Lords Sitting of 19 December 1961

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

DECIMAL COINAGE
2.30 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: 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 now have any statement to make as to the introduction of a decimal coinage system for the United Kingdom.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, with the permission of the House I will answer the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, by means of a statement, which I will make at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon.

SUFFERERS FROM PSYCHOPATHIC DISORDER
2.32 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can now give up to date figures of—

(i) the number and ages of persons diagnosed as suffering from psychopathic disorder and admitted to hospital or received into guardianship under Part IV of the Mental Health Act, 1959; and

(ii) the number of such persons who have subsequently been discharged either as the result of appeal to mental health review tribunals or otherwise;

and whether they can indicate what information is available as to the
650
nature of the abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct which led to the diagnosis of these persons as suffering from psychopathic disorder.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, between November 1, 1960, and April 30, 1961, 169 persons classified as suffering from psychopathic disorder without any other form of mental disorder were admitted to hospitals in England and Wales under Part IV of the Mental Health Act. At April 30, 46 patients who had been admitted under Part IV and who were at that date classified as suffering from psychopathic disorder were in hospital, 28 of them still under compulsory powers. None had been discharged by order of a Mental Health Review Tribunal. Information about age is not available in the form asked for, but I am sending to the noble Baroness such particulars as are available. Information about the grounds for the diagnosis of psychopathic disorder is not available. No psychopathic patients had been received into guardianship up to December 31, 1960, the latest date for which information can at present be provided.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Would he not agree that the definition of "irresponsible or aggressive conduct" is as much a moral as a medical matter? Would he not also agree that it is desirable in the public interest that information should be available as to how judgments of such conduct are arrived at, in view of the considerable number of young persons who are deprived of their liberty on account of such judgments?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I had not anticipated that the noble Baroness would invite me to go quite so far as that beyond the scope of the Question. I should be grateful if she could put it down.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I may have misunderstood the noble Lord, but I thought that I had put it down. I asked what information was available
"as to the nature of the abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct which led to the diagnosis of these persons as suffering from psychopathic disorder."

651
I understood the noble Lord to say that no information was available, and I am asking the noble Lord whether he does not agree that it is very important that information should be available, in view of the considerable number of persons who lose their liberty under these (as I have suggested to him) moral as well as medical judgments.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, perhaps I misunderstood the noble Baroness. I thought she was asking me to make a pronouncement about the moral aspect of this problem and it was on that that I asked for notice. However, I am advised that it is not practicable to collect particulars of the grounds for diagnosis of psychopathic disorder, mainly because there is much too wide a variety of forms of conduct which are considered to contribute to psychopathic states. In any event, abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct is only one element in the definition of "psychopathic disorder".
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. But is he aware that in the United States of America in certain textbooks which are apparently regarded as reputable, the definition of "psychopathic disorder" includes persons who have a conscientious objection to military service and persons who are described as radicals? Will he give us an assurance that these definitions, about which he says no information can be disclosed, do not include those categories in this country?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am grateful for that information, of which I was not aware. But I am not quite sure of the bearing that that has upon the definition of a psychopathic state as we have it under the Act in this country. I think it is correct to say that the pattern of behaviour must be such as to indicate a persistent disorder or disability of mind, and the condition must require or be susceptible to medical treatment.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is not the case that most of
652
the people so treated have appeared in court, and, if that is so, there should be some record of their treatment?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not think I can say any more about the availability of information than I have already said.
2.37 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can now give up-to-date figures of the number and ages of persons suffering from psychopathic disorder in respect of whom hospital or guardianship orders have been made under Part V of the Mental Health Act, 1959.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the provisional total of persons suffering from psychopathic disorder, without any other form of mental disorder, who were the subject of hospital orders made by the courts in England and Wales between November 1, 1960, and September 30, 1961, is 72. Of these, 4 were aged 14 to 16; 22 were aged 17 to 20; and 46 were aged 21 and over. No guardianship orders were made in respect of such patients during this period.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. In view of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, will the noble Lord say whether he is satisfied with the fact that the number of persons detained as psychopaths inrespect of whom court proceedings have been taken, is very much smaller than the number of persons who are so detained without court proceedings? I believe the figures are 72 to 169.
LORD NEWTON: Yes.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I asked the noble Lord whether he was satisfied that this was at it should be.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think that it is a state of affairs which we must accept as being so for the time being.

PREFABRICATED HOUSES
2.38 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: 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 have considered advocating the building of a limited number of specially designed prefabricated houses of a type suitable to meet to-day's requirements, which could be erected with great speed in definitely selected locations, to ease the present serious housing hardship now being endured by a considerable number of our people, and, if not, what solution of this important problem they propose.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord may have particularly in mind the recent increase in the number of homeless families in the London area. Serious housing difficulties of this nature are highly localised in a few areas and the local authorities concerned are best able to judge whether emergency action needs to be taken. One of the measures adopted by the London County Council for dealing with their problem of homelessness is the use of prefabricated dwellings of a limited life which can be quickly erected. Several makes of this kind of dwelling are already available on the market. My right, honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government fully supports the action taken by the L.C.C., and if any other authority faced with a similar problem would think it right to provide this type of dwelling he will be willing to give loan sanction.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, does the sanction rank for a grant?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that would depend upon whether the prefabricated house in question was of a temporary or a permanent nature.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, if it were temporary would it rank for a grant?
EARL JELLICOE: Not necessarily, my Lords. When my right honourable
654
friend received a delegation from the L.C.C. recently to discuss this problem of homelessness, the question of finance came up. My right honourable friend told the delegation that he would be willing to entertain representations with regard to subsidy if they were made. They have not yet been made.
LORD LATHAM: Otherwise, my Lords, I am sure the noble Earl would agree that the financial consequences and effects of the Rent Act would be cast upon the local authorities.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should not be able to follow the noble Lord in that line of thought.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is it not very desirable, in view of the present figures, which are not confined to London—they affect certain other districts as well—which show an enormous increase in the number of people being forced to adopt the cheaper method of living in caravans, often in very unsuitable circumstances, that the Government should, as a matter of initiation by themselves, do all that they can to encourage better housing, including the use of prefabrication?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would certainly agree that the Government should do all within their power to encourage better housing, and that is what the Government are doing. I think there is a distinction to be drawn between permanent and temporary prefabricated dwellings.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that rather comprehensive Answer, I should like to ask about two other points connected with it. Does he not feel that it is appropriate for the Government to advocate the use of prefabrication in places other than London? Because I believe he will agree that that is a way by which we can get houses quickly. There can be permanent prefabrication or temporary prefabrication. Is he aware that the Army have been working on this matter for the last seven years and have obtained certain quite satisfactory results, and that certain of our big contractors and manufacturers have also been doing it? And could he not advocate that to the authorities which are not looking after the situation as it

655
should be looked after at the present time?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I reply to my noble friend in this way? The Government are, of course, keenly interested in the possibilities of applying prefabrication techniques to all forms of housing, not only to the individual dwelling but also to flats. That is a matter which my own Department not only have a keen interest in but to which they are giving deep thought. I think I made it clear in my original reply to my noblefriend that the Government are prepared sympathetically to entertain representations made to them by local authorities in this regard.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that all local authorities do not know as much about this matter as his Department know? Therefore, why do not his Department actually advocate the use of these forms of construction that are available to them? His Department have a great deal of information about them, but local authorities have not that information.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the answer to that question is that local circumstances vary very greatly; and the information available to my Department at present is that, so far as permanent prefabricated houses are concerned, the saving in time gained through quicker erection is not counterbalanced by the saving in price. They tend to be rather more expensive.
LORD BOSSOM: I dislike, as it were, badgering the Minister on this subject, but I do think that if he were to look into it a little further it would be possible for him to find out more than is apparently known to his Department at this moment.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that he is not badgering me on this matter. My Department, or the Department for which I am answering, have in fact looked into it very thoroughly, and are continuing to look into it very thoroughly; but I have given, to the best of my ability, a broad picture of the information available to the Department at present.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is it not extra-
656
ordinary that this statement should now be made about the costs—the fact that prefabricated houses actually cost more although taking a shorter time to erect? Would the noble Earl's Department have a look at what is going on in, say, the erection of supermarkets, and so on, by the use of concrete and prefabricated parts, in half the time and at very nearly half the cost in some circumstances? What is wrong with the planning of prefabricated houses? Cannot someone look into it? Perhaps he can lay a Paper for us.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the technical problems with regard to houses and with regard to large areas like shops are, in fact, rather different. I was merely making a comparison on the price of existing types of permanent prefabricated houses. Through investigation and experiment there may well be possibilities of price reductions inthe future.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it would not be possible for the Government to prepare a White Paper and issue it in time for the debate on housing which we are having on February 7 next, so that we may have the facts fully beforeus? To put this interrogatively, is he aware that my information on the cost of prefabricated houses is quite different from that of the noble Earl and indicates that in fact a large number of authorities in the North of England have carried out the erection of their houses by prefabrication in a competitive way—that is, in competition with traditional houses? If we could have all this information before us in a White Paper, it would be, I think, useful in the debate which we shall have after we come back.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will, of course, undertake to see what can be done in that respect.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, the noble Earl said in the course of his answers that the Government are giving deep thought to these matters and are doing all that is within their power. Are we to understand that the thought of the Government is ineffectual and their powers are limited?
EARL JELLICOE: I think that both the thought and the powers are fairly far-reaching.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
2.47 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES
(a) Library
The Sub-Committee on the Library was appointed as follows: E. Attlee, E. Home, V. Esher, V. Simonds (Chairman), V. Soulbury, L. Birkett, L. Burden, L. Chorley, L. Merthyr, L. Reid, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(b) Refreshment Department
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was appointed as follows: E. St. Aldwyn, L. Amulree, L. Killearn, L. Macpherson of Drumochter, L. Shepherd, B. Swanborough, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments, with power to co-opt further members and to appoint its own Chairman.
(c)House of Lords' Estimates
The Sub-Committee on the House of Lords' Estimates was appointed as follows: E. St. Aldwyn, E. Lucan, L. Amulree and L. Merthyr (Chairman.)
2.—RETIREMENT OF THE CHIEF CLERK, COMMITTEE AND PRIVATE BILL OFFICE
The Committee learnt with regret of the retirement on grounds of ill-health of Mr. Peter Stuart-Heaton and sanctioned the payment to him of a pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts.
3.—RE-ARRANGEMENT OF THE STAFF IN THE PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee were informed that the Clerk of the Parliaments had appointed:—

(a) Mr. David Stephens, C.V.O., the Reading Clerk, to be also Clerk of the Journals in the place of Mr. Henry Montagu Burrows, C.B.E., and authorised the salary of the combined posts from 18th October, 1961.

(b) Mr. James Ashton Valiance White as a Clerk in the Parliament Office in the place of Mr. John Anthony Roberts.

