
London and if it affects Scotland, at an office in Edinburgh and—

(a)if the Bill is promoted by, or alters functions of, a local authority, other than a London local authority or a parish council or parish meeting, at an office in the area of the authority;

(b)if the Bill alters functions of a parish council or parish meeting, at an office in the rural district in which the parish is situated;

(c)if the Bill is not promoted by a local authority, at an office in the county (unless that county is London), county borough or burgh in which the Promoters' principal office is situated;

(d)if the Bill authorises the construction of works to which Standing Order 27 applies, or the compulsory acquisition of lands or of rights to use lands, or extends the time limited by a former Act for any of those purposes, at an office in each of the counties, except London, county boroughs and burghs in which the works are to be, or the lands are, situated.

(2)It shall be sufficient compliance with sub-paragraph (a) or sub-paragraph (b)of the foregoing paragraph to make available for inspection and for sale in the area of the local authority or, as the case may be, in the rural district, copies of such part only of the Bill as alters functions of the local authority or, as the case may be, of the parish council or parish meeting.
(3) It shall be sufficient compliance with sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph (1) of this Order to make available for inspection and for sale in the county, county borough or burgh copies of such part only of the Bill as authorises the construction of works or the compulsory acquisition of lands or of rights to use lands in that county, county borough or burgh, or as extends the time limited by a former Act for any of those purposes.
(4) In this Order 'London local authority' means the London County Council, the Common Council of the City of London or the council of a metropolitan borough.
(5) The offices of a local authority, if situated outside the area of that authority, shall for the purposes of this Order be deemed to be in that area.
(6) A Bill that alters functions of a member or an officer of a local authority shall for the purposes of this Order be deemed to alter functions of that authority.")
Pages 16 and 17, leave out Standing Order 10 and insert—
("Publication of notices in newspapers
10.—(1) The notice shall be published in the newspapers prescribed by the next following paragraph, once in each of two consecutive weeks with an interval of at least six clear days between publications, the second publication being not late than the Eleventh day of December.
(2) The newspapers referred to in the foregoing paragraph are the following; —

(a) if the Bill is promoted by, or alters functions of, a local authority, a newspaper or newspapers circulating in the area of the authority;

(b) if the Bill is not promoted by a local authority, a newspaper or newspapers circulating in the county, county borough or burgh in which the Promoters' principal office is situated;

(c) if the Bill authorises the construction of works to which Standing Order 27 applies, or the compulsory acquisition of lands or of rights to use lands, or extends the time limited by a former Act for any of those purposes, a newspaper or newspapers circulating in each of the counties, county boroughs and burghs in which the works are to be, or the lands are, situated.

(3) Where part only of a Bill alters functions of a local authority, it shall be sufficient compliance with paragraph (1) of this Order to publish, in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in the area of the authority, so much only of the notice as relates to that part.
(4) Where part only of a Bill authorises the construction of works or the compulsory acquisition of lands or of rights to use lands in a county, county borough or burgh, or extends the time limited by a former Act for any of those purposes, it shall be sufficient compliance with paragraph (1) of this Order to publish, in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in the county, county borough or burgh, so much only of the notice as relates to that part.
(5) A bill that alters functions of a member or an officer of a local authority shall for the purposes of this Order be deemed to alter functions of that authority.")
Page 58, line 37, at end insert—
("County Council Bills conferring Powers on county district councils. Proof of need
124A.—(1) A committee on a Private Bill promoted by the council of a county shall not hear evidence that a provision in the Bill that alters functions of the council of a county district in the county is acceptable to that county district council unless the evidence comprises proof, as required by paragraph (3) of this Order, that the inclusion in the Bill of that provision has been approved by that county district council in the manner required by paragraph (2) of this Order.
(2) Approval for the purposes of paragraph (1) of this Order shall be by resolution passed by a majority of the whole number of the members of the council of the county district at a meeting thereof held after ten clear days' notice of the meeting, and of the purposes thereof, has been given by advertisement in one or more local newspapers circulating in the county district, such notice being given in addition to the ordinary notice required to he given for the convening of a meeting of the council.
(3) The proof referred to in paragraph (1) of this Order shall be a document purporting to be a copy of the resolution referred to in paragraph (2) of this Order together with a certificate purporting to be signed by the clerk of the council to the effect that the copy is a true copy and that the resolution was passed by the majority, and after the notice, mentioned in that paragraph.
(4) A provision that alters functions of a member or an officer of the council of a county district shall for the purposes of this Order he deemed to alter functions of that council.
(5) This Order shall not apply to a Bill promoted by a county council in Scotland.") —(Lord Merthyr.)
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have looked into the Amendments to the Private Bill Standing Orders which my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees is now moving, and as there are some very technical legal implications in the report of the Reading Committee I have asked my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack to express the view of Her Majesty's Government, if that should be necessary. There is only one other suggestion I would make. My noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees has told the House that certain parts of the Report are being adopted and that other parts are being left over. It might suit your Lordships to pass those which are before the House to-day and perhaps to have a debate in the autumn in which the other proposals in the Report of the Reading Committee might be discussed in full; but we will see.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, might I ask one question of the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees? This, of course, was a Joint Select Committee. May I ask what is the position in regard to proceedings in another place? Have these same Amendments to Standing Orders been accepted by the Chairman of Ways and Means there, and are they being put to the Members of another place? If so, can the noble Lord indicate when?—because it is obviously right that we should keep in step on matters of this kind.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, if I may reply to this question at this stage—and I realise, of course, that am entitled to only two speeches this afternoon—the answer to the noble Marquess is that a similar Motion is on the Order Paper in another place but
466
has not yet been moved. I understand that its terms are identical.
2.54 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, for his succinct explanation of the purpose of these Standing Order Amendments. If I may say so, this is the end, as it wore, of an interlude in the operation of the procedure for the promotion of Private Bills, believe that my noble friends would agree with the suggestion made by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, that we should pass the Amendments before the House to-day, on the understanding that, as the noble Earl has indicated, the remainder of the Report of the Reading Committee and its recommendations may be debated at a later stage.
In those circumstances I do not propose to traverse the recommendations of the Committee, nor to provoke any controversy to-day. Perhaps it would be useful to recapitulate the course of events that led up to these Standing Orders being before your Lordships' House this afternoon. On May 13, 1958, the county councils suddenly learned that they were to be deprived of the power to promote Bills to confer powers and/or functions on county district councils unless the county council had an interest, either in the powers or in the functions. By that means the county councils lost a power which they had possessed, and had operated in many cases, for nearly 40 years.
Your Lordships will recall that on May 13, 1958, and on May 21 of that year, there were debates in your Lordships' House, and a Motion was approved removing this power from county councils pending further inquiry. As a result, a Joint Committee of both houses was appointed on February 3, 1959, and reported in July of that year. I would add my tribute to the admirable chairmanship exercised in this Joint Committee by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and the way in which he pleasantly and agreeable facilitated the proceedings of the Committee which at times were not without possibilities of energetic controversy. The Committee concurred in the view that county councils have a general interest in the good government of the county; and therefore the procedure complies with the requirement of the

467
decision of the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, which was approved by this House after debate, and of the then Chairman of Ways and Means—then Sir Charles MacAndrew, now with us as the noble Lord, Lord MacAndrew.
I think it suffices to quote the conclusion of the Committee on the main question: whether a county council had power to promote legislation to confer powers or functions upon a second-tier authority within the county. The conclusions of the Committee are set out in the Report at paragraph 32. I may perhaps, with interest, read what those conclusions were:
"The chief conclusion to which the Committee have come is that no principle is infringed where a county council promotes a Bill which seeks to confer powers on other authorities in the county in any local government matter, and that it may well be a matter of general convenience that where private legislation is needed by several authorities within the county, the county council should seek to obtain it on behalf of the authorities concerned."
That, of course, restates the proposition dealt with with more particularity in paragraph 20 of the Report.
"To this extent, therefore, the Committee would suggest that the rulings made by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons in May, 1958. should be qualified in their application, and they consider that if the safeguards recommended by the Committee in paragraphs 23, 26 and 28 were adopted no objection on grounds of principle need in future be raised to County Council Bills containing clauses of this type."
That is a reaffirmation, as I have said, of the powers which have been enjoyed and have been reasonably, modestly and moderately exercised by local authorities over the past forty years.
The recommendation in paragraph 20 is that where a county council is disinclined, for a variety of reasons, all of which may be quite proper, to promote legislation for two or more second-tier authorities within its county, then several district councils should be permitted jointly to promote legislation if there is a community of need and demand—and in regard to the need, of course, the Select Committee would have to be satisfied. This is an advantage, as is properly said, because a county council may not itself be proceeding with legislation in any
468
particular year and may therefore not be disposed to promote a Bill to confer powers on two or three of the county district councils within its area. Moreover, promotion of a Bill involves the inconvenience—I will not put it any higher than that—that where a county council promotes legislation for a limited number of its county districts, in order to recover the costs from the county districts which are benefiting it is necessary to have a general county rate plus a special county rate.
In those circumstances, it seems to me that there is every merit in several district councils getting together, in the absence of the willingness of the county council to promote legislation, to do it themselves. Individually, it is doubtful whether other than a very few of the larger authorities within a county could afford to promote a Bill by themselves, but if there are three or four, or half a dozen, authorities, the cost can be divided between them and becomes bearable. But that matter, with other matters, can be discussed at a later stage. I gather, under the arrangement indicated by the noble Earl the Leader of the House.
The only other comment I should like to make is that the Amendment of the Standing Orders as regards parish councils and parish meetings is necessary, because to carry out in specific terms the recommendation of the Committee would be impracticable. Your Lordships will appreciate that fact when I tell you that, according to information I have received, in the West Riding of Yorkshire alone there are no fewer than 450 rural parishes, of which 177 have no parish council. Many small rural parishes have no recognised place at which copies of the Bill could suitably be deposited. Therefore the proposal to deposit Bills within the area of the rural district within which the parish exists is a practical and, I think, reasonable modification of that recommendation. I hope that your Lordships will pass the amended Standing Orders as on the Paper and that later on we can have the debate upon the general implications of the Reading Committee's Report.
3.4 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, am I right in thinking that when the Lord Chairman moved his Amendments he