4.—EXAMINER OF PETITIONS FOR PRIVATE BILLS
The Committee were informed of the appointment of Mr. Euan Douglas Graham as Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills in the place of Mr. Peter Stuart-Heaton.
5.—(a) TELEPHONES
The Committee were informed of the installation of additional telephones for the use of Peers.
(b) ACOUSTICS OF THE CHAMBER
The Committee were informed of the position regarding the amplifying system in the Chamber.
6.—HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee on the present position regarding the application by the Institution of Professional Civil Servants to be granted representative capacity for the Hansard Reporting Staff; the Committee agreed that representative capacity for the Hansard Reporting Staff should be granted to the Institution on the same terms and conditions as apply to its representation of the corresponding Staff in the House of Commons.
7.—MECHANICAL RECORDING
The Clerk of the Parliaments reported on the possibility of assisting the Hansard Reporters by the mechanical recording of Debates in the House, and the Committee instructed the Clerk of the Parliaments to examine this matter further.
8.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the revised scale of pay to the Personal Assistants under Establishments Circular No. 33/61 affecting Clerical Officers.
9.—RETIREMENT OF A DOORKEEPER
The Committee sanctioned a revised pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Herbert John Wootton, M.M., B.E.M., on his retirement on December 8,1961.
10.—RETIREMENT OF A SENIOR CUSTODIAN
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a revised gratuity under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Arthur Sheppard, who retired on August 25, 1961.
11.—GRATUITY TO LEGAL PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF CUSTODIAN INSPECTOR
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a supplementary death gratuity under Section 2 (2) of the Superannuation Act, 1909, to the legal personal representative of Custodian Inspector Ernest Victor Jacobs, who died on October 29, 1961.
12.—ESTIMATES
The Estimates for the House of Lords for 1962–63 were laid before the Committee and approved.
13.—XEROX COPYING MACHINE
The Committee were informed of the use of this machine, and that it is available in the Registry for the use of Peers; the Committee approved a scale of charges.
14.—HOUSE OF LORDS' CHRISTMAS CARD
The Committee considered the future provision of a House of Lords' Christmas Card, and agreed that the matter should be referred to the Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department.
15.—VENTILATION OF THE CHAMBER
The attention of the Committee was drawn to the occurrence of draughts in certain parts of the Chamber; the Lord Great Chamberlain undertook to investigate the matter.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to. I am not aware of any points to which I ought to draw the special attention of your Lordships, but if there are any questions which any noble Lord would like to put to me I will, of course, do my best to answer them.
Moved, That the Report be now agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
2.48 p.m.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 14), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ROTHESAY BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 14), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ARGYLL COUNTY COUNCIL (SCALASAIG PIER, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 14), Bill read 3a, and passed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
2.49 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, I beg to move
660
that the four Sunday Entertainments Orders standing in my name on the Order Paper be approved. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Pembroke, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Kington, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Saxmundham, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Wadebridge, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
2.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in the present Session a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons as a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills (whether public or private), Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949:
That the Memoranda laid and any representations made with respect thereto under the said Act be referred to the Joint Committee:
That the Lords following be named of the Committee:

V. Bledisloe,

L. Rathcreedan,

L. Cawley,

L. Ogmore,

L. Tucker,

L. Spens:

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House

661
of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint six Members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to request that they appoint six Members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CIVIL AVIATION (EUROCONTROL) BILL
2.51 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 Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Status and privileges of Eurocontrol]:
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, in the proviso to subsection (3), to leave out paragraph (a) and to insert instead:
"() by any person acting through legal process or under an order of the court;
() by a constable acting in the execution of a warrant."
The noble Lord said: I want to say that, generally speaking, I very much support this Bill. I believe that it is a timely Bill in every possible way. As your Lordships know, it provides for European co-operation in matters of air navigation, and also provides for the common organisation of the air traffic services in the upper air space. It is quite obvious that national boundaries in these matters are no longer sufficient, and therefore we must have Continental boundaries; and no doubt in due course we shall have hemispheric, or even
662
world, authorities to deal with these matters.
An essential requirement, of course, in air traffic, particularly in civil air traffic, is the question of safety. The safety margins, I am sorry to say, are becoming imperilled to some extent by the ever-increasing speed of aircraft. The time for crews' reactions is becoming ever smaller, because a man's reactions do not increase or alter with the mechanical needs imposed by aircraft; and landing speeds are getting faster. This is clearly recognised because there is no doubt that since the jets have come in insurance risks have gone up. Let us take the last few years. In 1957 Lloyd's Underwriters had an excess of claims over premiums of £848,000. The year 1958 was a better year; the premiums were £17,300,000, and exceeded the claims by about £1 million. The next year, 1959, was a good year; by that time the premiums had gone up to £25 million. The years 1960 and 1961, on the other hand, have been expensive years for the air insurers at Lloyd's. The winter of 1960 alone cost Lloyd's over £10 million in claims.
One reason for this is not so much that there are many more accidents, but that the aircraft themselves are so very expensive. Indeed, for jets it is possible to have claims of up to £2 million for the hull alone. This situation is one which obviously needs to be watched, and anything we can do to encourage or develop safety in the air is all to the good. This question particularly concerns the United Kingdom, because a great deal of insurance business is placed here. Therefore, we are more concerned in the question of possible claims than are many other countries, and certainly many other countries in the Eurocontrol area.
So far as this Bill is concerned, the only objection I have to it is that, as it stands at present, it may result in people who are travellers by air and who are injured in the course of an accident, or the personal representatives of unfortunate people who are killed in the course of an accident, not being able to establish their claims, either against the company which runs the aircraft or against the Organisation itself, by reason of the fact that they may not be able to get the necessary evidence to substantiate those

663
claims. This is really the crux of this Amendment, which I will explain a little more fully, so that your Lordships can understand what I have in mind.
If your Lordships will look at subsection (3) of the Clause with which we are concerned, Clause 2, you will see that it confers the protection of inviolability normally given to archives and premises of a diplomatic representative of a foreign sovereign Power to the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation in relation to the official archives of the Organisation. In other words, the Organisation's archives are put on the same basis as is usually applied to diplomatic representatives in this country. The subsection gives effect to Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 26 of the Convention relating to co-operation for the safety of air navigation. These Paragraphs provide:

"1. The installations and archives of the Organisation shall be inviolable.…

"2. The property and assets of the Organisation may not be seized nor may execution be levied upon them, except by a judicial decision".

The effect of the proviso to Subsection (3) of Clause 2 of this Bill is to preclude the inspection of any record or document except
"by a constable or other person acting in the execution of a warrant or other legal process".
This may seem to some of your Lordships (if there be any not learned in the law) as being a fairly wide provision, but unfortunately there is a legal rule which considerably limits the scope of this proviso. The expressions "a constable or other person", and "a warrant or other legal process", might result in this provision being interpreted as stipulating that the only person to whom there is given right of inspection of a document in the possession of the Organisation is a constable, or a person acting on his behalf, in pursuance of a warrant or other legal process in connection with criminal proceedings.
In another place the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation confirmed that the interpretation which I am putting on this aspect of the matter is correct, and that there would not automatically be conferred on anybody other than the competent authorities the right of access to documents within the control of the Organisation. In the
664
result, the Organisation will be granted immunity, not only from the service of a subpæna, but also from an order for discovery. Your Lordships can well imagine what might be the result. If a person in this country had a claim, either against Lloyd's or underwriters of Lloyd's, or a private individual, or the executors of a private individual, had a claim, it might be very difficult for him or them, in an action against the air carrier or the Organisation, or both jointly, to prove the contents of signals which passed between the aircraft pilot and the air traffic control operator. It often happens, as your Lordships know, that the crew are, unfortunately, killed when an accident occurs. Therefore, the record of the signals which are made immediately before the moment of impact is of first importance in establishing the cause of the accident, and whether or not there was any negligence. Under the provisions as they stand at the moment it would be very difficult for a person to obtain the record from the Organisation.
It was similarly confirmed, during the Committee stage of the Bill in the House of Commons, that the proviso in subsection (3) is intended to give effect to paragraph 3 of Article 26 of the Convention, which provides that the proviso of this Article shall not prejudice access to installations or archives of the Organisation by competent authorities of the State in which the Organisation has its seat and in all other countries in which these installations and archives may be situated, in order to enable judicial inquiries to be carried out and to ensure the execution of judicial decisions in their respective territories. It may well be that the interpretation by the courts of this provision will ensure that any right of access to the archives of the Organisation is limited to the competent authorities of the State. If that is so, it is all right for the State, but it does not help the individual.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 25 make the Organisation fully liable, both in contract and in tort, and this purpose is carried out in subsection (1) of Clause 2, subject to the exemptions conferred in subsection (2), which do not include the exemption of a legal process or suit contained in paragraph 1 of the Schedule of the International Organisations

665
Act, 1950. Furthermore, Clause 7 (3) (b) grants jurisdiction to the Courts of the United Kingdom to hear claims against the Organisation in respect of wrongful acts committeed outside the jurisdiction of the court. It is envisaged that the position of a litigant who seeks redress for a wrong committed by the Organisation, which is expressly confirmed in the Bill, might be difficult where any evidence that exists is contained in the archives of the Organisation.
During the Committee stage in the House of Commons, Mr. Graham Page tabled an Amendment to delete paragraph (a) of the proviso to Clause 2 (3) and to insert in substitution there for the first two parts of my Amendment—that is to say:

"(a) by any person acting through legal process or under an order of the court;

(b)by a constable acting in the execution of a warrant."

This Amendment, which received the support of the Opposition, was withdrawn (I think this is an important point for the Government) on an assurance given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation that careful note would be taken of this. Does the noble Lord disagree?
LORD DENHAM: My honourable friend gave no such assurance in another place.
LORD OGMORE: Well, we can look it up.
LORD SHACKLETON: If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I can also confirm that no assurance had been given.
LORD DENHAM: I was going to raise this point when I spoke in answer to the noble Lord's Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised this point. What happened was that my honourable friend who sits for Crosby in another place said when he withdrew his Amendment that he did so in the hope that further consideration would be given to this point in your Lordships' House. The honourable Member who spoke for the Opposition echoed this hope, but no undertaking was given, and I can see nothing in what either honourable Member said which leads me to think that they were under the impression that an undertaking had been given.
LORD OGMORE: I accept that, of course: it was not an assurance, but a hope on the part of Mr. Page and others. We shall see whether or not that hope is going to be realised. It was stated on behalf of the Government that since the Organisation is to be responsible for movement in the upper air, not only of civil aircraft but also of military aircraft, all member States would be involved and the granting of a right of access to the Organisation's archives would mean that that might affect questions of security, which might be prejudicial to national safety and to other member States in dealing with possible claims under Crown privilege, if any there may be. This was a point which I think was fully realised.
I understand that in these days one must accept that there are certain areas in which the rights of the private individual, if they conflict with the rights of the State and the security of the State. must go by the board. One is not always quite happy about the exact limitations of the rights of the State and the needs of security being as carefully drawn as they should be. One has a suspicion, which I hope is not justified, that, at times at all events, the security of the State is a sort of umbrella over merely administrative convenience, not only in this country but in many other countries as well.
Therefore, I have put down the second part of my Amendment to cover this position. If this Amendment were carried and if there was a case in which the Government believed that it would be injurious to the public interest to give a right of disclosure in any particular matter, then no right of disclosure would be had and the records would be inviolable. The form of words closely follows the provisions of Section 28 (1) of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, and that would seem to be a very respectable precedent to follow. In short, the purpose of my Amendment is to enable people, whether underwriters at Lloyd's, firms or private individuals, to obtain the necessary evidence to substantiate any claims they may have either against the carriers or the Organisation and at the same time to ensure that, if there is a question of public safety or the safety of the Realm, then this provision would not apply.

667
I should like to ask one other question, which might helpfully be put in here rather than in another stage. It is a question about the diplomatic immunity of officers. Would the noble Lord be good enough to inform the Committee whether diplomatic immunity of officers is conferred in any way at all by this Bill or is proposed in any order under the Bill, as distinct from the immunity of the Organisation itself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, leave out paragraph (a) and insert the said new paragraphs.—(Lord Ogmore.)
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I should like briefly to support this Amendment, because I submit to your Lordships that this is a question about which we have to be very careful, We are being asked to approve the setting up of machinery for the introduction into this country of an international organisation which, very rightly, shall be given special privileges and powers. I say "very rightly" because I think we all support the principle involved and it is one which can be carried out only in this way. On the other hand, in setting up a privileged international Organisation in this country, I think we should be exceedingly careful to see that we do not prejudice the rights and responsibilities of our own people who may at some time or other require to have dealings with this Organisation.
I do not believe there is anything whatsoever between the intentions of those of us who support this Amendment and the Government. Reference has been made to the debate in another place, and my impression, which I derive from what was said by the Minister who replied for the Government, was that in effect the Government agreed that the protection being asked by the Amendments there moved was reasonable, and that of course the Organisation would never, in a proper case, or in normal circumstances, decline to produce the evidence for which they were asked. That may well be. But why should they not be obligated to produce this material by the provisions of the Bill? Why should they be protected and given the opportunity to say: "No; we do not want to provide this material, and we
668
are not obligated to do so because under the Bill we are protected from the liability and the responsibility of producing these documents"? If circumstances were to arise in which such an attitude were to be adopted, it might be exceedingly prejudicial to citizens in this country who required the evidence in order to submit a comprehensive case to the courts, without which they might not be able to recover that which was their right and was due to them. It might not necessarily be a claim against the Organisation, but against some third party, but only the Organisation would have the available evidence.
From what I understood of the debate in another place, there was by no means any intention on the part of the Government to withhold or to authorise the withholding of such information, but they did not consider it necessary to make it obligatory upon the Organisation to produce it. I really fail to see the purport of that argument. If it is the intention to produce this evidence, upon due authority and the requirement of the courts of this country, why should not the provisions in the Bill require the Organisation to do it, instead of enabling them not to do so? I feel that we are being asked to set a dangerous precedent and one which, incidentally, seems to be most extraordinary, because, while it does not protect the Organisation from submitting to a police constable who has a search warrant, yet it does protect them from submitting to the order of one of Her Majesty's Judges which would achieve the same purpose if, in the Judge's discretion, he made an order for discovery against the Organisation.
For these reasons, I submit that there is great merit both in the objective of the Amendment, which I do not think is denied by the Government, and also in the Amendment itself. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, a full appreciation has been accepted of the necessity for ensuring that the Organisation are able to take proper provisions for security in relation to matters concerned both in this country and in other Western European countries. That having been recognised, the second part of the Amendment is specifically designed to ensure that security shall not be breached, but that the Organisation

669
shall continue to enjoy all proper and reasonable security. But it is the first part of the Amendment which makes the slight enlargement for which we ask to the powers which are already contained in the Bill, and which we submit should properly be enlarged, both for the protection of the citizens of this country and, incidentally, for the citizens of other countries, and also because it is quite illogical to prefer an action by a constable to an authority given by a High Court Judge.
3.16 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: While discussion of these Amendments has enabled the Committee to consider a question of importance—and we are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for occasioning this and to my noble friend Lord Brentford forgiving us his judgment on it—I am afraid that I must ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendments. The purpose of subsection (3) of Clause 2 as it stands is to ensure the inviolability of the official archives of the organisation and of premises which are used for housing their installations. Under the proviso to the subsection, however, the existing rights of access to constables, courts of inquiry and inspectors of accidents are preserved.
The subsection gives effect to Article 26 of the Convention, which is the Article concerned with the inviolability of the installations and archives of the organisation. Its third paragraph provides that it shall not prejudice access
"…by the competent authorities … in order to enable judicial inquiries to be carried out and to ensure the execution of judicial decisions."
My right honourable friend the Minister is advised that Clause 2, and particularly subsection (3), is in accordance with the Convention. The noble Lord's Amendments would produce a situation inconsistent with Her Majesty's Government's obligations under the Convention. The Amendments are designed, as the noble Lord has said, to permit the procedures of an order for discovery and subpœna duces tecum to apply to the Commission's archives, subject to safeguards in the public interest: that is to say, to take the subpoena first, whether or not the Organisation were party to the case, a litigant would be able to
670
obtain an order of the court requiring the production in court of the official archives. Turning to the order for discovery, the opponent of the Organisation in litigation in which it was involved would be able to obtain an order requiring the Organisation to list those of the documents in their possession which were relevant to the case and not otherwise privileged—for example, by solicitor and client privilege.
By the second Amendment the noble Lord has sought to introduce safeguards for the public interest. My noble friend Lord Brentford asked me why, if under the Bill as it stands a constable can get access to the documents, the same should not apply to one of Her Majesty's Judges? The point is not that anyone would wish one of Her Majesty's Judges not to get access, but that under the Amendment as it stands anyone would be able to obtain an order and, therefore, access to the documents. As your Lordships will be aware, an order for discovery or subpoena is, in effect, issued by the solicitor for the litigant and obtains access to documents for him. For a private litigant to have a right of access goes beyond access (in the words of Article 26 (3) of the Convention):
… by the competent authorities … in order to enable judicial inquiries to be carried out and to ensure the execution of judicial decisions …"
As the noble Lord explained, his second Amendment is designed to permit the Minister to have discretion to prevent the production of the Organisation's archives in the public interest—a consideration applicable if, for example, military security were involved. In effect, if I may summarise, it seeks to apply a kind of Crown privilege procedure. After careful consideration of the implications, however, my right honourable friend is advised that the giving of discretion to the Minister as to the inviolability of the archives of the Organisation would be inconsistent with Article 26 of the Convention, and its use against the wishes of the Organisation (which the Minister would have had great influence in forming) would be a breach of the Convention.
If an Amendment on these lines were carried, the Minister would have either to claim privilege in every case in which

671
the Organisation wished that privilege should be claimed, on the ground that it was contrary to the public interest of all the contracting parties that any document belonging to the Organisation should be disclosed, or to claim privilege only in those cases in which the particular information contained in the document appeared to him, no doubt after consulting other contracting parties concerned, to be in the nature of a State secret. If the former, the total result of the Amendments would be nothing at all. If the latter, we should not be giving effect to the terms of Article 26 of the Convention.
Your Lordships will appreciate the considerations of security and national defence that are involved in this. Indeed, noble Lords who have already spoken have mentioned this point. The Eurocontrol Organisation are called upon by the Convention and Statute to work in close collaboration with the military authorities and to use existing national installations (which are likely to include military installations) as much as possible in the interests of economy. This is stated in the Convention Preamble Article 6 (2, a) and Article 28. The Organisation's close co-operation with military air traffic control and defence authorities is bound to mean that, one way and another, the information in the hands of Eurocontrol would concern not only the movements of military aircraft but information of even greater importance, such as the performance of military aircraft and also the capacity of military ground and airborne equipment. Observance of this feature of the Convention by the members of the Organisation will be of importance to the safeguarding of security information in all the member countries. It is of importance to the United Kingdom that military information in which we have a stake, perhaps concerning our own aircraft equipments and so on, should be protected from disclosure in the other member States. That interest is secured by adhering scrupulously to the Convention.
There are some further general considerations that I should like to represent to your Lordships. The first is that, in contrast to other international organisations, Eurocontrol will have only a few
672
of the immunities and privileges normally given. The second is that nothing in the Bill or the Convention will prevent the Eurocontrol Organisation from waiving their immunity when they think fit; and, indeed, they are obliged by Article 27 (1) to collaborate in facilitating the good administration of justice and to prevent any abuse of privileges. There is no reason to think that the Organisation will not waive their immunity in any appropriate case. All the member Governments and the Organisation collectively will have reason to avoid behaviour which would affront opinion or might be criticised as standing in the way of justice in the member countries. Thirdly, Her Majesty's Government, having a considerable and often decisive voice in the affairs of Eurocontrol, will be able to bring their influence to bear in securing a sound and reasonable practice in these matters, and will not fail to do so whenever the situation so requires. As noble Lords will know, it will, of course, be possible for questions to be asked and Motions to be put down in Parliament concerning the actions of the responsible Minister's representatives in the Organisation.
I should like to answer one point put by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about diplomatic privileges. No immunity is given to the officers of the Organisation as individuals, as distinct from the Organisation itself. Indeed, if at any time it should be wished to give diplomatic immunity—which is not the intention—the only way to do it would be either by separate legislation or by an Order under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950; and such an Order would be subject to Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
I have sought to satisfy your Lordships, first, that it is necessary for the Bill to be drafted as it is to satisfy the Convention; secondly, that it was right for the Convention to be so drafted, and, thirdly, that the rights of the citizen are properly safeguarded having regard to the first two points. I am afraid that I must ask your Lordships not to support this Amendment.
3.27 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: I should first like to confirm what the noble Lord has said, that no undertaking was given in

673
another place. I should have thought the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was too experienced a Parliamentarian to be taken in by the words of the Parliamentary Secretary when he assured the Committee that he would take careful note of everything that has been said. This was the sum total of the Government's assurance. I am no lawyer, but it is apparent to me that this Amendment must fail. However, I think the Government arc none the less open to criticism, partly because one of the main reasons given for rejecting the Amendment moved in another place was the question of security, and, as I understand it, the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, takes care of that particular issue. Certainly that was the main reason which was given in another place.
Secondly, it appears as if the Government themselves would have allowed such a power to exist. There were statements made in another place by the Parliamentary Secretary [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 650 (No. 25), col. 1052] where they said that it should be waived. Another example was given at col. 1048, where it was suggested that they hoped it would be waived. The difficulty is Article 26. This Article is in the Convention by agreement and by decision of the Government. They were the negotiating bodies. We are not latecomers. This is not the Treaty of Rome with which we are concerned, something we are applying to join later. It rather suggests that, in the negotiation of these international Agreements by which, in effect, we set up within our own country supra-national bodies having certain powers, rights and immunities, and not susceptible to the type of judicial, legal or Parliamentary control to which we are accustomed, more regard should be paid to what, in fact, is British practice in this matter.
Here again, we are in the difficulty I mentioned before; that this Bill is merely an enabling Bill to carry out something already provided for by the Convention to set up the Agency. There is power to do a number of things, including to own property and to act in the same sort of way as any other inhabitant of this country; and it appears in this important respect under Article 26. I do not doubt for one moment the interpretation of Article 26, that they are having a protection which
674
we do not, so far as I know, extend to anybody else in this country in this sort of situation; but I may be wrong. And it really is a matter that ought not to pass without protest, even for consideration. It is perhaps late in the day to consider whether or not some protocol or amendment to the Convention might not be considered to provide for matters of this kind.
As I understand the noble Lord to say, it is possible to ask Ministers questions on this subject. It may be, in this House, where we get away with a great deal more; but I shall be very surprised if effective answers on such detailed day-to-day matters could be given by a Minister of the Crown in another place, if, in fact, the immunity in regard to the desire of a British citizen was not waived. I wonder how far the noble Lord can give us an assurance that, in the procedures which are laid down for the operation of this Agency, it will be clearly written in, or instructions will be given, that the immunity will be waived on every occasion when security is not involved. It is so easy to hide behind these matters, and it will be the natural reaction of the international civil servant to avoid trouble. That is a trait which is common to us all, and here is their permission written into Article 26. While I do not think there is any chance of this Amendment succeeding, I should like to ask the Government whether they cannot give some further assurance that they will exercise their authority, not in the general term that they hope to see these things are done, but by specific instructions to the Agency.
LORD SILKIN: May I detain the Committee for just one moment? I should not have wished to intervene on the merits of this particular Amendment, because I think the noble Lord has made his case. I want, if I may, with great respect, to disagree slightly with my noble friend on one thing he said, and that is when he rebuked the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for being so simple as to imagine that when a Parliamentary Secretary says that he will take careful note of what has been said it means anything at all. My noble friend suggests that the Government are under no obligation to take a careful note of what has been said; that it is, in fact, leading the person who is moving the Amendment

675
to believe that his argument will be considered; and that if he withdraws the Amendment on the strength of that statement he is doing it without any undertaking of any kind.
In this House nobody knows better than the noble and learned Viscount himself that over and over again we withdraw an Amendment that has been moved on the strength of his statement that he will carefully note or consider—I do not attach much significance to the difference in emphasis—what has been said on the Amendment. Of course we realise that the result of this consideration or noting will not necessarily be favourable. We never assume it is going to be a favourable result, but certainly in my experience in this House we assume that when a Minister says that, he means it and that the matter will be considered. Therefore, while I agree that no undertaking was given that the Amendment would be accepted or even that it would be considered favourably, I do believe that an undertaking was given that the argument put forward in support of it would be carefully considered. If the noble Lord has now given us the result of that consideration, well and good; but I should not like it to go out that those words mean nothing at all.
3.36 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In view of the two more general points, I venture to intervene, and I think I can do it very shortly. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, raised the general question of international agreements and their reaction on legislation. It is the object of every Government, irrespective of Party label, to get the terms of an international agreement as much in keeping with the spirit of the laws of this country as they can. There are, of course, limits, because, as the noble Lord knows, one is dealing not only with a different country but with different systems of law and different legal traditions. I want to make only the general point as regards this Convention that it necessitates a much lower degree of immunity than many which we have discussed in your Lordships' House. It gives, for example, as has been common ground in all our discussions, the right to sue the body that is going to be erected. There is always—and I hope the noble Lord,
676
Lord Shackleton, will not think I am putting this in any debating way; I am trying to respond to his appeal to deal with the general problem—bound to be a quid pro quo. Of course here—as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, pointed out,if I may say so, most pertinently—there is a question of a Convention which will assist not only with civil aircraft but with military aircraft, and in these circumstances there will undoubtedly be security as part of the matter.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, appreciates—I am not sure whether he said it, but I am sure he had it in mind—that the archives could hardly all be considered inviolable if any litigant, which could include airlines belonging to foreign Governments, Governments that are not party to the Convention, could obtain discovery of the archives. I hope he will take it from me (I want to put it quite shortly) that I agree that as my honourable friend said in the House of Commons, it is not possible to make the sharp limitation on the time of security which was suggested by some of those who spoke in another place. I think there may be occasions when the time continues. I have included what the Minister who is negotiating the agreement seeks to do. As I said, he tries to get it as much in accordance with the spirit of our law as he can, but there comes a time when he cannot get any further. The agreement is made on these terms, and then, in accordance with our constitutional practice, it is brought before Parliament so that our law is brought into accord with the agreement. That is the system.
I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that it is a difficulty that faces every Government, and it is up to the Minister to do his best in that regard. If he does not, if he fails to get it within a reasonable field, then, of course, he will be criticised; and if the example is flagrant the House would not accept the legislation which is necessary for implementation of the agreement.
LORD SHACKLETON: Could the noble and learned Viscount tell us whether in fact this point was pressed in the negotiations?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, I cannot. I am sorry; I just have not the information on that. I have spoken