469
told us, in effect, that while he agreed in general with the terms outlined, there were certain parts he could snot accept? May I he told whether he has powers as Chairman to take that line or am I incorrect in my assumption?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, is that ultimately, of course, the decisions are the decisions of your Lordships' House. What I am doing to-day is moving certain Amendments to the existing Standing Orders. As I have indicated, and as the noble Lord has apprehended correctly, these Amendments which I move to-day do not carry out in whole, though they do in part, the recommendations of the Committee. It is no new thing, if I may say so, for the recommendations of Select Committees, Royal Commissions, Departmental Committees and so forth not to be carried out in whole. Some, indeed, are not carried out even in part, as I know from my personal experience as a member of such bodies. I might perhaps mention that there was a somewhat similar Joint Select Committee on the same subject in 1955. I have just been looking at their Report (I myself sat on that body), and I find that quite a number of their recommendations have not so far been carried out, though some have.
The particular answer to the noble Lord is that, as has been mentioned by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, it is still left open after to-day for the House to decide whether it wishes to take further action about that part of the Committee's Report that is not covered by these Standing Orders. I am proposing certain Amendments and asking your Lordships' approval for them. As for the other parts, I am not making any proposals to-day. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask this question? It is quite clear, is it not, that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, is acting entirely on his own initiative in putting clown these Standing Orders and that no one else is implicated they are entirely his own ideas as to which part of the Report he accepts or rejects? I think that the question of my noble
470
friend Lord Greenhill was this is that: in accordance with precedent? Is there, in fact, a Standing Order which permits the Lord Chairman of Committees in this House to take that line? The noble Lord, with respect, has not answered that.
The other question, which I should like to put to the noble Earl the Leader of the House, is this. When we have this discussion, will he consider whether it would not be convenient, to have it on a Government Motion, which would permit of any noble Lord moving an Amendment—for instance, if it were so desired, to incorporate some of the recommendations of the Reading Committee which the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, did not think fit to incorporate. If one could have a Motion of that kind, a Government Motion, I think we might have a useful debate.
3.9 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, it may be convenient if I say a word. I had made it my duty, at the request of my noble friend the Leader of the House, to acquaint myself with the details of the Standing Orders which this Motion seeks to abandon. I listened with the greatest care to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Latham. I understood that he accepted the modifications in the Report of the Committee which are indicated in these Amendments, and I could see from his reference to the West Riding that, in his consideration of the matter, he had followed the same lines as I had myself. I therefore think it would be an imposition for me to go through these in detail and justify modifications which have been accepted by the House and by the noble Lord, Lord Latham.
I think it is absolutely clear, however (and this deals with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin), that the Amendments on the Order Paper to-day are entirely without prejudice to the remainder of the recommendations of the Report of the Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Reading. Indeed, I think the noble Lord, Lord Latham, would agree with me that tie Amendments on the Paper would be helpful to those who are considering private legislation in various ways. I need not go into the detail, but I think it would be

471
unfortunate from their point of view if we did not give them this limited guidance on these points. But I have considered the matter very carefully, and I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, agrees that these Amendments will not prejudice or affect in any way the decision of your Lordships on the other point. It is therefore in that spirit that we approach the Amendments to-day.
With regard to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, my noble friend the Leader of the House and I will consider with great sympathy the question of the Motion, but, as he knows, and as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, knows, from past experience, it is often a matter which requires consideration, as to how far you put in your Motion approval of various points, how far you "take note", and so on. That is a matter which my noble friend and I should like to consider before the debate comes on, and we can communicate with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about it. However, on the general point, I think he can take it that what we are doing to-day can be nothing but helpful, so far as it goes, and is entirely without prejudice to the views on the other point. I hope that, in that spirit, the House will accept the Amendments.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I was a member of the Committee of which my noble friend Lord Reading was Chairman, and I am sure that my noble Leader is right in suggesting that we should pass these Amendments now and leave the general position to be debated in the autumn. I would therefore say only one thing: that between now and then we may well have listened to a gracious Speech. If that gracious Speech were found to contain some reference to a general Bill dealing with these matters, then I think that many of us would feel that we were very much assisted in assessing the general position as regards Private Bills.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, my original intervention was in the nature of a question, and therefore, perhaps, I may, very briefly, take up the time of the House. The position in regard to these proposed alterations is, by now, I think, very clear. They are what I may call, using the lawyer's term, interlocutory in a sense, in so far
472
as they do not prejudice any alterations which may come about as a result of the debate. But, for the moment, these are the Amendments which are before the House. The noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, was good enough to explain to me the reasons why the Government were unable to follow entirely the recommendations of the Committee over which I presided. Of course, the Committee itself is functus officio, and I can speak only as an individual; but, so far as I personally am concerned, I see every reason for the decision to present these Amendments in their present form, and I fully accept the reasons for departing from the recommendations of the Committee. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, for what he was kind enough to say about any personal part I played in the deliberations of the Committee. I very much hope that the House will accept these proposed Amendments in the form in which they are now before it.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Standing Orders amended accordingly.

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read la, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Bill), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

  ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dunleath, who was to have moved this Motion, is unavoidably detained in Northern Ireland at a Territorial camp, and on his behalf I beg to move that this House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.
  House resumed.

  ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING OF MOTOR CYCLES) BILL
  3.18 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 Aberdare.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think I ought to point out to the Committee that there is a mistake on the Marshalled List of Amendments, and that Amendment No. 2, which relates to Clause 2, should come after No. 3.
  Clause 1:
  Amendment of ss. (2) of s. 97 of Road Traffic Act, 1960, 8 & 9 Eliz. 2, c. 16
  1. Subsection (2) of section ninety-seven of the Road Traffic Act, 1960 (which empowers the Minister of Transport by regulations to vary the minimum age for driving motor cycles, or moor cycles of any class or description, on roads) shall have effect as if for the words "(not being less than sixteen years)" there were substituted the words "(not being less than fifteen years)".
  LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved to delete all words after "for the words", and to insert instead:
  "'such minimum age, not being less than sixteen years, as may be so prescribed ' there were substituted the words 'such minimum age as may be so prescribed, not being less than—

  (a)sixteen years, in the case of motor cycles other than those of the class or description specified in the following paragraph;

  (b) fifteen years, in the case of motor cycles whereof the cylinder capacity of the engine does not exceed fifty cubic centimeters, being cycles equipped with pedals by means whereof they are capable of being propelled'".

  The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment to which I referred in my Second Reading speech. Its object is to limit the powers given to the Minister to reduce the minimum age for riding motor cycles. Your Lordships will recall that the object of this clause is to allow young persons aged fifteen to ride low-powered machines, generally known as "mopeds"—motor-assisted pedal bicycles. The clause as it stands at present would allow the Minister of Transport, by Regulation, to vary the minimum age for
  474
  driving any sort of motor cycle. This is too broad a power, and was never intended. It arose only owing to the difficulty of defining exactly what a "moped" was. Neither the sponsors of the Bill nor the Minister ever had any intention of using this power except in the case of the moped. Therefore this Amendment retains the minimum age of sixteen years for a licence to ride any type of motor cycle except, the mopeds, which are defined in paragraph (b) of my Amendment, as
  "motor cycles whereof the cylinder capacity of the engine does not exceed fifty cubic centimeters, being cycles equipped with pedals by means whereof they are capable of being propelled".
  In other words, these machines are pedal cycles with very small engines, and we wish to allow young persons of fifteen to ride them. I hope that your Lordships will agree, even if you do not agree with the clause as a whole, that this Amendment would make it a more practical proposition. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("words") to the end of line 10 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Aberdare.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I intend to ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment. As your Lordships will see, I have an Amendment following to delete this clause, and perhaps it would be convenient to your Lordships if I made one speech instead of two. As the noble Lord has said, the Amendment carries out what he promised on Second Reading. What it does, in fact, is to put back into the Bill what was taken out in another place at the express desire of the Government. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, may give us some elucidation. The Government do not wish to be tied because they have indicated their intention to deal at some time in the future with the gradations of the power of motor cycles and the age of those allowed to ride them. And one of the grounds on which this Amendment should be rejected is that it ties the Government to a definition. It is difficult to know from the noble Lord's definition whether a moped is a motor cycle assisted by pedals or a pedal cycle assisted by a motor. I should think that the Amendment falls out of order because it is not in keeping with the Long Title. The noble Lord's Amendment