677
to my right honourable friend and his general approach was what I have been describing. The fault is no doubt mine; I did not ask him about the exact point.
On the waiver, which was the other point the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, raised, of course, as he appreciates, nothing in the Bill will prevent the Eurocontrol Organisation from waiving its immunity whenever it thinks fit, and we have no reason to think that it will not do so in any appropriate case. I repeat what my noble friend Lord Denham emphasised: that Her Majesty's Government, having a considerable and often decisive voice in the affairs of Eurocontrol, will be able to bring their influence to bear in that direction and that they will not fail to do so whenever the situation so requires.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I can only make this personal reply. If he knew how much work I have had to do, not to speak of my noble friend Lord Denham, in order to carry out the statement—I cannot remember whether the term was "consideration" or "full note"—that full note will be taken, he would take it that full note has been taken.
May I end with a happy and entirely personal aspect of this matter? The Minister who replied to the debate in another place was the son of our old friend, Lord Terrington, who was regarded with such deep affection by so many of us here, and I am sure that all my noble friends who have had occasion to read the debate in another place will have been struck with the care and ability with which Mr. Woodhouse repliedto what is a difficult point. I thought your Lordships might not be averse to hearing that point in connection with this matter.
LORD OGMORE: I do not want to prolong this discussion unduly. I echo everything the noble and learned Viscount said about Mr. Woodhouse; all of us who read the speech could see how ably he handled the matter and how he followed in the tradition of his father who was so good at these things. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for coming to my defence. Having myself been a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in two Government Departments—and an Under-Secretary is a
678
sort of first-cousin to a Parliamentary Secretary—I thought the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was a little scathing about an assurance in a statement of this kind. I need only quote what Mr. Woodhouse himself said:
"I assure the Committee I will take careful note of everything that has been said".
As the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has just told us, he has done so and the noble Lord, Lord Denham, has taken careful note. Obviously they have, because they have answered the points in great detail.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not want to continue this private struggle in defence of the Government, but the noble Lord rather implied that there was some sort of breach of undertaking. Now that he has read the full report he will note that this undertaking was made at the beginning and it was abundantly clear from the Minister's speech that no concession was possible.
LORD OGMORE: It certainly was not given at the beginning of the discussion but at the beginning of Mr. Wood-house's speech after he heard the case presented by Mr. Graham Page. I also do not want to prolong this discussion. I think this matter is important. We are going to come across it not only with this Bill but with many others. I am referring to the case dealt with by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to-day: to what extent Parliament now has any say at all in these matters where there is some international agreement of this kind which affects the right of the individual or great interests in this country such as Lloyd's.
Parliament's hands are completely tied because of an Agreement made. This may be due to the effect of the times and the fact that we are going into a different sort of world from the world of the past. But I think we must recognise that more and more it is the case that Parliament has very little say at all in these matters and that the people who are in fact limiting the rights of the individual are the negotiators, possibly in some foreign capital. I make no complaint; I merely state that obviously that is the fact in this case and it may be in many other cases too. I would have thought that the rights of citizens are not properly safeguarded, as was claimed by the noble

679
Lord, Lord Denham, because Article 25 of the Covention states this with regard to the non-contractual liability of the Organisation:
"With regard to non-contractual liability, the Organisation shall make reparation for damage caused by the negligence of its organs or of its servants in the scope of their employment in so far as that damage can be attributed to them. The foregoing provision shall not preclude the right to other compensation under the nationallaw of the Contracting Parties".
In view of that, all that this Amendment was designed to do was to carry out, as it were, the purpose of Article 25 of the Convention and to put it into practical form. However, I can see that the Government are adamant on this point, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): I think, from what I have heard, that this might be a convenient moment for my noble friend, Lord Mills, to answer the Question standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, and for that purpose I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

DECIMAL COINAGE
3.47 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will now make the statement I promised with reference to the Question raised earlier by my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a statement in another place in reply to Questions on decimalisation. The following is the statement:
"As I have already informed the House, the Government have been considering this question in the light of the public interest shown in it, particularly following the Joint Report of the Committee of the British Associa-
680
tion and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce.
"The Government's view is that real advantage would follow from adopting a decimal currency. At the same time it is clear that, in view of the widespread use of accounting and other monetary machinery, the transitional cost would be substantial. It should, however, be possible to limit this cost, both by the choice of the size of the new units to be adopted and by careful timing of the changeover. Before reaching a final decision, therefore, the Government consider that there should be a full-scale investigation into the best form of decimal currency, the steps by which the change could be brought about, and the cost of the changeover to the economy as a whole.
"The Government have accordingly decided to set up a Committee of Inquiry whose terms of reference will be:

(a) to advise on the most convenient and practical form which a decimal currency might take, including the major and minor units to be adopted;

(b) to advise on the timing and phasing of the changeover best calculated to minimise the cost; and

(c) to estimate the probable amount and incidence of the cost to the economy of proposals based on (a) and (b).

"I am glad to say that Lord Halsbury has accepted my invitation to he Chairman of the Committee. I shall announce the names of the other members early in the New Year.
"The Government are very conscious of the importance of reaching firm decisions in this matter as soon as possible. They will accordingly discuss with the Chairman ways and means by which the Committee may be enabled to make rapid progress with their work.
"The other Commonwealth Governments have been informed of our proposals."
3.52 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend and Her Majesty's Government for what I

681
regard as an eminently satisfactory statement, amounting almost to acceptance of the proposal in principle? May I urge them to realise that every month that can be saved in this inquiry as to ways and means will make the change less expensive and will avoid the inevitable upset in business which delay might otherwise cause? May I ask my noble friend whether there is a hope that the legislation required to implement any recommendation of this Committee will be brought to Parliament next year?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am sure my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer appreciates each point put forward by my noble friend. I should not like to anticipate how long it will take the Committee to come to conclusions on this matter and to advise the Government. I should imagine, however, that the period might be anything from twelve to eighteen months. How long it will take after that to consider the matter and prepare the necessary legislation depends upon the nature of the Committee's Report.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, this is rather important. I am much obliged for the statement made by the Government, but I am not quite clear whether the Government have yet gone quite so far as the noble Lord who put down the Question seems to think. Am I to take it that this is not yet a statement of acceptance by the Government, as seemed to he assumed by the noble Lord who put down the Question, but that you are going to have an inquiry and then you will have further consideration of the Report, which will cover not only actual accountancy but, in some cases, changes in the methods of teaching, the production of textbooks, and a great many other things which have to be considered, such as timing and costs? May I be quite clear as to whether you have accepted this in principle or not?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the noble Viscount is quite right. The Government see many advantages in changing over to a decimal currency, but they have also to consider the disadvantages. They have to consider what this Committee may report. While I think I can go so far as to say that there seem to be many advantages in changing over, I do not think the Government can hold
682
themselves committed to changing over at this stage.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the terms of reference indicate that the Committee of Inquiry are proceeding apparently with a view to implementing this suggestion? Can he tell us whether the Committee of Inquiry will also take evidence from those who happen to be opposed to such a change, of whom I am not one?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I should think without doubt that the Committee will consider evidence both for and against, in order to enable them to make their recommendations. As I said, the Government see many advantages in such a changeover. Therefore they have appointed a Committee to advise them on how such a change can be made and the best way in which to make it. But that does not commit the Government to any final view on the matter.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Committee will be able to receive evidence on and to consider the possibility of a duo-decimal system, with its infinitely more flexible and practical application and suitability to us?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers that, may I ask him whether anyone other than the noble Lord who asked the question knows what a duo-decimal system is?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes, I do.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I do not think I need say anything more.

CIVIL AVIATION (EUROCONTROL) BILL
3.37 p.m.
House again in Committee according to Order.
Clause 3 [Provision of funds and facilities for Eurocontrol]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord, Lord Denham, who has been conducting this Bill, gave an assurance on one matter which, I may tell the Committee, he has scrupulously and completely fulfilled—namely, an assurance

683
to write to me on the subject of the extent of Parliamentary control over expenditure by the Commission and the Agency. Quite apart from the proprieties of whether or not matters of this kind are best dealt with by letter where there is a general public issue, I should like to thank him for that letter. But, at the same time, I want to raise one or two points which I feel raise problems, and to ask whether he can elucidate them further.
Here again, we come back to this problem which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred to in his final remarks. We are dealing here with a form of international legislation over which we have virtually no Parliamentary control beyond passing or rejecting. It is quite clear, especially with these inviolable records, that we should not be able to carry out the investigations into the conduct of this international body as we should be able to carry out investigations into a nationalised body in this country. As I understand from the noble Lord who has explained the position clearly to me, it will of course be possible to raise the matter on the individual Votes, and it is even possible that the ordinary processes of inspection and audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General will apply so far as the provision of funds and their expenditure remain within the control of the Government. But I would assume that, the moment the payments have been made, they will be wholly outside the control of the Government. Now this is not an unimportant matter, because we are likely to see again a growing extension of international bodies without a Parliamentary watchdog in the shape of the Public Accounts Committee.
The noble Lord mentioned to me that there will be a Report. When we look at the Statute of the Agency we see that inspections can be made by officers of the Administrations of the contracting parties. Might it not have been desirable to have provided in some way for some association by a Parliamentary body? At the moment, it is wholly within the control of civil servants. This is no reflection on civil servants, whether they be international or national; but we consider it necessary for the Public Accounts Committee to operate in regard
684
to the conduct of nationally-owned bodies. There is also a provision in one of the Articles that there shall be a Report to the Commission by the Agency; it is in fact in Article 10 of the Statute of the Agency, as opposed to the Convention. But there is nothing said about the publication of this Report, and ought we not to know that this Report can be published? I understand that pressure will be brought to bear for such a Report to be made.
I think that by our previous standards once again we find a falling short. I very much hope that the noble Lord when he replies will be able to set my mind, and the minds of your Lordships, at rest. If he cannot do so, perhaps the noble and learned Viscount can tell us again how he thinks these negotiations should be conducted, because it seems to me that our negotiators ought to go rather further than they have done to have regard to the British Parliamentary way of dealing with this sort of matter.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for giving me the opportunity of presenting more details to your Lordships on the point about which he asked me at the Second Reading stage of this Bill. In considering this question, it is necessary to take into consideration several main features of the situation. First of all, Eurocontrol will be an international organisation, and there is, of course, nothing new in the United Kingdom's contributing, through the Vote of an appropriate Department of Her Majesty's Government, to wards the cost of an international organisation. The obligations under the Convention for the member States to contribute to the costs of Eurocontrol must also be taken into consideration, but these must be looked at together with the powers that the Convention gives to member States, acting through the Commission and the Committee of Management of the Agency, to prescribe how much Eurocontrol will spend and the programmes on which it spends.
Also we must consider that the making of the United Kingdom's contribution, being voted by Parliament for a particular Department to pay over, will come under the usual Parliamentary controls and invigilation, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has already mentioned.

685
The Eurocontrol Convention itself carefully provides for control and scrutiny by the members of the Organisation's financial management, including requirements for international audit.
With regard to obligations under the Convention to contribute towards the cost of Eurocontrol, Article 32 of the Convention provides that the contracting parties—that is, the member States— undertake to make available to the Eurocontrol Agency, taking into account its revenues, the appropriate financial resources within the limits and conditions defined in the Statute of the Agency. These limits and conditions concern the methods by which the contributions of member States are assessed. They lay down, too, the procedure for control of the Organisation's budgets by the member States through the Committee of Management of the Agency and the Commission. As your Lordships will recall, the budgets of the Agency require to be approved by both a majority of weighted votes and a majority of members. Under the table of weighted voting as it stands, the United Kingdom would get more votes than any other members. Indeed, the United Kingdom, in combination with either France or the Federal German Republic, could block any budget to which they objected. In the future, new members and alterations in countries' gross national products may alter the distribution of weighted voting power, but they will also alter the proportions of the Organisation's expenditure that the members bear.
As to the extent to which Parliamentary Committees can investigate the accounts concerning Eurocontrol, the annual estimates of the United Kingdom's contributions to Eurocontrol will be shown in the normal way in the printed estimates of the responsible Department of Her Majesty's Government, and will therefore be open to all the Parliamentary processes of scrutiny and debate which apply. Similarly, the appropriation account of the responsible Department of Her Majesty's Government will contain details of the amounts paid to Eurocontrol, which will have been subject to all the normal processes of inspection and audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General; and the accounting officer of that Department may be called upon to appear before the
686
Public Accounts Committee to answer questions about these payments.
Thus the United Kingdom's financial participation in Eurocontrol will be subject to Parliamentary watch, including the operations of the Public Accounts Committee, as fully as the United Kingdom's financial participation in any other international agencies; and, so far as the United Kingdom's financial conduct yin the matter goes, as fully as for activity at home. Parliamentary Committees will not be able to go beyond this, however, and investigate the management and spending of the Organisation itself, because these Committees will be concerned only with Her Majesty's Government's expenditure, and Eurocontrol will be an international organisation, of which the United Kingdom will be only one member among others. This is, of course, exactly the same as is already the case with other international organisations to which the United Kingdom belongs. Members of Parliament will also be able to put down to the responsible Minister Motions and Questions for answer on the actions of his representatives on the constituent bodies of Eurocontrol, in the same way us is already the case for other international organisations.
As has already been stated during the Second Reading, Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is promoting the idea of an annual Report being published by Eurocontrol. The responsible Department will arrange for these Reports when published to be placed in the Library for the information of both Houses of Parliament, as is done with Reports of other international organisations.
The Convention and Statute also lay down important safeguards for the scrutiny and the approval of the Organisation's accounts. Under Article 28 of the Statute of the Agency it is for the permanent Commission to approve accounts. Since this approval is subject to weighted voting, the United Kingdom's influence will be considerable. Article 29 of the Statute also provides that the accounts of the Organisation shall be audited by a Board of two expert officials of different nationalities belonging to the Administrations of the contracting parties. It is interesting to note that for the interim Eurocontrol

687
Association now in existence and carrying on planning and preparatory work, one of the two auditors appointed is an expert from the United Kingdom.
Another example of the care taken to give weight to the safeguarding of the interests of the members of the Organisation is that financial regulations prescribing the financial conduct of the Agency are required to be drawn up, and that these will, under Article 30 of the Statute of the Agency, require unanimous approval by the members. I hope that answers the noble Lord's question.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has raised a very important point here, which really has not been answered by the Minister. I make no complaint about that, because I do not think the Minister could answer it in the present situation. The fact is that Parliament now has really very little control over a Bill of this kind because it is the subject of previous negotiation and settlement, so I think it is true to say that Parliament will have virtually no control over the expenditure. Even the Select Committee which the noble Lord has been dealing with can interrogate, presumably, only the officials in this country, who may, of course, have very little knowledge of or very little power over what happens in an international body. I myself think that a problem which we have to face very much in this country, and in the other countries in Western Europe, is this: to what extent can we evolve a Parliamentary system and a Parliamentary check, perhaps not so complete as that which we have in this country but, at all events, to a considerable extent? Because at the moment there is practically none. Vast sums are being expended and various things are happening in these various international bodies of which we in Parliament know virtually nothing. It is not only a matter of expenditure, of course; it is a matter also of policy, in which, again, Parliament has very little say in this sort of international body.
So far as N.A.T.O. is concerned, largely through the efforts of the late Colonel Walter Elliot, Mr. Clement Davies and Senator Robinson, a Parliamentarians' Conference was set up seven years ago. This is evolving,
688
in a rough-and-ready way, by trial and error, as a N.A.T.O. Parliament. It is only in its embryo stage at the moment. Other organisations have Parliamentary committees or consultative committees, too; but I feel that if Parliament and Parliamentary control is to be a reality in the world we are facing, we shall have to give very much more attention to the problem—not only the Government, but we as Members of Parliament—than has been the case in the past. As I see it, in time to come national Parliaments will play a comparatively small part in the affairs of nations. It will be these international organisations that will play the really important part, and more and more will national Parliaments be reserved for the comparatively small matters of domestic concern.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not want to press this, but I do not really think that the noble Lord quite took my point, which is this question of Parliamentary control that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has emphasised. I should have thought that it would not have been beyond the bounds of possibility, or of the negotiating capacity of the Government, to provide something. I do not know whether the Council of Europe have any particular responsibilities for any of the European agencies, but could not this in fact now be brought into consideration? What the noble Lord emphasised was the extent of British influence; the extent of perfectly admirable general administrative control. But this country has never allowed its Executive complete freedom in these matters. We are inevitably forced to concede certain national rights in any international agreement, but I do not see why Parliamentary control, even if it is of an international kind, should not be provided for. I am surprised that this very substantial point does not really arouse the interests of Parliamentarians more, because we are in danger of seeing a quite serious erosion of the system which we have regarded in the past as essential for safeguarding the interests of the citizen.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have listened very carefully to the debate. I do not at the moment share the noble Lord's apprehension about the ordinary methods of Parliamentary control over finance being not available, as I thought

689
that my noble friend Lord Denham gave a very complete account. But I share the interest, not confined to this Bill or to this stage of the Bill, of both the noble Lords in the problem. I shall personally convey the thoughts in their minds to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is here) and will take note and give it consideration myself, because it is an aspect, really, of the future government of the world, which I find intensely interesting. I hope the noble Lords will accept that assurance and will not think that the point that they have raised will be neglected.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to. House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
4.17 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2 [Evidence on charges of unfitness to drive]:
(4) Where the accused, at the time a specimen of blood or urine was taken from or provided by him, asked to be supplied with such a specimen, evidence of the proportion of alcohol or any drug found in the specimen shall not he admissible on behalf of the prosecution unless

(a) the specimen is either one of two taken or provided on the same occasion or is part of a single specimen which was divided into two parts at the time it was provided; and

(b) the other specimen or part was supplied to the accused.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, would it be inconvenient to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, to discuss his first Amendment and my Amendment, No. 2, together? I shall put them both to the House later on.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, during the Committee stage of the Bill I suggested that a person from whom a specimen was taken must be made aware of his right to require a part of the specimen to be supplied to him at the time it was taken, which would enable the accused to have the opportunity of having the specimen analysed indepen-
690
dently. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for setting down the next Amendment, Amendment No. 2, which appears to meet the point I raised. I therefore do not propose to move my Amendment.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, as my name also is on this Amendment, together with that of my noble friend Lord Teynham, may I say that I, too, am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his Amendment No. 2, and that I, likewise, do not propose to move the first Amendment?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we have already had the discussion on this. I am very grateful to my noble friends for what they have said because, although, as they know and as I know, the Amendment does not go quite so far as they would like, I think it meets the spirit of what they wanted.
It is in that attitude of mind that I put it before the House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, at end insert—
("() A constable requesting any person to consent to the taking of or to provide a specimen of blood or urine for analysis shall offer to supply to him, in a suitable container part of the specimen or, in the case of a specimen of blood which it is not practicable to divide, another specimen which he may consent to have taken.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.20 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:
Disability disclosed in evidence
".In any proceedings for an offence under the principal Act or under this Act, if evidence is given which indicates that the accused person may be suffering from a disease or physical disability which would he likely to cause the driving by him of a motor vehicle to be a source of danger to the public, the court shall cause the licensing authority concerned to be notified of such evidence for the purposes of any necessary action under section one hundred of the principal Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise twice. First, I must apologise for delaying your Lordships: I quite anticipated that the first two or three Amendments would take a long time.

691
The other matter for which I must apologise is this. I put down two Amendments, this and another, on the Committee stage. Unfortunate circumstances made me hurry into hospital, where I was detained for three or four days, and I could not be present at the Committee stage.
My Lords, I have put down this first Amendment in response to the statements I made during Second Reading, when I thought that there was a flaw in the provisions which allow a driving licence to be withdrawn if the licensing authority are satisfied that circumstances warrant such withdrawal. The conditions are laid down in Section 100 of the principal Act, the Road Traffic Act, 1960, subsection (6) of which reads as follows:
"If it appears to a licensing authority that there is reason to believe that a person who holds a licence granted by them is suffering from a disease or physical disability likely to cause the driving by him of a motor vehicle, being a vehicle of any such class or description as he is authorised by the licence to drive, to be a source of danger to the public, and on inquiry into the matter the authority are satisfied that he is suffering from such a disease or disability as aforesaid, then, whether or not he has previously passed a test under this section, the licensing authority may, after giving him notice of their intention so to do, revoke the licence, and he shall, on receipt of the notice, deliver the licence to the licensing authority for cancellation."
Then, of course, there is the proviso as to appeal, and so on.
Your Lordships will remember that on Second Reading I cited a dreadful case which happened at Middleton Stoney, where a motorist, at 10 o'clock in the morning, drove into a string of racehorses. There were four racehorses led by four grooms. Two grooms were killed, and two of the racehorses had to be destroyed. After preliminary inquiries, the case opened at an Assize Court. The defence was: "I did not know anything about it; I had a complete blackout". It transpired that the driver was an epileptic, aged 39, and had been one since he was very young. No one had told him, and his doctor said that he had never told him. The Judge of Assize said that he was exceptionally worried about the case. The jury disagreed, and the case was tried again at Staffordshire Assize about a week ago, where the man was
692
acquitted both of manslaughter and of dangerous driving. But right from the start of the trial, the Judge kept on expressing his disquiet that this man could have driven a motor car for all these years when he was an epileptic.
When the case first came on, about three months ago, I made a great many inquiries as to how Section 100 of the Act operated and who was statutorily responsible for acquainting a licensing authority with any evidence given in any court as to the physical or mental disability of a driver. I found that there was nobody; it was nobody's responsibility. Unless a licensing authority perused the Press and picked up odd scraps of information, they had no means—certainly no statutory means—of knowing. They told me that it placed them in a very difficult position. That is the reason why I put down an Amendment on Committee stage.
Because this is an important point, I should like to read to your Lordships what the learned Judge at Staffordshire Assizes said in connection with this case after the verdict had been given—I quote from The Times of December 16, which states:
"The Judge said he would direct that a copy of the medical history notes should be sent by the court to the county council with a request that the licensing authority should note its contents".
Then he went on to say:
"Although it is not for me to give any directions, if the matter comes before any appropriate person or body it is the view of the court, as a recommendation only, that no further licence should be issued to this man at any time".
My Lords, the Judge himself took the responsibility of making that public statement. Although he said that he had no authority, he could make a recommendation. My Amendment does not seek to make any recommendation as to what a licensing authority should do after they had been acquainted with the facts.
One of the startling things about this case—and I quote as my authority the report in the Daily Telegraph of the same date—is that the defending counsel said he
"had learned yesterday that a licensing authority could in certain circumstances withdraw a driving licence."
My Lords, I do not wish to criticise learned counsel. Even the most learned