  475
  talks about "cycles equipped with pedals." Is the noble Lord going to tie the Government's hands when they tackle this serious problem of what to do with the most dangerous mechanically-propelled vehicle on the roads—the motor cycle? I think that would be a great mistake.
  I sympathise with what the noble Lord wishes to do. I do not disagree with his desire but I do disagree with his method. In his speech on Second Reading, the noble Lord founded the whole of his case upon what happened in 1957. But the state of the roads in 1957, compared with what they are in 1960, was peace and quietness. The noble Lord puts forward his proposal as a valuable addition to the saving of life and limb on the road. Fact does not support him. The official figures show that from 1957 to 1959 the increase in casualties to the riders of mopeds was 81 per cent. and that the increase in the number of mopeds involved in road acidents was 78 per cent., while the total mileage travelled by mopeds increase by only 25 per cent. Far from becoming a safer method of locomotion, it is becoming more dangerous. The increase in casualties, comparing the period, January to May, 1960, with the same period in 1959, is 39 per cent.; the number of mopeds involved in personal injury accidents increased by 37 per cent., whereas the mileage travelled increased by only 33 per cent. and the number of mopeds sold by 16 per cent.
  The noble Lord invites us to pitchfork into this state of affairs young boys and girls of fifteen years of age. As I said on Second Reading, this is an affront to public opinion. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said that the Government would have nothing to do with this Amendment. Are we going to put on the Statute Book something which the Government have said they will have nothing to do with because they do not agree with it? Your Lordships are going into something which I think would be an affront to public opinion at the present time when we are grappling with a massive road accident problem. We are going to allow the schoolboys and schoolgirls on to the roads, to be a danger not only to themselves but also to every other form of road traffic.
  476
  Speaking during the Second Reading debate, on another Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, forecast the introduction of a Road Safety Bill next Session. I am going to ask him to see that in that Bill the whole machinery for testing drivers before they can ride motor cycles is looked into. At the present time, anybody who ties an "L" plate round his waist can get on to a machine, although he is as raw as a lump of meat, and in a short space of time may be as dead. When you are tested for driving a motor car you have somebody sitting at your side; and with a provisional licence you must not drive without a fully qualified driver. But with a motor cycle you can sit on the seat and off you go and launch yourself on the road. I seriously put it to your Lordships that a state of affairs like this needs to be thoroughly examined. Until the Minister and the Government have had an opportunity of examining it, I think we should be very remiss and culpable in passing legislation which would, first of all tie the Minister's hands, or which would in any way encourage boys and girls of fifteen years of age to ride mechanically propelled vehicles. So I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment.
  LORD ELTON: May I ask for guidance from the Lord Chairman? I am, as I daresay other noble Lords are, in favour of Lord Aberdare's Amendment, in the sense that I would rather the clause applied to mopeds than to motor cycles. On the other hand, I want to delete the clause altogether. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth said that he was making one speech. Does that mean that we are now to debate both the Amendment and the possible deletion of the clause, or shall we have another debate?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The answer to the noble Lord is that it is, as always, perfectly possible to debate at one and the same time two or more Amendments. In this case it would be Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 3. I have little doubt that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to do that this afternoon. On the other hand, I must put each Amendment in turn to the Committee and thus give every Member of the Committee an opportunity to vote on it if he so desires. I apprehend that the noble Lord, if I understand him rightly, will wish to vote in favour of both of these Amendments.
  LORD ELTON: I take it then that I am in order now in supporting the Amendment of the noble Lord Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to delete the clause altogether, which I support most ardently. I hope that he will take his Amendment to a Division; and if he does I hope that your Lordships will decisively reject any suggestions of permitting children of fifteen to share in, and add to, the congestion and slaughter on our roads. We have been told that if this clause is passed in its amended form the Government will have to think a long time before they make up their mind whether they will take advantage of the powers conferred on them of allowing children of fifteen to go on the roads in this way. There I entirely agree with what I believe was said by the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party here on Second Reading—namely, that if there is considerable doubt as to whether these powers will ever be used, then they had better not be granted. In any case, this is surely such an important step, to let all these children loose on roads such as ours, that it is the kind of step that should be deliberately taken by Parliament and not simply by a Department at same unknown future date. For myself, I am entirely convinced that it can never be right in the foreseeable future to allow children of fifteen to ride these machines on our roads, such as we know them to be. Therefore, what I want to see is the clause removed altogether.
  A moped can be a very dangerous machine. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has quoted some statistics. I think we ought to bear in mind that in 1959, of the riders of mopeds—most of whom, presumably, were adults, and certainly none of whom was as young as fifteen, the age at which the Bill is seeking to admit people to the road—88 riders were killed, 1,360 were seriously injured and 3,974 were slightly injured: an increase, as my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has already reminded us, of 81 per cent. on the statistics of the previous year. I have had a letter from the Cyclists' Touring Club urging that this clause should be rejected. I suppose that the Cyclists' Touring Club probably know as much about light machines and pedal cycles as any noble Lord in this Committee, and they are most anxious that this clause should be rejected.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: May I ask the noble Lord a question? I can well understand that the Cyclists' Touring Club object to the clause as it stands, but what is their view about Lord Aberdare's Amendment?
  LORD ELTON: Their view is that Clause I should not exist at all; that boys of fifteen should not be in charge of any form of mechanically-propelled or mechanically-assisted vehicle on the high road.
  As to the suggested argument in favour of the clause, that what really matters is experience and not age, that may or may not be true as a general proposition. It does not seem to me, after carefully reading the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on Second Reading, that the passage which he quoted from the official survey proved this in any way; it merely asserted it. But it may be true, and I am quite prepared to believe that experience may be more important than age. However, it is completely illogical to pass from that to the proposition that, because experience is more important than age, therefore age is not important and can be disregarded. That would be much as if a policeman, seeing a thug armed with (shall I say?) a dagger and a cosh advancing on a peaceful citizen, were to confiscate the dagger and then say: "All is well; the thug can proceed with his attack on the peaceful citizen with the cosh, because I have removed the more lethal of the two weapons." So I do not think we ought to pay very much attention to this argument.
  Moreover, in the nature of things, there can be no evidence in favour of that argument in respect of boys of fifteen, for the simple reason that boys of fifteen have never yet, thank God!, been allowed on the high roads on any form of motor vehicle. So we simply do not know whether age, when you come down to fifteen, is, or is not, more important than experience. But we can certainly say age must be very important, because there is nobody sitting here who does not know that a boy of fifteen is less responsible than a boy of sixteen and a boy of sixteen is less responsible than a boy of eighteen. What is the prefect system at a public school unless a recognition of that fact? So do not let us be led away by any suggestion that age is

  479
  not important in the riding of motor cycles.
  A boy of fifteen, after all, may be, and very likely is, still at school, and in local grammar schools a great deal of borrowing of and tampering with machines goes on. Picture a boy arriving in the morning on his moped. You do not know what is going to happen before the day is out. There was a case in my neighbourhood a few weeks ago in which a girl was nearly killed riding down the hill into the local market town because her brakes failed; she just managed to fling herself off in time. The case subsequently came up in court. We were told that the brakes had been tampered with by one of her school fellows. The headmaster complained that this was constantly happening, and that there had been several cases in the last two or three months of machines being tampered with as a form of practical joke by school fellows. That will not add to the safety of the child on the moped.
  Then, we are told that the moped goes only at 25 m.p.h. I think that that figure was derived from 1957. I am told that now the tendency is that they will go even faster than that on the flat, and goodness knows at what pace they may go downhill! The juvenile moped owner will be hearing the boasts and envying the record of his elder brother and his elder brother's friends, who will be boasting how they got 110 m.p.h. out of one of their higher-powered machines, and it is difficult to believe that he will not be doing his best within his limits to emulate that.
  My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has twice told us that this clause is an affront to the public conscience, and with that I thoroughly agree. With casualties last year on the roads of over 330,000 and we at our wits' end to know what to do to reduce them, and the present Government and the present Parliament having done nothing whatever to reduce them, to pass this measure now would be a retrograde step. It would be making a deliberate or, I should say, intentional contribution
  480
  to the increase of those casualties, and I devoutly 'hope that your Lordships are not going to pass the Bill in its present form.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: I intervene for only one moment. If I had to choose between the deletion of the clause and what I understand would be the case if the clause existed—that, provided an Order is made, any boy of fifteen may ride the kind of high-powered motor cycle which a boy of sixteen may ride to-day—then, without any hesitation, I should be in favour of deleting the clause. I think sixteen is quite young enough for boys to be riding high-powered motor cycles. As I understand the law to-day, at sixteen a boy may get a motor cycle of any power—and some of these motor cycles are enormously powerful—put an "L" plate on it and then ride it. I should have thought that at that stage he might be extremely dangerous, and that there was something to be said, provided that the definition is right, in limiting What the fifteen-year-old would be allowed to ride—that is, a bicycle with a very small auxiliary motor on it—so that when he reached the age of sixteen and was automatically entitled to ride the sort of dreadnought which these boys ride about the roads, he would have at least some knowledge of what managing an automotive animal is like. I am not going into the great number of casualties. Of course they are terrible, but that is a Second Reading point. What we have to decide here is what is the best thing to do in order that boys who do ride may not be national perils. On that specific point, I should like to hear what the Government have to say.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I think it might be convenient for your Lordships to hear the statement I mentioned earlier. I beg 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.