693
of counsel cannot know everything. But if learned counsel did not know the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, what about the thousands of magistrates? What about the thousands of clerks—magistrates' clerks and clerks or courts?
I have satisfied myself that there is a very wide gap in the law; that courts do not acquaint licensing authorities with the regularity with which I think they should. I do not blame them, because they have no statutory responsibility to do so. Nor have the police any statutory responsibility. Although it is a small point, if we could save a dozen lives a year by tightening up and stopping up one loophole, I think that your Lordships would count it worth while, because the figures recently published by the Ministry are really serious. There were 5,621 road deaths during the first ten months of 1961, 2 per cent. more than in the corresponding period of 1960. Surely we do not want to wait until death has been caused by blackouts, or by any physical impairment, before we take every step we can to stop it. The case I have quoted has been publicised a great deal in the Press, but there are hundreds of cases where motorists who appear before magistrates' courts give the popular defence to a charge of being drunk in charge of a car, that "I do not know how it happened: I had a blackout." And sometimes it may succeed.
I am conscious of the fact that this is Report stage and that I cannot speak again. I would say to the noble Lord that I have gone out of my way to discuss this matter with licensing and police authorities, and none of them has denied that this would be one step in the right direction in this campaign of ours to make some impact upon accidents and on solving the problem of death on the road. So I press the noble Lord to accept this Amendment. It is a small point, perhaps, but if I, or any other noble Lord, can think of one Amendment to this Bill which would at one fell swoop stop death on the road, we should be working a miracle. But there is only one way of curing this problem. Let us leave nothing undone that we can do, so that the mass effect of all our energies will help to do what we want to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think that it would be right and proper for me to say that I disagree with the noble Lord on the principle of his Amendment, but I feel it my duty to the House to try to put the matter in perspective, because I think that in some ways the noble Lord exaggerated the gap which he said existed as a result of the lack of any statutory duty on the courts to inform anybody of the circumstances. The noble Lord was perfectly correct in his explanation of the situation. Epilepsy or other mental diseases constitute an absolute bar on the holding of a driving licence. Whilst there is no statutory obligation on the holder of a licence to declare himself as having become an epileptic, if the licensing authority find out about it, they may straight away, on notice, revoke his licence.
The noble Lord called in aid a striking case. I do not know if I misunderstood his meaning, but if a provision of this sort had already been on the Statute Book, it would not have prevented the accident. As the noble Lord said, the learned Judge was perturbed about this case, but I should have thought that his perturbation was probably based on the fact that this man was apparently unaware of his condition. But it is not for me to comment on that; I must stick to the Amendment in hand.
I think that I should explain what happens at the moment. When the condition of an epileptic or the like comes to light, no one has the statutory authority to inform the licensing authority. But there remain the police. They have an obligation, though it is true that it can hardly be described as statutory, when such matters come to their notice, either through the courts or in some other way, to inform the licensing authorities so that they can take action under Section 100 (6) of the 1960 Act. They can do that in any circumstance which gives them reason for believing that a driver may be suffering from one of these disabilities.
The Department are in frequent contact with licensing authorities throughout the country in connection with the administration of the various provisions

695
of the Road Traffic Act relating to the granting of driving licences, and those dealings provide evidence that the police work very closely with the authorities in order to ensure that they are in a position to fulfil their responsibilities in connection with driving licences in this and other respects. We know of quite a few cases where driving licences have been revoked, and in many of these cases the original information came from the police. The conclusion that one might perhaps draw from that is that the existing normal procedure covers the matter fairly well.
As a matter of interest, I have approached two or three local authorities to make a little more sure about the present position. From one I learn that they have reported to them about 24 cases a year, of whom 12 are alleged to be epileptics. Another authority received notices of about 50 a year, 20 of whom were alleged to be epileptics. Another receives notice of 60 or 70 cases, of whom about 25 are alleged to be epileptics. Therefore, it is not the fact that this matter goes by default. I can assure the noble Lord that the gap is not so wide as he may wish us to understand. Nevertheless, I find myself in agreement with the concluding part of the noble Lord's speech. If there is a gap which could be usefully filled and if, by doing so, we could save a number of lives, I think we should do something. I would therefore tell him that I can accept his Amendment in principle, although it will have to be looked at carefully from the point of view of drafting. We will put it down in proper form at a later stage of the Bill, which will probably be in another place.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps I rather overstressed this one case of epilepsy, but the clause of the Bill says "any physical infirmity". I hope the noble Lord will bear in mind that I do not want to turn the police into clerks. They have an extremely hard job now. I say that responsibility should rest upon the courts. I am quite prepared to leave myself entirely in the hands of the noble Lord, as I shall not be in your Lordships' House when Third Reading comes along, which is the time when I expect
696
the noble Lord will put down an Amendment.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if I may interrupt just to take up that remark, I should not like the noble Lord or the House to take it from me as definite that the Amendment will be put down on Third Reading. The assurance I gave, and which in order to make clear I will repeat, is that we will undertake to put down an Amendment at a later stage, which might be in another place.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, that is quite acceptable to me. I am grateful to the noble Lord and I hope that our joint efforts will prove to the good. On that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Temporary or experimental speed limits]:
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, after subsection (1)to insert:
"() Nothing contained in any order under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall be deemed to require or to permit the driving of a motor vehicle at or above the speed so specified in circumstances in which driving at or above that speed would be dangerous."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships may remember, when Clause 11 of the Bill was being considered in Committee my noble friend Lord Simon put down an Amendment to leave out paragraph ((b))of subsection (1) of this clause. He wished at that stage to delete altogether this power of the Minister to prescribe a minimum speed limit. I was in favour of the Government's having appropriate powers to experiment with minimum speed limits, which I understand have proved useful in other countries, but I thought that this novel provision in our criminal law—for we were creating a new crime —required careful consideration, and that the Government's clause as it stood would not do. Whenever we create a new crime we should do so with precision and make it clear what is to be lawful and what is not. In this case the Government have shown, by the terms of what is in the Bill already, when they say,
"subject to such exceptions as may be so specified…"
that there will have to be exceptions;

697
but we are given no indication of any kind as to what those exceptions will be.
I pointed out on the Committee stage that there were novel and difficult legal points that could arise, and I was strongly supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard. He pointed out that the Bill as it stood created an absolute obligation to drive at this minimum speed, subject to exceptions, about which we knew nothing and over which Parliament in the initial period of the experiment would have no control; and he thought that the only benefactors would be the junior Bar. I hope, in the circumstances, they will forgive me for moving this Amendment. If your Lordships will look at the beginning of Clause 11 you will see that this experiment can be made:
"Where it appears to the appropriate Minister desirable to do so in the interests of safety or for the purpose of facilitating the movement of traffic".
It would be odd if it could be plausibly contended that, under a Bill designed to promote road safety, it might be obligatory to drive dangerously. To avoid that is the object of this Amendment. The Amendment says:
"Nothing contained in any order under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section"—
that is, the order establishing the minimum speed—
"shall be deemed to require or to permit the driving of a motor vehicle at or above the speed so specified in circumstances in which driving at or above that speed would be dangerous."
I find it difficult to believe that anybody could disapprove of the substance of this Amendment; and I do not think, after what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard, that anyone could possibly contend that what is contained in it is already in the clause as it stands, because it quite demonstrably is not. It seems to me that, whatever may be the exceptions for which the Government will have to provide in any order that they make establishing a minimum speed limit, what is contained in this Amendment must be provided for. But if some provision must be contained in every order made under the paragraph, surely it should be put in the Bill.
Of course, I should have preferred the necessary Amendment to be drafted by the skilled draftsmen employed by Her
698
Majesty's Government. The House may recall that when we were in Committee my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard was in favour of throwing out paragraph (b) altogether then. But I made an alternative suggestion to the Government; and I ventured to say with some experience of the House that, when a legal point was put with such force and clarity, as it naturally was put by my noble and learned friend, I felt sure the Government would take some notice of it; I thought they would come back with their own version of what they thought it right to put into the Bill at this point. I said that my noble friend Lord Simon, my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard and I, if we were at all dissatisfied with the Government's Amendment, could then move our own Amendments to that Amendment. But when no Amendment appeared from the Government, I took the liberty of drafting my own; and, whatever may be the limitations of its draftsmanship, it was at least sufficiently good to secure the support of my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard and my noble friend Lord Simon.
For all those reasons, I strongly urge the House, unless conclusive reasons are given against it—and I cannot conceive what they can be—to insist on the carrying of this present Amendment. It does not limit the right of the Government to make the experiment of minimum speed limits. Nor does it lay down what they are to say in their orders as regards exceptions. It simply says that whatever they may say in their order—over which, I remind your Lordships, Parliament will have no control—it will be no defence to a charge of dangerous driving to say, "I was driving at the minimum speed laid down." Nor will it be any defence in a civil action for negligence to say, "You cannot complain of my dangerous conduct because I was observing the minimum speed." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 34, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Conesford.)
4.51 p.m.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, I do not want to go over again the same ground that my noble friend Lord Conesford has just addressed your Lordships upon. I submit that he has put before your Lordships formidable

699
reasons why this Amendment should be accepted. The reason why I think it is so important is this. The subsection creates a new offence which will be both a summary offence and an offence which may be triable on indictment. We are quite accustomed nowadays, perhaps unfortunately, to delegated legislation, but I submit that it is a dangerous thing to give Ministers power to create offences without saying exactly what those offences are, or of what they should consist. This allows the Minister to make an order subject to such exceptions as may be specified. It does not tell us anything about the exceptions. Some exceptions might, in the opinion of some of your Lordships, make the experiment more dangerous than it appears to be at first sight. It may be said, "Of course, in making the order we shall provide for safety." If you are going to provide for safety in every order, for goodness sake! why not put it in the Bill? What is the good of leaving it out of the Bill if it is put in every order? I do not know whether it is or not, but I submit to your Lordships that it is a dangerous precedent to give a Minister power to create a new offence without stating what the offence is, or how he is going to specify the offences or the exceptions. It is obvious, of course, that there must be exceptions. At present, I think I am right in saying that the only place in England where there is a minimum speed limit is in the Mersey Tunnel. Of course, that is quite different from the open road. There are no cross roads or pedestrians, and there will be no icy roads.
As my noble friend Lord Simon pointed out in Committee, if a man comes to one of these patches of road on a frosty day and finds that it is a dangerous road, is he to go dashing along at the speed which may have been laid down as 40 or 50 miles per hour, or is he to commit an offence by going along carefully at 15 or 20 miles per hour? I submit that until the Minister tells us exactly what the offence is going to be, and exactly what the provision is going to be with regard to minimum speed, and whether it will be an offence if you are not driving at a minimum speed, your Lordships ought not to give him power to do it.
4.54 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I believe it might be for the convenience of the House, and will assist your Lordships, if I take a moment or two longer over this matter than I otherwise might, and make it quite clear, as far as possible, what it is we have in mind. In so doing, I shall come on to discuss what has been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard.
I think it would be advantageous, first of all, to tell your Lordships what is the use of this minimum speed limit power that we have in mind—it is an experimental power at that. The two possible uses that we see are, first, something like a minimum speed limit of 40 miles an hour on the fast or inner lane of a dual carriageway. In many places up and down the country we are providing short stretches of dual carriageway on not very good roads to give the congested traffic a chance to sort itself out and pass in an unfrustrated manner. It is visualised that if we had a limit of that kind in such circumstances, it would obviate the half mile, three-quarter mile, or mile length which has been provided just for passing purposes being frustrated by two heavy vehicles or slow motor cars, side by side. with a differential speed of two miles an hour, taking up the whole of that road and keeping the rest of the traffic behind them, as it was before.
That is one set of circumstances. Another is something in the nature of a minimum limit of 15 miles an hour on peak hour clearways. The idea of that would be for a limited time each day to prevent very heavy, slow-moving traffic or very light, slow-moving traffic from creating its effect on a heavily-used high density traffic block. Those, or something very like those, are the purposes to which we wish to put it.
It was mentioned on the last occasion—perhaps I did not make it clear, so I should like to do so now—exactly why we want to do that and what ground we have for thinking so. I do not want to weary your Lordships with a long series of quotations from reports we have had from bodies like the Institution of Traffic Engineers in Washington. They say that experience shows that the smoother traffic flow, the avoidance of