  REPLY TO SOVIET NOTE AND LETTER TO MR. KHRUSHCHEV
  3.43 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will make a statement which is being made by the Prime Minister in another place. It consists of two parts—that is, the formal reply sent to Mr. Khrushchev, and a letter sent to Mr. Khrushchev by the Prime Minister. It is as follows:
  "I told the House on Tuesday last that I would make a further statement about the incident of the United States RB-47 aircraft as soon as Her Majesty's Government's reply to the Soviet Note of the 11th of July had been sent off.
  "Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow delivered our reply this morning. The text was as follows:
  'Her Britannic Majesty's Embassy present their compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, on the instructions of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, have the honour to refer to the Ministry's Note of the 11th of July in which it is alleged that, on the 1st of July, a United States aircraft, based on the territory of the United Kingdom, violated the State frontier of the Soviet Union and was shot down over Soviet territorial waters.
  'The United States Government's Note to the Soviet Government of the 12th of July states clearly that the United States aircraft in question was never less than about 30 miles from Soviet land territory. In these circumstances, it appears that the allegations contained in the Ministry's Note under reference were based on false premises and that the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has no ground for protesting about events which took place on the 1st of July.
  'On the contrary, the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics bears a heavy responsibility for the action of the Soviet pilot who shot down the United States aircraft in international airspace. Her Majesty's Government view with the utmost seriousness this unprovoked
  482
  attack, which illustrates the danger implicit in the present instructions to the Soviet armed forces.
  'Her Majesty's Government cannot agree that the use of United Kingdom territory by the United States Air Force for legitimate operations in international airspace can in any way be regarded as aggressive action, and accordingly cannot accept the allegations contained in the Ministry's Note.'
  "This Note sets out Her Majesty's Government's formal position and I thought it right that we should make a definite reply to the charges made by the Soviet Government. At the same time, I did not feel that we could leave matters there. The trend of events since the failure of the Summit Meeting has been disturbing and I felt that I should make an effort to represent to Mr. Khrushchev what the British Government, and I believe the whole British people, feel about the situation. Accordingly, in addition to the formal Note the Ambassador also delivered a personal letter from me to Mr. Khrushchev in the following terms:
  I am sending you separately a formal reply to the Note from the Soviet Government to Her Majesty's Government which was delivered by Mr. Gromyko to Sir Patrick Reilly in Moscow on the 11th of July concerning the shooting down of a United States aircraft. This reply sets out clearly the position of our Government in this matter; but I feel that I must in addition write to you personally about my anxieties as to the way in which the world situation is developing.
  'I would like to remind you of the conversations which we have had from time to time when we have both agreed to seek methods by which the underlying tensions in the world could be reduced. When I had the pleasure of being your guest in Moscow last year I think we succeeded in setting in motion a sequence of developments which appeared to have great promise. My visit to you and the subsequent interchange of visits and frank discussions between the members of the proposed Summit Conference

  483
  made me hopeful that when we came to the Summit Meeting we would make, if not a spectacular advance, at least some forward movement.
  'It is not necessary now to go back upon the reasons why the Summit Conference was broken up before it really started. I still feel that it would have been better had you been willing to put other difficulties aside in order to pursue the major purpose for which we were to meet. All acts of intelligence or espionage on either side are after all symptoms, not causes, of the world tension which we should both seek to reduce. However, I took some comfort from your statement that when the dust bad settled we might be able to take up again the task.
  'Since then, however, a number of events have occurred which have made me less hopeful. First, the action of the Soviet delegation in leaving the Committee of Ten on Disarmament at a moment when new United States proposals were, with your knowledge, about to be presented. As I told you at the time, I deeply regretted that you should have found it necessary to bring this Conference to an end, in my view prematurely.
  'Now we have the new incident regarding the United States RB-47 flight. Our formal Note, to which I referred in my opening paragraph, gives the reply to the accusations against the United Kingdom in this matter. But I feel I must add that, even if the facts had been as stated by your Government, I do not think the Soviet authorities should have taken so grave an action and one so calculated to turn the incident into a major international dispute.
  'Then there comes the question of the Congo. I have read the statement which you have distributed which accuses Great Britain, in concert with the United States, France, Belgium and West Germany, of organising a conspiracy to destroy the independent State of Congo. I must ask you, Mr. Khrushchev, whether you really believe such a conspiracy is likely in view of the
  484
  policies which British Governments of all Parties have followed not only since the last war but for many generations.
  'For more than a century it has been our purpose to guide our dependent territories towards freedom and independence. Apart from the older independent countries of the Commonwealth, since the Second World War India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Ghana, Malaya, countries comprising over 510 million of people have, with our help, reached the goal of independent life and strength. We have aided this process both by our technical assistance and by generous financial contributions. All these States are completely independent members of our free Commonwealth association.
  'Nor is this movement at an end. In October this year, Nigeria, with its 35 million people, will be another great independent country. Sierra Leone will become independent in April, 1961. The West Indies Federation is moving rapidly in the same direction. And so the process goes on.
  'I ask you, Sir, can you really believe that a Government and a people who have pursued these policies so consistently and so honourably are engaged in a conspiracy to destroy the new independent State of Congo?
  'But my purpose in sending you this personal message is not to debate in detail the individual issues which have lately arisen between us. Rather, it is to express to you my deep concern over what now appears to be a new trend in the conduct of Soviet foreign policy.
  'As I think you will agree, I have consistently welcomed and have given much weight to your assurances of the Soviet Government's desire for peaceful co-existence and detente in international relations. I have shown my sympathy with such purposes. It is, however, my firm opinion that those objectives cannot be successfully pursued without the exercise of patience and restraint. Much of my present anxiety derives from the fact that these elements seem to be absent from recent

  485
  manifestation of Soviet Government policy.
  'I write to you now so plainly because I have the memory of our frank discussions with you in my mind. I simply do not understand what your purpose is to-day.
  'If the present trend of events in the world continues, we may all of us one day, either by miscalculation or by mischance, find ourselves caught in a situation from which we cannot escape. I would ask you therefore to consider what I have said and to believe that I am writing to you like this because I feel it my duty to do so.
  'We cannot disguise and we have never attempted to disguise the fundamental differences on political, social and economic questions which divide your country and your associates from our country and our allies. Nevertheless, in the nature of things we are united by the fact that both our people and yours want to live their lives in peace and to build something better for their successors. I have always hoped that if we could have followed the path which we seemed at one time to be agreed upon, we could have made progress to this end.'
  "I hope that the House will feel that this statement does represent the general feeling in this country. We are not to be separated from our Allies by threats nor unduly worried by propaganda. At the same time, we have a deep desire to see the present tension in the world relaxed. But if this is to be done, all sides must co-operate to minimise and not magnify incidents which must inevitably arise in the present sad state of the world."
  3.57 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are all obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for having communicated to us the statement and correspondence of the Prime Minister. I think I can say at once for my friends on this side of the House, as regards the statement, especially that part which contains the Prime Minister's personal letter to Mr. Khrushchev—which seems to me in relation to the general situation in the world to be almost the most important part of the communication—that we feel
  486
  sure that not only this House but the whole country will support that type of approach in the present difficult world situation. With regard to the first part —that is, the formal reply to the Soviet Note to ourselves—I must say that there is nothing that one can find fault with in that reply at all, except perhaps that we shall have to leave to a later date the consideration of two points; but on the technical basis of the Government reply I am sure that no fault can be laid, because they are relying upon the actual, considered official reply of the United States of America, their ally, in regard to the particular flight that was being undertaken.
  No doubt later on Parliament will have an opportunity of considering the further communications to Parliament of the Prime Minister on his new conversations with the United States as to the future control of United States bases in this country and of flights therefrom. But, taking the statement as a whole this afternoon, I just stress this main thing: that the record of the freedom-loving people of this country, even though they have been guilty of mistakes in the past, in consistently seeking to bring freedom, independence and continuing justice to areas in which we have been concerned for centuries, is the best answer to the latest charge of Mr. Khrushchev against this country. I am very glad indeed that the Prime Minister has made this an opportunity for a personal statement which I, think will carry the nation with him.
  LORD REA: My Lords, I think the best comment I can make from these Benches is no comment, in the sense that, as the noble Viscount has indicated, I am quite sure that this communication will have the full support of all members of this nation. I think, for the record, it is wise that those who will be reading this communication in other parts of the world should see that in this country, where there is more than one political Party, we are united in this sort of event, which has in this particular case been so extremely well handled by the communications we have just heard.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am grateful for the response the House has given to the Prime Minister's letter and message, and I am sure he will be, too.

  ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING OF MOTOR CYCLES) BILL
  3.58 p.m.
  Committee stage resumed.
  LORD REA: May I ask the Lord Chairman a question on a technical point? Am I right in thinking that he is going to put to the House first Amendment No. 1, and then Amendment No. 3? Would it not be more logical if he took No. 3 first, so that the House can decide whether it wishes to proceed with this clause at all? I think it would be more comprehensible if we could vote on No. 3 before No. 1.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The answer is, no. I am following the usual procedure, and the Amendments have been set out in the Order Paper in accordance with the usual customs and Orders of the House. As I have already explained, there was a pure mistake: No. 2 was inadvertently put above No. 3. In fact No. 2 concerns Clause 2. As regards Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 it is proper for No. 1 to be taken first, and that is the procedure I propose to follow.
  LORD REA: I am much obliged.
  LORD WALERAN: If I may speak for a moment on Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, may I first say that I give the fullest support to the words of my noble friend Lord Swinton? It is quite clear that if we agreed to Amendment No. 1 we should be back where we were and should have young people of sixteen able to ride very fast powerful motor cycles.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Is the noble Lord correct? If Clause 2 is passed and the Bill goes through with Clause 2, that would not be quite accurate, because in Clause 2 there is a proviso that provisional licences are limited to the riding of 250 c.c. motor cycles.
  LORD WALERAN: I am talking of Clause 1. With regard to Amendment No. 1, I should like to make one observation on the words which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Elton. If I may say so, with great respect, I think that, to put it mildly, he exaggerated the case. We have heard him before on these matters. I would point out to the noble Lord that a 50 c.c. motor-assisted bicycle goes no faster than a young man on a bicycle pedalling himself with his head down.
  488
  A relative of mine stopped and a chap on an ordinary bicycle pedalled straight into the back of him, because he had his head down and was pedalling hard. I have a feeling that one might consider whether it is not safer for someone to go along with his head up, assisted by a mere 50 c.c. of engine power, than to pedal hard and so wobble all over the place—instances of which one often sees on the roads to-day.
  LORD MERRIVALE: I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Aberdare. I heartily agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said. I think it is a very good thing indeed that the youth of this country should have an opportunity, between the ages of fifteen and sixteen, to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle of a low power, instead of one which exceeds 50 c.c. May I be permitted to relate a personal experience? I owned a moped before I had reached the age of sixteen. I might add that it was not in this country, and therefore I was not infringing the law. I consider that I gained a certain amount of road sense. But in spite of that, when I reached the age of sixteen and was given a higher-powered motor cycle, and was therefore tempted to go further afield, I had two accidents in a short space of time. One of them could have been very serious indeed and I might have lost my life. I did not; I was only hurt. The fact that I was only hurt and not killed arose from the fact that I had driven a mechanically propelled vehicle—in other words, a moped—previous to owning a proper motor cycle. That is one reason why, on this question of experience, I think it is a good thing for a youngster of fifteen to gain experience; then, when he reaches the age of sixteen, he should drive nothing larger than a motor cycle powered up to 250 c.c. It is for those reasons that I support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Aberdare.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: I should like to say one thing. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, told us that no Government had done anything towards reducing casualties on the roads. Whose fault is that?
  LORD ELTON: May I just say that I said that this Government had done nothing really effective. I did not say "no Government".
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: Nothing really effective to stop road accidents. Here was a Committee set up in 1955, I think, to study one particular aspect. They reported in 1957. Their Report was followed up by a detailed survey conducted under the auspices of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and that Report, which was completed in 1959, is the one that recommended the course of action which is embodied in this Bill. If noble Lords are going to disregard the evidence collected by bodies set up for the purpose, we cannot blame anybody but ourselves. If the Government set up a highly qualified Committee and, after considering their Report, express agreement by the introduction of this Bill, I for one should be content to accept that and agree with the course suggested.
  I should like to comment on what my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth said. He quoted figures. He said, first, that this Bill was based on evidence collected as long ago as 1957. As I have mentioned, that is not the case, because the evidence was collected between 1957 and 1959. Secondly, my noble friend quoted a large number of figures about mopeds. I should like to ask him how the figures regarding the mileage of mopeds were collected, and on whose authority he quoted them.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I correct one thing that my noble friend has said? This Bill is not based wholly upon the survey. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said in his Second Reading speech that it was based upon the recommendations of the Committee on Road Safety, which reported in July, 1957.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: Road further.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes. He said that it was not wholly based upon the public opinion survey, or the opinion survey that followed. The statistics I quoted were the official statistics issued jointly by the Ministry of Transport and the Road Research Laboratory. I understand that the Road Research Laboratory now have a scientific, or a pseudo-scientific method of calculating the mileage done by every class of road vehicle. That is where these figures that I quoted right the way through came from—the Ministry of Transport official return.
  LORD HASTINGS: It seems to me that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, put this position most clearly; and he put it as the general sense of the House: that we should like to leave out Clause 1 altogether, but if we do that these young people of sixteen will be able to go straight on to the more dangerous sort of motor cycle without previous experience. Therefore he said, would it not be better to accept the Amendment. But am I not right in saying that what many of your Lordships want is to prevent young people of fifteen from going on the roads on any sort of motorised vehicle, and also to prevent young people of sixteen from riding the machines they are at present allowed to ride? It seems to me that we shall have an opportunity under Clause 2 of discussing an Amendment which also seeks to limit the lethal potentialities of people of sixteen by limiting their capacity for slaughter to machines of 50 c.c. Therefore, if we do leave out Clause 1 altogether, we can then do for the child of fifteen what Lord Elton is anxious to do—in which I entirely support him—and then proceed to limit the people of sixteen to a machine slightly less dangerous than that to which they are entitled now. Therefore, I suggest that we can very well leave out Clause 1 altogether, and I hope that your Lordships will vote in that sense.
  4.8 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): I think perhaps it would now be convenient if I joined in this debate. If I have heard aright what noble Lords have said, it seems to me that I have a little work to do. I think I had better perhaps begin by talking about mopeds, the word "moped" and what it means, because it has a bearing in two ways. It enables me, first of all, to make a more accurate assessment of the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Aberdare, and at the same time it enables me to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, a point as to what happened to this Bill in another place.
  Referring only to the Amendment for the moment, what I think makes this Amendment acceptable is its drafting. The power to reduce the age would be restricted to motor cycles of an engine size of no greater than 50 c.c. and equipped with pedals which can be used

  491
  for propulsion. I know that they are supposed to help you up the hills and to start off; but the purpose of including them is to define a machine on which the rider sits upright. As I understand it, that is the main purpose, because in that position he has the best view of the road, and also in that position there is automatically some limit on the ultimate speed, such as it is, that the machine can attain on a level road.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said that if this Amendment were accepted it would restore the position to that in another place where an Amendment to remove mopeds from this clause was accepted. But it would not quite do so. It had nothing at all to do with tying the hands of the Government or the Minister, and it was not for that reason that mopeds were moved out of Clause 1. The reason was that they were there referred to as mopeds, fact, this vehicle has an international definition. It is defined in Annexe 1 to the Convention on Road Traffic which was drawn up at Geneva in 1949 in connection with machines which "shall not be considered as motor vehicles". Other countries have views very different from ours on the riding of mopeds. We in this country did not accept that Annexe; and, furthermore, those countries who did so subsequently agreed to change the definition so as to exclude the need for pedals. As a result "moped" became a completely objectionable term to be used in a Bill of this kind, because it would have defined the wrong machine in relation to the definition it already has under an international Convention. The fact is that the machine which the noble Lord wishes to be used by younger people (if that is to be) is well, and I believe safely, defined in this Amendment.
  At an earlier stage I said, and my right honourable friend has said elsewhere, that he would not exercise the power to reduce the minimum age for riding motor cycles, even those of not more than 50 c.c., until he was satisfied that it was safe to do so. I feel that I must clarify that statement. I thought that I had already done so, but I may have led—or misled—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, into thinking that I said Her Majesty's Government were going to have nothing to do with that.
  492
  I do not believe that that is what I did say. I believe I said that my right honourable friend did not propose to use this power until he was really sure that it was safe to do so. I must clarify this completely because if I do not do so it may be thought, on the other hand, that the accusation could be levelled against the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that he was endeavouring to legislate a dead letter; and I do not think that that is the case.
  The survey of accidents to riders aged under 21 which was made during the summer of 1958 indicated that smaller machines of engine capacity of less than 60 c.c. were safer than large machines. It is difficult to determine what particular feature of the small machine seems to make them safer. It may be simply their size or their relatively low performance. That leads on to the conclusion which has been mentioned by various noble Lords: that experience is more important than age; that it is the first six months that counts; and, furthermore, that a Gradation from small to larger machines at a later stage is desirable and is in the interests of road safety. My noble friends Lord Swinton and Lord Merrivale supported that view. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, did not. I can only think that his remarks, if he was really confining to this Government his opinion that nothing has been done towards road safety, constitute the most shattering indictment of all previous Governments. But perhaps that is for us to discuss on another occasion.
  LORD ELTON: My Lords, what I thought I said, and certainly meant to say, was that nothing as yet effective had been done by this Government or this Parliament. I was not speaking of all previous Governments, or saying that nothing had been done. I was saying that nothing effective had been done; and since we understand that casualties are still rising that seems to be almost self-proved.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think this is the moment to go into that. The noble Lord said nothing effective had been done; and he confined his remarks to the present Government, and excluded others. I re-challenge that, but that will be for another day, not now.

  493
  There is some reason to think that there is at least an arguable case that a contribution to road safety can be made by this move. On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has pointed out, the most recent figures for motor-cycle accidents suggest that in fact there has been an increase in the accident rate for the lighter type of machine; and there I am bound to agree. The rate seems to be rising on the rate for heavier machines. The point here is that we certainly need more information on the matter before we can feel that a decision to reduce the age could be based on sound grounds.
  If I may look into the crystal ball a little, if there was to be a lowering of the age it might possibly be in connection with a later Road Safety Bill—and I actually said to Lord Lucas of Chilworth that that might come in "a later Session" not "in the next Session". Such a Bill might contain some broad scheme, because my right honourable friend already has powers to classify and test drivers, by further classifications than are at present used, according to the size of the machine ridden. It would be perfectly possible to do that. If it were found, in due course, to be worth while encouraging riders to get their first experience on a light-type machine at an earlier age, a change of that kind might be a contribution to road safety.
  To sum up, I believe that Lord Aberdare's Amendment would give my right honourable friend added flexibility in what he could do in conjunction with those powers he already has, and it seems to me that on balance it might be useful to have this power, possibly as part of a broader over-all scheme in due course. I believe therefore that if your Lordships saw fit to accept the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Aberdare and not to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that would appear not an unreasonable course.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord has said that if we accept this Amendment it will give his right honourable friend more flexibility. Would he permit me to say that it would have exactly the reverse effect? It would tie his hands while it was on the Statute Book, because he would be unable to
  494
  allow a child of fifteen years of age to ride any type of motor cycle unless it had pedals. So if the manufacturers bring out a 50 c.c. motor cycle—Hand they are now down to 100 c.c.—without pedals and pedalling gear, the Minister's hands are tied and he will be unable to allow that. That was the argument put up by his joint colleague in the other place—that the Minister wanted flexibility to take advantage of increases in technical knowledge during this coming two or three years.
  LORD CHESHAM: it was precisely for that reason that I made some rather heavy play with this business of pedals. The pedals, in fact, are all important. I do not see how the Minister is going to be so very tied by this. Admittedly, it would inhibit him if and when he made an Order to reduce the age. It would mean that there have to be pedals with the machine. As I have said, that is a good thing. This is one of those things which militate against turning the thing into a "high-speed flyer", which the noble Lords fear. If there are pedals (I do not know whether the noble Lord has tried it, but I have), it is extraordinarily difficult to sit on the machine in a way other than upright. So one can see where one is going, and the natural resistance to the body of the wind would further limit speed by automatically stopping the machine from getting up to any high need. That is the important part, and I do not regard that as tying the Minister's hands at all.
  LORD ABERDARE: If I may speak again, with the Committee's permission, as I originally spoke on my own Amendment and have not had a chance of sneaking on that of the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Chesham for his help and assistance and for accepting this Amendment on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I should like to defend myself and the sponsors of this Bill against the charge that we are throwing fifteen-year-olds into the dangers of the roads. The facts are that these fifteen-year-olds are already exposed to the dangers of the roads on their pedal cycles. All we are suggesting is that at fifteen they might graduate to a motor-assisted pedal cycle. But we are, as my noble friend Lord