701
overtaking and of the consequent frequent changes from one lane to another, are of benefit in road safety. As I have a few more things to say, I hope your Lordships will be able to take that from me, because I am going to say that our own experience and that of the police, in a slightly different context, has shown that a measure which conduces to a smoother traffic flow—in this case the 40 miles per hour limit—has been very beneficial in the same way. That is the object we are out to achieve—a smoother traffic flow. I hope your Lordships will not think that by "smoother traffic flow" I am necessarily talking about a faster traffic flow. That is not the object of the exercise, although it is possible it may ensue. The object is a smoother flow. The less the traffic bobs and weaves and changes from one lane on the road to another, the safer is that traffic; and the more the amount of overtaking is reduced, again the safer is that traffic. That is what we want to try—not to bring it in as a permanent thing until it: has been well tried. Those are the lines on which we wish to conduct experiments.
Naturally, your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I paid great attention to what was said in the Committee stage, when noble Lords and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, spoke, and in addition I did what the House wanted me to do; I consulted my noble friend Lord Simon. We consulted, I think it would be true to say, at some little length—and most amicably, I am glad to add. But I felt—perhaps I am over-sensitive—that my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford did us a little less than justice when he implied that the Government had done nothing about this matter. Because in the course of my consultation, we did discuss certain things that could be done, and I rather understood that they would not be acceptable. One, I recall, was not a thousand miles apart from the next Amendment, but I rather understood that that would not be found very acceptable.
Of course we cannot oppose the concept behind the Amendment, because, clearly, neither the Minister, in particular, nor anyone else, wishes to force people to drive at speeds which would in the circumstances be dangerous. We propose to deal with the matter by
702
making the minimum speed limit subject to exceptions, about which the noble Lord has expressed doubt, and these exceptions should cover all the circumstances in which it would be dangerous to drive at a minimum speed. Such circumstances would be bound up with bad weather, reduction of speed on police instructions or to avoid an accident, or on approaching a junction or traffic lights, or things of that kind. Such exceptions would, I feel, cover the kind of matters that the noble Lord has in mind.
LORD LATHAM: Can the noble Lord say whether the exceptions would be notified?
LORD CHESHAM: The exceptions would be in the order.
LORD LATHAM: I mean on the road itself.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether he has in view also such exceptions as a vehicle being incapable of going at the minimum speed?
LORD CHESHAM: Naturally, one of two things would happen; either the vehicle which could not go at the speed concerned would not be able to use the road, or, if through mechanical failure it was unable to maintain the speed, there would have to be an exception for that contingency as there is, for instance, in the existing minimum limit in the Mersey Tunnel, where some vehicles, I am told, are sufficiently impertinent as to stop altogether through a mechanical break-down.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord has mentioned the words "40 miles an hour" but there are a great many vehicles on the road, particularly very light motorcycles and so on, which are not designed to go at 40 miles an hour.
LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord is anticipating points I am coming to in my speech, and perhaps I may ask him to be a little patient, because I shall be dealing with them in a moment or two. Right now I should like just to consider the effect the proposed Amendment would have on the proposals I have just outlined to your Lordships.
The effect it would have would be to make the operation of the minimum speed limit an uncertain thing, because

703
drivers, if they were challenged by the police for driving too slowly, would have a built-in defence in the Bill that they considered it dangerous to comply with the speed limit.
LORD CONESFORD: May I interrupt my noble friend for a moment? I deliberately did not put in my Amendment "in the opinion of the driver". It would, of course, under the terms of my Amendment, be decided by the court, if there were a prosecution. I think he will see that that is what my Amendment, in fact, provides.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, I will try to see, but I should like to say that in one respect my noble friend is as guilty as my other noble friend.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: You are exceeding the minimum speed limit.
LORD CHESHAM: I was just about to say that the driver has only to say that he considered that it would have been dangerous to drive at the speed limit, although, as my noble and learned friend has just said, the test of what are the circumstances which would make driving at the minimum speed dangerous would be an objective one, and one to be decided at the courts on the evidence. But it would be unlikely, it seems to me, that a court would convict if a driver claimed that in his judgment he thought it would be dangerous to drive faster. In those circumstances the minimum speed limit would become unenforceable in practice, and, if I may borrow words used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard on the Committee stage, when he said that the clause as it stood would provide a happy harvest for the junior members of the Bar, I think that, without any question of doubt, the same could be said about this Amendment.
The next thing the Amendment would do would be to knock out any force that there was in the 40 m.p.h. limit on the fast lane of a carriageway. If a driver thinks that that is too fast in the circumstances, he has the other lane in which to drive. Obviously the driver who is likely to judge it dangerous to drive at 40 miles an hour minimum is likely to go more slowly. The defence for a man who drove at 30 m.p.h. in a 40 m.p.h. lane would be to say he thought it was
704
dangerous to go faster. I believe the better answer in that case is that he should have been in the other lane. There will be such exceptions to be specified and laid down in the order. We have in mind that the minimum speed limit would not apply within a specified distance on the approach side of any junction—of which there are two in the Mersey Tunnel, incidentally—as well as traffic signals, and that it would not apply where weather conditions are such as to make it unsafe to maintain whatever is the minimum speed. The precise nature of this provision will depend upon the speed specified, and on the time of year at which it is to apply.
I was left with the idea last time, and I have certainly been given it again to-day, that your Lordships are worried about what these exceptions will be and that they shall be reasonable and guard against any question of so-called forced dangerous driving. I agree with that, as I said then. For my part, I think it is a pity that my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford did not speak on his two Amendments together. I had hoped that he would, because if he had I should have been quite prepared to accept the underlying principle of his second Amendment, No. 6, that the matter should be laid before Parliament and could be debated by Parliament before such an order was made, to ensure that the proper exceptions were put in and thereby set a pattern. If the noble and learned Lord would care to withdraw this Amendment, No. 5, I would accept the underlying principle of No. 6, although it would have to be re-drafted and put down in another way to achieve that the first, or one, such order should be debated by Parliament and should be subject to Resolution of both Houses. I would have given him a strong undertaking to put down an Amendment at a later stage of the Bill in order to do just that. I hope, therefore, that my noble and learned friend may see fit to accept what I have just said.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I make one point arising out of what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has recently said? I think it is agreed between both noble and learned Lords in whose names this Amendment stands and by the noble

705
Lord, Lord Chesham, that there will be many exceptions which will apply to each and every order which is likely to be made under this clause, exceptions dealing, for instance, with bad weather, mechanical breakdown, and so on. If that is accepted, is it not worth while adopting the suggestion which the noble and learned Lords, Lord Conesford and Lord Goddard made, that these exceptions, to be common to every order, shall be inserted not by repetition in every order but in the Bill, once for all?
LoRD BURDEN: My Lords, there is just one further difficulty, I think, in the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has put to us. We all know that when an order is submitted for Resolution it is a complete order which the House has to agree to or reject. There may be some parts of the order which are satisfactory, and it may be that amendments would be necessary or desirable. Would it be possible, before it reaches the order stage, where acceptance or otherwise are the only things possible, for these draft orders to be considered in a way so as to get them in the most satisfactory form for Parliament to consider?
LORD CHESHAM: I must not, of course, speak twice, but perhaps I may deal with the question which is put to me. That is precisely what I meant by the necessity to redraft Amendment No. 6, because it is quite possible that something in the nature of the laying of a draft order might prove to be the way to do it.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for explaining so very clearly and fully the Government's feeling about this Amendment. As the noble Lord said, he was good enough to spend quite a lot of his time explaining this to me. I am afraid he did not convince me that my original idea that we should get rid of these minimum speed limits altogether was not the right one. But he did convince me that the Minister had made up his mind that he wanted this power, and I realise that the general feeling in your Lordships' House is that this experiment should go forward.
That being so, it seems to me absolutely necessary that we should set out in the Bill the minimum conditions that
706
must be applied to every such experiment. The clause starts with reference to the interests of safety and the facility of the movement of traffic, but I am quite sure your Lordships would be unanimous in agreeing that the interests of safety come before facility in the movement of traffic. It may be, as the noble Lord said, that in certain circumstances free flow of traffic is safer than when traffic is moving at different speeds, and it is suggested that that is the experience that has come to us from the experiment in America. I confess that I did not find it tremendously convincing.
I turn now to the case of the 40 miles an hour speed limit on a dual carriageway. The noble Lord referred to the risk of accidents arising when one is overtaking or being overtaken. But surely it is easier to overtake a car going at 30 miles an hour than one going at 40 miles an hour. Having a minimum speed limit of 40 miles an hour is not going to stop overtaking, because the high-powered car will be going along the dual carriageway at 50 or 60 miles an hour. If there is someone on the carriageway whose natural speed is 30 miles an hour, it would be much safer to overtake him at that speed than if he were compelled to drive faster.
The noble and learned Lord who introduced the Amendment has made it quite clear that we feel that before this clause is put into the Bill we must agree, at least in broad outline, what it means. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, interested me very much by saying that what the Minister had in mind was that exceptions would cover all the circumstances where it would be dangerous to exceed the minimum speed limit. If, in fact, the intention is to cover all those circumstances, I cannot help feeling that it is a much easier bit of drafting to do, with some Amendment, what the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has done in this Amendment, than to try to specify all the conditions in which it would he dangerous. I should have thought that a very strong argument in favour of accepting this Amendment, rather than acceding to the noble Lord's suggestion that this Amendment should be withdrawn and that the House should accept an alternative Amendment.
I think it is right to say that when the courts have had to interpret the law

707
in cases of dangerous driving they have held, and I think rightly held, that dangerous driving does not depend upon whether there is in fact any danger. A man can be convicted of dangerous driving even if there is nothing else upon the road. And I hope that in interpreting this law, if it does become law, courts will take the same line. If they take the same line, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has said: that it makes it extremely difficult for the police to get a conviction for an offence against this clause. Personally, I do not regret that at all.
When we discussed this matter in Committee I said that I felt the Government and the whole House was in something of a dilemma, because either the insistence on the minimum speed limit was introducing a possibility of danger, or else, if provision was made that it should be a defence to say that to have exceeded the speed limit was dangerous, the law would not mean very much. I agree. That is one of the reasons I advanced in favour of not having a minimum speed limit at all. If we are to have it, I feel we should make it perfectly clear that no driver should be required—or, as this Amendment says, should be permitted—to exceed the minimum speed limit if it is dangerous to do so. After all, if a driver in these circumstances errs on the side of safety, which of us in this House would say he was doing wrong? I strongly support this Amendment. I do not know what my noble friend, Lord Conesford, will do about the appeal made to him, but if he decides to press the Amendment I will support him.
5.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I must ask the forgiveness of the House for intervening in this matter, but I wonder whether we are not really losing sight of the wood for the trees here. The first thing I should like to say to the House is that we are not discussing a permanent change in our law at all. The clause deals with experimental speed limits for a mere period of four months. I think it is important to bear that in mind. I think that we have now reached a high level of agreement, whatever the merits of these Amendments. First, we want to give the Minister power, after discussion, to make experi-
708
mental speed limits. My noble and learned friend made that quite clear in his opening and, on reflection, I should have said it is obviously a good thing to do. Secondly, we are all quite clear that a driver who drives below the experimental speed limit must, in various circumstances, for one reason or another have a defence if he does so in the exceptional circumstances provided for in the clause. I think we are also in agreement that the overriding point which my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford puts in his draft Amendment is one which will have to be taken into consideration in one way or another—whether by way of insertion in the Bill or by way of insertion, in one form or another, in the regulations.
Of course we must all go away and take this thing back in our thoughts, and of course another place will have the opportunity to consider the matter afresh, should they desire to do so; but I would frankly submit to the House that we have to consider whether, having regard to my noble friend's offer that regulations should be subject to positive Resolution, that is not really the more flexible way of dealing with what is admittedly an experiment. If we were making a permanent change in our law, it might very well be true that the noble Viscount who sits opposite would be right in saying that it ought to be inserted in the Bill. But we want to experiment with exceptions, I should think, no less than with the roads. I would freely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that in dealing with regulations, especially those which are subject to negative Prayer, it is sometimes most inconvenient to have to accept or reject the entire cake without being able to cut it up into slices. But, there again, my noble friend has promised to take the positive course of making each House of Parliament pass a Resolution approving of each set of regulations.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble Leader. If he means his last remark, it will remove all my difficulty. What troubled me was that my second Amendment, to which I can allude only by way of anticipation, was limited to the first such Order. I should not mind that as a supplement to passing the present Amendment, but anything limited to the first such Order