  495
  Chesham has emphasised, insisting that there are pedals, so that these machines do not become dangerous in any way. From the point of view of the average motor-car driver, they are, I think, a safer proposition than even an ordinary pedal cycle. The pedal cyclist is very likely to swerve as his leg muscles tire; but most of our impressions of the moped are of a fairly steady, serene progress, with the driver with his head in the air. Certainly I should think that a moped was a rather safer vehicle at night, as its lighting is much better.
  As my noble friend Lord Chesham has said, we are quite content to leave this matter with the Minister. We give him the opportunity of getting a gradation from the fifteen-year-old with a moped to the sixteen-year-old beginning with a light motor cycle of under 250 c.c., and finally to the heavy motor cycle. That is all we are aiming at, and we are quite happy to leave this clause giving the Minister power to make the decision
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Provisional licences not to authorise driving of heavy motor cycles
  2. A provisional licence granted under section one hundred and two of the Road Traffic
  whether, and when, it should be introduced.
  4.28 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out Clause 1. The noble Lord said: I have proceeded in the way I have only because it has been conveyed to me that a number of noble Lords did not want this clause in at all: they would prefer to Divide the House on the second Amendment, to leave the clause out. I do not think it is necessary for me to make another speech. I will merely move the Amendment that stands in my name. Of course, any other noble Lord may speak if he desires.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37 Not-Contents, 39.

  CONTENTS

  Ailwyn, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Pakenham, L.

  Airedale, L.

  Greenhill, L.

  Rusholme, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Hastings, L.

  Silkin, L.

  Amulree, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Sinha, L.

  Amwell, L.

  Henderson, L.

  Stansgate, V.

  Atholl, D.

  Killearn, L.

  Stonham, L.

  Barnby, L.

  Latham, L.

  Taylor, L.

  Burden, L.

  Limerick, E.

  Terrington, L.

  Conesford, L.

  Long, V.

  Teviot, L.

  Dalton, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]

  Uvedale of North End, L.

  Derwent, L.

  Merthyr, L.

  Williams, L.

  Elton, L. [Teller.]

  Meston, L.

  Wise, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L. [Teller.]

  Dynevor, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Gifford, L.

  Newall, L.

  Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Onslow, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Granville-West, L.

  Reading, M.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Haddington, E.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Bossom, L.

  Iddesleigh, E.

  St. Oswald, L.

  Brecon, L.

  Jessel, L.

  Soulbury, V.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Lambert, V.

  Spens, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Swinton, E.

  Craigton, L.

  MacAndrew, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Digby, L. [Teller.]

  McCorquodale of Newton, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Dovercourt, L.

  Margesson, V.

  Waleran, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  Act, 1960, on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and sixty-one, shall not authorise the driving of a motor cycle whereof the cylinder capacity of the engine exceeds two hundred and fifty cubic centimetres.
  4.39 p.m.
  LORD WALERAN LORD WALERAN moved, after "motor cycle "to insert"(other than a motor cycle with a side-car attached)".
  The noble Lord said: The Amendment standing in my name is really very simple. I think it is right to assume that one does not want a motor cycle combination with a very small engine. It does not do its job properly; and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would agree with me that to have a small engine on a side-car combination is undesirable. It makes people try to go faster, and involves driving in a way that is undesirable for this type of vehicle. I think it is fairly safe to say that most people who want to buy a motor cycle and side-car want something comfortable, with good mechanical characteristics, which will go along at a reasonable speed, and which is safe for the carriage of children. The points in favour, if you take them in isolation, which I think is the correct way, are that a motor cycle combination is essentially a safe vehicle. It is true to say that the majority of insurance companies give a 50 per cent. reduction in premium as compared with a policy for a solo motor cycle of the same cubic capacity. There is no need for me to say that insurance companies are very careful and would not give this reduction if a motor cycle combination was not a good deal safer.
  The third point is that anybody learning to drive a motor cycle with side-car attached has to have a qualified driver beside him. That takes care of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that with a solo motor cycle one could just tie an "L" plate on one's back and go off. I think it is only fair and just that people who want a motor cycle with side-car attached should have the right type of machine, if it is safe. The only possible objection I can see to which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, may refer is that on the present form of driving licence, group (g) reads:
  "Motor cycles with or without a side-car."
  I am sure that such an administrative detail can be overcome. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 14, after ("cycle") insert ("(other than a motor cycle with a side-car attached)".—(Lord Waleran.)
  LORD DERWENT: May I support my noble friend's Amendment? It is clearly sensible not to limit the power of a motor bicycle when a side-car is attached. I think it is important that the Minister should deal with the form of the driving licence. At the moment, I
  498
  understand that one can take a test on a motor cycle and side-car and, having passed the test, straight away go on a solo cycle. Clearly, that is wrong. But I should have thought that to put in an extra category, perhaps (gs), would be perfectly simple. I would commend this Amendment, which serves a useful purpose.
  LORD ABERDARE: May I say, on behalf of the sponsors of the Bill, that we are prepared to accept this Amendment. We understood, when the Bill was in another place, that the Minister would be excepting motor cycle combinations when it came to making regulations, and that the Government do not wish to be tied down to, this exception in the words which were in the original Bill. I am happy to accept this Amendment.
  LORD CHESHAM: I think that I should also say something about this Amendment. It gives me some regret—because I have considerable sympathy with this Amendment—to say that I do not believe that your Lordships should accept it. My noble friend Lord Waleran has made an attractive case. The fact that you can get a 50 per cent. reduction in insurance premium by fitting a side-car, because safety is enhanced thereby, is, on the face of it, a convincing argument. The fact that a qualified driver can go along is also an attractive argument. But I am bound to say that there are some important objections. The first objection relates to the type of side-car. There are a number of side-cars which, for want of a better term, I would say have saloon bodies. They have closed tops, solid over the passenger. And the qualified driver accompanying a learner is virtually incommunicado, and certainly unable to help if things went wrong. A qualified driver in a car, in an emergency, can switch off the ignition or take over the wheel or put on the hand brake or do something else, but in a closed side-car, he can do nothing, probably not even shout advice to the driver.
  Secondly, the legal requirement for a qualified driver to be with a learner applies only provided the side-car has a seat for the passenger. The noble Lord's Amendment would not be valid in the case of a machine fitted with a commercial box sidecar. A learner could go and

  499
  buy himself a heavy machine and fit to it a side-car with a carrying body and so get a licence. I think that that is very little safer than if he simply were to buy himself a heavy solo machine. The third objection is one already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Derwent—that is, that a learner could borrow his father's heavy machine with its side-car, learn to ride that and take his test on it, and go straight on to a heavy solo machine. Therefore, it seems to me that the Amendment would enable the safety provisions desired by the clause to be evaded, and I do not think that your Lordships should accept it.
  LORD WALERAN: I am not very satisfied by the answer that the noble Lord has given. I think that in his second argument he is not on very sound grounds. I think that safety is in the "nature of the beast". A side-car, whether big or small, can lean only in one way and makes it awkward to handle the machine. That is why it is inherently safe. If the noble Lord could look a little further into this point, I should be glad, otherwise I shall have to raise this again. I will not press it at the moment.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Once the Government start shelving their own responsibilities, they get into a muddle. This is not a Government Bill. The sponsors accept this Amendment and the noble Lord does not withdraw it. Is the Minister going to divide the House? It will be interesting to see.
  LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord is perfectly right: it is my noble friend's Bill, not mine. I am certainly not going to divide the House. But it is usual for the Government spokesman to give the Government's view on these occasions, and I have given it.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I appreciate it.
  LORD CHESHAM: Because I have been pulled up for this before, I tried to make my advice to the Committee quite specific. I said that I thought that your Lordships should reject this Amendment. I do not think that your Lordships would want me to be more specific than that. In reply to what my noble friend Lord Waleran said, I would say that a learner of sixteen years of age on a machine of 500 or 650 c.c., with a light box side-car
  500
  with nothing in it attached, fills me with greater dread than if he were on a machine without a side-car. And I have had a little experience of these matters. I agree that basically there is a good deal in my noble friend's argument, but there are these exceptions and objections which I think make the Amendment unacceptable. It is not for me to look at the matter again, but I feel fairly certain that if I did I should not see anything different.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I appreciate the noble Lord's giving the Committee advice, but the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, who moved the Amendment, was asking the noble Lord to take a second look at it on behalf of the Government. It has nothing to do with the Government; it is the sponsor's Bill. Why not stick to accepting it? It is the same as the other Amendment. The Government will not do anything about it. We are only cluttering up the Bill with another Amendment which the Government will alter at a future date. Two is as good as one.
  LORD AIREDALE: May I ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, would feel any happier if the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, were to amend the Amendment so that it read, "other than a motor cycle with a passenger-carrying side-car attached"?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Lord ask leave to withdraw the Amendment?
  LORD WALERAN: I think it would possibly be better, in view of what has been said, if I withdrew the Amendment now, with the reservation that we might look into this matter and put the Amendment down again at a later stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I have received a message from the noble Lord, Lord Somers, indicating that he does not wish to move Amendment No. 4 on the Marshalled List.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  House resumed.

  MENTAL HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14):
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, it may be convenient, if it is agreeable to your Lordships, to dispose of this Bill to-day. I therefore beg to move that this Bill he now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Craigton).
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  ROAD TRAFFIC AND ROADS IMPROVEMENT BILL
  4.53 p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
  Clause 1 [Punishment without prosecution of offences in connection with lights, reflectors, obstruction, etc.]:
  LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, after subsection (9) to insert:
  "( ) In any proceedings for an offence to which subsection (1) of this section applies no reference shall be made after the conviction of the accused to the giving or affixing of any notice under this section or to the payment or non-payment of a fixed penalty there-under unless in the course of the proceedings or in some document which is before the court in connection with the proceedings reference has been made by or on behalf of the accused to the giving or affixing of such a notice or, as the case may be, to such a payment or nonpayment."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for putting down two Amendments on Third Reading, but they are more or less inevitable. I do not think I need take up much of your Lordships' time with them, however. The first Amendment has been put down to deal with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and others on the Committee stage as to whether the fact that the driver had been served with a ticket could be quoted against him in court. My noble, friend Lord Bathurst promised to look at the matter again, and on
  502
  that understanding the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, withdrew the Amendment he had down, which was designed to ensure that no evidence should be given in court concerning the payment of a fixed penalty without the consent of the person who made the payment. Unfortunately, it was not possible to knock an Amendment into shape for the Report stage.
  There are two types of proceedings to which the question of whether reference could be made to the service of the ticket or the payment of a fixed penalty may be relevant. The first is proceedings for the offence for which the ticket was served, where the fixed penalty has not been paid; and the second is subsequent proceedings for a quite separate offence. In neither case could the service of a ticket or, come to that, the payment of a fixed penalty be referred to before conviction, because the evidence would be irrelevant to the question of guilt of The offence then before the court; and consequently, it would be in- admissible, except in so far as the accused might wish to raise the defence, in proceedings for a ticketable offence, that he had in fact paid the fixed charge. Since it cannot be mentioned before conviction, there remains the question whether the service of a ticket or the payment of a penalty could be quoted as part of a defendant's history after conviction when the court is considering sentence. Where the offender has been convicted of the offence for which the ticket was served the fact that he has chosen to exercise his right to contest the case instead of paying the fixed penalty ought not to be quoted against him.
  The Government have come to the conclusion that it would be right to prohibit it specifically in the Bill, which is what the noble Lord asked for. On the other hand, where the fixed penalty has been paid, there is not a conviction. That has become abundantly clear owing to the Amendment we moved and carried stating that payment discharged liability to conviction. It is therefore not a conviction, and, could not be mentioned as part of the offender's antecedents; and it is right, I think, that he should also be protected against any reference to his having paid up on a ticket if he is before the court for a similar offence in the future.
  The Amendment accordingly provides that the fact that a person has had a ticket, or that he has paid a fixed penalty, or has not paid it, should not be mentioned in the proceedings after conviction of an offence to which Clause 1 (1) applies unless it has been mentioned by or on behalf of the accused in the course of proceedings or in some document which is before the court—by which I mean a statement submitted on a plea of "guilty" sent by post, or something like that. I do not think there is anything more that I need say about it, and I hope that the Amendment will be acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 17, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Chesham.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having put down this Amendment. He promised me that he would, and I did not proceed with the matter on the Report stage, having complete faith that he would keep his word. There is just one question that I should like to ask the noble Lord. When this Amendment originally appeared in the Printed Paper Office—I think it was yesterday or the day before yesterday—it had one form of wording, but when it appeared in the Printed Paper Office this morning it had another version; and it is starred, with a note saying that the first two lines of the above Amendment had been altered. The original draft read:
  "Page 3, line 17, at end insert … 'In any criminal proceedings (other than proceedings for a contravention of subsection (8) of this section) no reference …'"
  and so on. In the Amendment which is before your Lordships it says:
  "In any proceedings for an offence to which subsection (1) of this section applies no reference shall be made …"
  I want to know what is the subtlety in the alteration—if subtlety it is. Is it because under the words "In any criminal proceedings"—that is, the original draft—no offence committed by that motorist under the Road Traffic Act could be brought in, and it is now narrowed down to no "offence to which subsection (1) of this section applies"? That really confines it to parking offences. Perhaps the noble Lord will
  504
  tell me whether that is the answer. I am puzzled to know what the answer is.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, perhaps I should have been a little more explicit, but there is no deep mystery in it. I am glad to be able to explain it to the noble Lord, and the explanation is this. It was realised that if the Amendment was left as originally put down it would mean that the ban on references to tickets would have extended to offences generally. We could not have that, because there might be cases in which the fact that a ticket had been served is an integral part of the circumstances of the offence, and reference to it, either before or after, would be neither unfair nor avoidable. The case which springs to mind is a case where the accused had either tried to bribe a traffic warden or policeman, or punched him on the nose or something like that, in the process of serving a ticket. We should have reached the rather queer position that if there was a case, say, of assault, then in the circumstances of the Amendment as originally drafted, it would not have been possible for the warden to give evidence that he was serving a ticket at the time he was punched on the nose. It is to overcome that particular legal difficulty—it is not a major affair—that the alteration was made.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I speak again, by leave of the House? Of course I am not a lawyer, and neither am I in the habit of punching people on the nose. But I should have thought that the action of punching someone on the nose could have come into the category of "any criminal proceedings". However, I expect the noble Lord is right. I looked at it rather closely—and the noble Lord will forgive me for doing so, because, after all, it is my responsibility in Opposition to make the noble Lord make his case. The noble Lord does assure me, does he not, that there is no side wind by which the ticket offences, if they accumulate by a large amount, can be brought in under this? If he gives me that assurance, I am prepared to accept it.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am quite ready to say that there is no such side wind. It is for the reason I have stated, badly as I may have stated it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15 [Charges for removing and storing vehicles]:
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is a drafting Amendment of a minor character which has been put down for the avoidance of doubt. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 34, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
  ("(c) in relation to a vehicle removed by a person other than as aforesaid from a parking place provided or controlled by a local authority, means that authority;
  (d) in relation to a vehicle removed by a person other than as aforesaid from a parking place in the London Traffic Area designated under section thirty-four of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, means the local authority (being the council of the county borough or county district, the Common Council of the City of London or the council of the metropolitan borough) within whose area the parking place is situate;").—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend's guidance? Is it in order for me to make a few remarks with regard to traffic wardens?
  5.4 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, in moving that the Bill do now pass, I had it in mind to make a few remarks, and perhaps my noble friend would not mind if he followed me. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill have naturally occupied most of the time that we have given to this Bill, and I think it is right that they should, because they introduce the ticket system and use of traffic wardens, which were both quite new means of enforcement. As a matter of fact, though, the ticket system is not wholly new in principle—I have not made this point before—because there has been over the last hundred years or so some means, well known to law, of compounding some offences. One offence that comes readily to mind is that of failing to buy a licence for one's motor car, or even failing to display it, as I found to my own cost (of approximately 10s.) in 1938. But the ticket system is new in all other respects, and it is right that it should have been examined very carefully. This is an experiment, and we want to start by examining how the system works on a limited scale and in relation to the simpler offences. What I might call the gradual element has now been more
  506
  clearly embodied in the Bill as a result of the useful discussions we have had in the House, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to making the Bill conform more clearly to the Government's intentions.
  I believe that the ticket system, with the safeguards that have been built into the Bill, will prove acceptable to the public. I think that most motorists—and, after all, an overwhelming majority, for better or worse, already plead guilty by post when they are charged with parking offences—will accept without difficulty the somewhat simpler procedure of paying the fixed penalty, while those who wish to contest the charges will recognise that they are perfectly free, as free as they are to-day, to do just that. I believe we shall find that it will be not only a valuable means of improving the flow of traffic through congested areas, but a real means of relief of the work of the police. Whatever happens in that way, the experiment will be subject to the control of Parliament at all stages. The extension of the ticket system, first to London, and then to other areas, will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. So will the extension of its scope to include obstruction, which I gave your Lordships an undertaking to exclude from the scope of the system from the outset. Your Lordships will therefore have an opportunity to consider how the experiment is going before more widespread use of it is made.
  Your Lordships welcomed traffic wardens to assist the police in their duties, but, very rightly I think, showed concern over the precise scope of what those duties should be. The employment of wardens is also experimental, and we must also go on gradually with it, giving them only a limited range of duties to begin with and considering an extension only when it has been justified by achievements. Your Lordships were very concerned that at first wardens should not be authorised to use the ticket system to deal with obstruction, and we amended the clause in such a way as to ensure that it cannot be one of the functions to be conferred on them by the first Order, which is to be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, and also that any Order extending their functions made after October 1 next will be subject to Affirmative Resolution. As your

  507
  Lordships know, the Negative Resolution procedure is laid down in the case of the first one, so that it may come into operation during the Recess.
  I think your Lordships should know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has authorised the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to proceed on the assumption that the Bill will receive the Royal Assent before the Recess, and to begin to arrange for the early recruitment of traffic wardens with a view to their taking up their duties some time in September. It is hoped that in this way the wardens will be fully trained and will have had some experience of their duties in time to enable them to give really useful assistance to the police in traffic matters and the relief of congestion in central London during the difficult period which always comes up at Christmas.
  My Lords, I have spent a minute or two on Clauses 1 and 2 again, because it has obviously been clear that it is these to which your Lordships have attached the greatest importance. I will deal with the rest of the Bill, if I may, rather more summarily. The remaining clauses have two separate objectives. To start with, they aim to amplify the Minister's powers to deal with the traffic crisis in London, and most of these powers are limited to a five-year period. It may be that recommendations will come from the Royal Commission on Local Government in London which will necessitate further statutory changes before the end of that period. But in any case the Minister does not think that they represent the final solution for London's traffic, and in the meantime it is his responsibility to do what he can to deal with the crisis, and so he has thought it wise to arm himself with these additional powers. The other clauses in the Bill are designed to help local authorities to deal with parking problems, both inside and outside the London Traffic Area.
  Now, I think I should come for a minute to Clause 12, which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and that also helps local authorities by removing an existing restriction on their right to prohibit loading and unloading. As you know, this clause has caused considerable apprehension to the operators of commercial
  508
  vehicles, and at the Report stage I promised to make a further statement about it to-day. I have now had an opportunity to consult my right honourable friend, and he has agreed that we should immediately consult the local authority representative organisations and the organisations representative of commercial vehicle operators, a process which he is bound to do by Statute, in order to see exactly how to amend the existing procedure regulations in order to effect adequately the safeguards of the type which I mentioned.
  Broadly speaking, this would mean that where a local authority are proposing to impose a ban on loading and unloading which is to operate for more than six hours a day, and where there are any unresolved objections, the local authority would have to hold a public inquiry and would be required to send a copy of the inspector's report to my right honourable friend at least a month before they proposed to make the order. This would ensure that my right honourable friend was forewarned of any possible trouble and would have time to discuss the matter with the local authority if he thought that anything which was proposed went beyond what was reasonable on traffic grounds.
  My noble friend, Lord Derwent, expressed a fear on Report stage that the Minister would have no power of review as a result of the new Clause 12 as inserted in the Bill. I have consulted my legal advisers and I can assure your Lordships that this fear is groundless. I am quite satisfied that, even with this Amendment, any objector would have an absolute right to object to a local authority on the grounds that they were imposing a restriction unreasonably in the light of all the circumstances, and my right honourable friend would be fully entitled to use his powers under Section 27 if he thought that a local authority order was unreasonable. The words in subsection (4) of Section 26 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, would neither detract anything from any objector's rights, nor would it in any way restrict my right honourable friend's power to amend or revoke any local authority order. I hope that this assurance will satisfy those noble Lords who have felt some apprehension about the clause.
  We have already given a good deal of time to this Bill, and I do not think

  509
  that your Lordships would want me to go on much longer now. I should like to thank not only all those noble Lords who have co-operated so well in the passage of the Bill but all those unseen figures behind me who have done so much work, too, and who are usually to be found incarcerated in the officials' box. I am sure that we have made considerable improvements to the Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House, and particularly in the first two clauses. In particular I would pay my tribute to the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, which have played no small part in the improvements to the Bill I have just mentioned. The amount of homework he must put in is, I should have thought, formidable, and, even if he and I do not see quite eye to eye, I am only too happy to recognise the sincerity of his endeavours. I look forward to further battles in what are, in reality, our joint efforts to improve the transport Bills which will undoubtedly, I assure your Lordships, be coming before the House in due course. I would also express my appreciation to my noble friend Lord Bathurst, who nobly and very efficiently took on a heavy load for me on the Committee stage when circumstances had made things a little difficult.
  My Lords, as I said on Second Reading, this may not be a major Bill but it is a very useful one, and I am sure that it is going to make its contribution to the solution of some of our worst traffic difficulties. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Chesham.)
  5.18 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, when this Bill came to this House it was a thoroughly bad one. It was woolly, and I despaired that even the skill of your Lordships' House could ever turn it into a good one. But your Lordships have done that with Bills upon many occasions and I do not think you have failed altogether upon this occasion. At least the Bill does now state, whether we agree with all of it or whether we do not, what the Government intend to do. I still have some misgivings about Clauses 1 and 2. I think that perhaps more could well come of the other clauses and the conditions and regulations that will be made under
  510
  the other clauses. I do not think that, in the last analysis, traffic wardens will ever be a success. This Bill now has whittled them right down to nothing more nor less than car park attendants. But I am hopeful that perhaps outside agencies will come to our aid.
  I think I read in the Daily Telegraph the other day (and if it is in the Daily Telegraph I always think that means that the Government are going to do it) that as a result of the Royal Commission police constables are going to get a very substantial starting salary—much more than they get to-day. If that is so, if real recruitment can be made into the police force and a traffic police force can be formed, that, in my view, is going to be our solution. I am not at all happy about ticket fining, but it is bound to come, I think. We made the first step when the Magistrates' Courts Act came into operation. I believe that in the course of time, in spite of the opposition which I expect the noble Lord will receive from the Home Office, it will be enlarged to cover quite a majority of motoring offences.
  The noble Lord was very kind in his personal references. This provides me with the opportunity to congratulate him upon the manner in which he has handled this Bill. I knew that it was a tough assignment—I knew it even better than he did. I lived with this problem of traffic at the Ministry of Transport; and in my day, now many years ago, I had to battle with the Home Office about the enforcement of the traffic laws. I knew the size of his problem. I think he surmounted his difficulties admirably, with, if he will allow me to say so, a courtesy which sometimes was unexpected because I harried him hard at times—I think I harried him perhaps unmercifully at times. I make no apology whatsoever for that—it is my job. I conceive it to be the duty of any Opposition to make the Government state and make their case. If they cannot make their case, they must alter it, which is something the noble Lord did upon many occasions. I can only say that I hope that in my pressure upon him I did not drive over the white line of courtesy upon any occasion.
  I should like also to echo what he said about the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, who had his baptism of fire in this Bill. I am sorry he is not in his place at present,

  511
  because, if I may strike a personal note, I am certain that the distinguished lady, his mother, who was such an ornament to another place, and whom I knew before the noble Earl was even a twinkle in his father's eye, so many years ago—more than I like to remember; I am not going to be ungallant enough to say just how many they are—must have been very pleased at her son's first halting steps in a major contribution to a Bill in your Lordships' House.
  I should like to say a word about Clause 12. I look upon this as one of the major contributions that the Bill has made to the relief of congestion. I was never apprehensive, as was the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. He, quite rightly, voiced his suspicions and fears, as he always does, with courtesy and restraint. But my experience has been that ever since we made our great mistake in the 1956 Road Traffic Act there has been no power in the hands of the police outside London to curb this curse of loading and unloading, and indiscriminately using the main streets not for unloading or loading but for garaging commercial vehicles. There has been only one weapon in the hands of the police—namely, that of prosecution for obstruction. They have had no other power to help them.
  I am all for consultation. I think it is right that there should be consultation between the local authorities, the trade unions, the haulage associations and all the vested interests that one can bring in. But they must remember that we are not going to solve the problem this Bill seeks to solve if everyone says, "Oh yes, there must be great changes, and there must be these alterations ", and then take sidelong glances over their shoulders and make quite certain that there is going to be no inconvenience or alteration in their lives. That is what usually happens. I hope that the Minister, with the co-operation of the local authorities, will see that our main arteries of traffic are cleared, so that roads can be used for the purpose for which they are made. I wish the Bill well, and I look forward with keen anticipation to having in the future many debates with the noble Lord upon these problems.
  5.25 p.m.
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I just thank my noble friend Lord Chesham for the trouble he took in trying
  512
  to ease my fears about Clause 12. I can say categorically that the traders' organisations are much comforted by what has transpired in our debate on Clause 12; and after my noble friend's statement to-day, they should be even more comforted that further consultations are, by Statute, bound to take place as to the details of the regulations. I am sure that their fears, which I think were justified, and which they thought were justified, have now been put to rest, and I thank my noble friend for taking so much trouble about it.
  5.26 p.m.
  LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for but a few moments. There are one or two comments I should like to make with regard to traffic wardens. Within the last few days a disturbing factor has arisen, and it has arisen out of a Written Answer which was made by the Home Secretary in another place on July 14, when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 626 (No. 146), col. 119]:
  "The Police Federation express objection to the introduction of the fixed penalty procedure and the appointment of traffic wardens."
  If I may refresh your Lordships' memories with regard to the Police Act, 1919, Section 1 (1) says:
  "For the purpose of enabling the members of the police forces of England and Wales to consider and bring to the notice of the police authorities and the Secretary of State all the matters affecting their welfare and efficiency other than questions of discipline and promotion affecting individuals, there shall be established in accordance with the Schedule to this Act an organisation to be called the 'Police Federation'."
  In effect, this is a statutory organisation, and I wonder whether, in view of their objections, they will all over the country give the full support that is necessary for this Bill to be successful with regard 'to the appointment of traffic wardens, because in effect they have to train them.
  Then, on the following day, July 15, the Home Secretary, again in a Written Answer to a Question said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 626 (No. 147), col. 146]:
  "I have authorised the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to proceed on the assumption that the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill will receive the Royal Assent before the Summer Recess, and to arrange for the early recruitment of traffic wardens, with a view to their taking up their duties in the course of September."

  513
  My noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that, too.
  According to a statement in the Press, I understand that this training will take only two weeks. I am wondering whether by September uniforms will be available, and I am rather dubious as to the extent of any training that can be given in two weeks. I know that the noble Lord on Third Reading cannot, or would not in the normal course of events, reply to a question, but is the Police Federation objection based on the fact that the age group is too large, or that the training period is too short? I feel that it is rather depressing to learn at this stage, when one is looking to these traffic wardens to improve the parking situation and traffic problems, that the Police Federation are, in effect, against them. I am just wondering whether in the London Area and all over the country, we are going to get from the police the co-operation that one would hope for in order that this Bill can be a success.
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, ETC.) BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  CANTERBURY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  BLACKFRIARS BRIDGEHEAD IMPROVEMENTS BILL
  Reported, with Amendments.

  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
  The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  House adjourned at half past five o'clock.