709
would be quite unsatisfactory without something on these lines.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend. I do not want to take a false point, which I was just about to do, although quite innocently. I had overlooked the fact that my noble friend's second Amendment was limited to the first such Order, and I had not authority to extend it to any subsequent Order. So I am extremely grateful to him for pointing out what was quite a genuine error of my own. I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches back in his place, because I was going for once to differ most humbly from two of his remarks. The first is that I cannot altogether agree that every time we create a summary offence—and this is a summary offence, as the subsection makes clear—we should specify the exact circumstances of the offence. That would take away the value of regulations altogether, and I am sure the House would not wish to do that. As regards the Mersey Tunnel, I must point out to the noble and learned Lord that there are two junctions with branch tunnels as well as traffic signals; so that I do not think it was quite so bad an analogy as was thought when it was originally put forward.
However, I do not want to lose myself in detail. I should hope that my noble friend Lord Chesham would consider this matter again before the Bill goes to another place, and also that the House would, on the whole, feel that in accepting the principle of the positive Resolution put forward by my noble and learned friend in the second Amendment, my noble friend Lord Chesham had gone quite a long way towards meeting the point which was made; and that really, in relation to an experimental speed limit as distinct from a permanent change in our law, it was really going too far to start trying to draft in the Bill every one of the regulations, or even the overriding regulation which my noble and learned friend puts forward. However, I do not think there is much between us, and I was wondering whether, in the light of the fact that there is not much between us, my noble and learned friend would now feel it possible to withdraw his Amendment on the undertakings given.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I should greatly like to make a speech, but I should be out of order if I did. In moving the next Amendment I hope to explain something of what I feel, but I think that I should be meeting the views of my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard, and my noble friend Lord Simon, if I acceded to the request of my noble Leader and asked leave to withdraw the present Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.27 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"() No order under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall come into force until one such order has been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now move the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Chesham has said he will accept in principle and embody in the Bill in another place. I must frankly admit that even I can see that my draftsmanship of this Amendment is faulty, so that I could not press for its acceptance in its present form. But may I say that the argument for this Amendment has been conceded both by my noble Leader and by my noble friend Lord Chesham. Had my noble Leader been right in his first impression of what it contained, I should have been wholly happy to withdraw my first Amendment but the undertaking of my noble friend Lord Chesham is limited, I am afraid, really to the first such order.
As there will be plenty of time for him to consider the form of the Amendment before it is introduced in another place, I should like him seriously to consider this suggestion. While providing, perhaps, for a positive Resolution in the case of the first order, he should meet the views of my noble Leader to the extent that he should provide for a negative Resolution in the case of subsequent orders. That would give some control to Parliament in every case; and I think, for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard on an earlier occasion, we should have that possibility of Parliamentary control.
The only allusion I would make to the Amendment which I have withdrawn is that I can quite see that it might be satisfactory if every order provided for every case where it might be necessary

711
in the interests of safety to reduce speed. But to see whether or not every order does do that, it is necessary, in my submission, to provide for some Parliamentary control. While I move my Amendment, as I am bound to do, in the form in which I have set it down, I hope that my noble friend, in accepting it in spirit, will go beyond it in introducing an Amendment in another place, and if he does not go beyond it I hope that Members of another place will observe what my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard and I have said on this subject. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 34, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Conesford.)
5.30 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I hope that my noble and learned friend will not take it as any form of precedent, or even a unique occasion, in seeking to suggest that an inadvertent and, may I say, exceedingly rare slip on the part of my noble Leader should also bring me down. But, more seriously, may I say that we have all listened with great care and seriousness to what has been said. I am glad to say to my noble and learned friend that I will certainly consider what he has asked me to consider in the intervening period. Of that I can give him my assurance. I can, of course, not give him an assurance about what will happen after consideration, and I do not think that he will ask me to do so. But if I can help at all by saying that we will certainly most seriously consider what he said, then I will do so. Otherwise, I am glad, as I said, to accept the underlying principle of this Amendment which shall be put down in the proper form at a later stage.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I would only observe that my noble Leader, far from bringing about the fall of my noble friend Lord Chesham, in fact saved him by a mistake that showed that he was concerned with the merits of the case. On the undertaking that has been given by my noble friend Lord Chesham, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Test fees]:
5.32 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) to insert:
"() if the person for whom the appointment is made does not keep the appointment, but the test could not take place by reason of adverse weather conditions;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to Clause 20. Clause 20 deals with driving test fees and subsection (1) removes the limit of the maximum fee which may be charged for a driving test. Then subsection (2) specifies four sets of circumstances under paragraphs (a) to (d) in which the Minister may refund a test fee which has been paid. It is to be in those four circumstances "and not otherwise": those words "and not otherwise" are important. I am seeking by this Amendment to include a fifth set of circumstances. The paragraph to which my Amendment is most nearly related is paragraph (c) which says that if the learner driver keeps the appointment but the test does not take place, or is not completed through no fault of his or of his vehicle, then his fee may be refunded. My proposed Amendment seeks to say that if he does not keep to the appointment, but the test could not take place by reason of bad weather, then in those circumstances, too, his fee may be refunded.
My object is that I want to keep learner drivers, of all people, off the roads when the roads are treacherous and there is no possibility of the object of the exercise being fulfilled, because if the learner driver succeeded in getting to the place where the test was proposed to take place, it could not in fact take place because of the treacherous nature of the roads.
It may be said that these learners should be glad to stay at home and forfeit their fees in the interests of road safety, and should have no complaint. I do not see why they should accept that position, and I can think of three very clear reasons why many of them do not. The first is as I have mentioned, that the door is wide open for this fee—which at the moment is £1, a not insignificant sum—to be increased without limit. Secondly, there is the fact that many learner drivers must come from a section of the community which is not

713
well-off. Many of them no doubt are students, apprentices, people saving up to get married, or young married people saving up to set themselves up in a home—people who will not lightly agree to pay £1, 30s., £2, or whatever it is going to be, for a driving test which does not take place.
Thirdly, I think it is fair to say that in the average English winter this hardship may fall upon a particular person not once but several times. Somebody may apply for a driving test in November; there may well be thick fog on that day so no test takes place and he loses his fee. He makes an appointment for January; there may well be ice on the road that day so he makes another appointment for February. One could go on surmising how often it is likely to happen to a particular person. In my submission, it will happen under this clause as it is now drafted that a person who is prevented by bad weather from getting to the place of appointment for his driving test will pay his fee once, twice or three times and no test will have taken place.
The result of this is likely to be that every winter there will be people, exasperated by losing their money in this way, who will say, "Now under paragraph (c) of Clause 20" (they will not say it in precisely these words, but they will know that it applies) "if I can get to the place of appointment and keep my appointment, although I shall not have a test in this weather, I shall at least recover my fee." We shall have people on motor bicycles, scooters—learner drivers—creating hazards for themselves and for other people upon the roads, with this ridiculous object. I cannot see the sense of this, and therefore I introduce this Amendment which seeks to say that, although the person does not keep the appointment, if the test is impossible because of bad weather conditions then the fee may be repayable.
There is the small point of the potential loss of a little revenue here, but I am not going to pursue this one because, from discussions that have taken place in earlier stages of this Bill, T believe that this is not an aspect of the matter about which Her Majesty's Government are in the least concerned. I submit that this Amendment is one which the Minister would be pleased to be given the
714
power to exercise, and accordingly I beg leave to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 22, after ("test") insert—
("() if the person for whom the appointment is made does not keep the appointment, but the test could not take place by reason of adverse weather conditions;").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I add one word to what the noble Lord has just said? As the years go on I think that the English public are intelligent enough to feel, naturally, that during the winter months, when the weather is likely to be treacherous, they will not want to lose fees continually. Therefore, they will confine their applications to the summer months, which will result, of course, in an intolerable overcrowding of applicants during that time, when they might be taking tests during the winter months.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am sorry, since the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, moved his Amendment in such a beguiling way, that I must say to him that I am unable to accept it and shall in due course recommend the House not to accept it. But I think in doing so I can offer him an unusually large measure of comfort on this matter, by explaining together what is and what will be the position. He said that he could see no sense in this; nor would there be if he were quite right from the point at which he started. Bad weather conditions, as he pointed out to us, can do two things, either because it is bad at the place of test and on the test route or because it is bad at the candidate's home, which may be some distance from the place of test and which, of course, may be far enough away for the weather conditions to be different. My Lords, in the first case, when they are had at the test centre, if the candidate presents himself, having started in reasonable weather conditions, and finds that it is foggy and icy when he gets there, the test would, of course, be cancelled by the examiner on the spot. In that case, the candidate's money would be perfectly safe, because the provisions of paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of Clause 20 would apply, and he would either get his money back or would arrange to leave it as the fee for a further test.
The latter case, where it is bad at his home—that is, where he is prevented

715
from setting out from home by bad weather—we intend to deal with by administrative action, as in fact is now done. I do not know whether or not the noble Lord has seen one, but the appointment card which is sent to a candidate includes on the face of it now an instruction to the applicant to telephone the driving test centre in the case of fog, ice or snow. A candidate who does this and can show that he is justified in not setting out for his test would be told that the Department would agree to the cancellation of his test. In that case, my Lords, in the words of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Clause 20, the appointment would have been "cancelled by or on behalf of the Minister", and there would be no forfeiture of the fee. The normal drill would then be that another appointment would be offered to the applicant.
I think, therefore, that the thought behind the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will in fact be fully met, partly by the provisions of Clause 20 as they now stand and partly by the administrative action which we will take and which, indeed, we already take in dealing with the bad weather circumstances. I should like to give the noble Lord an assurance now that that administrative action with regard to the applicant's card will be continued, and that it does cover this matter; and I hope that, in the light of that, he will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. I think he has completely answered the point that I raised, and I have the greatest pleasure, on the strength of what he has said, in withdrawing this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Short title, construction, commencement and extent]:
5.44 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a very small Amendment of a drafting nature to remove a rather abstruse legal doubt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 28, leave out ("day on") and insert ("time at").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule [Disqualification and penalties]:

DISCRETIONARY DISQUALIFICATION
19. An offence under section 64 (2) of the principal Act (contravention of construction and use regulations) committed by using a vehicle on a road, or causing or permitting a vehicle to be so used, either— (a) so as to cause, or to be likely to cause, danger by the condition of the vehicle or its parts or accessories, the number of passengers carried by it, or the weight, distribution, packing or adjustment of its load; or (b) in breach of a requirement as to brakes, steering gear, or tyres.

The words from "as to the construction" to "hereof" shall be omitted and for the words from "to a fine", in the first place where they occur, to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds".

5.45 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit paragraph 19. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my object in putting this Amendment down is simply to provide a peg upon which to hang a plea to the Government to look again, while this Bill is on its way to another place, at the whole system of the Statutes as regards the permitted loads of goods-carrying vehicles. I can say this straight away: that I am fully aware of the great technical difficulties in this subject. I did not spend my life in the motor industry without learning all about them. But when the Government come forward, as did the noble Viscount the Leader of the House during the Committee stage, and tell the House and the country that they are contemplating increasing the permitted speed limits of goods-carrying vehicles, I think a number of the public will be affrighted unless, at the same time, they do something to limit, or attempt to limit, the gross overloading of the average goods-carrying vehicle.
I will illustrate in a few words what I mean, and I will take for my example a common, four-wheeled vehicle—an ordinary, four-wheeled, dropsided truck. The Statute says that the total permitted weight of a four-wheeled vehicle,

717
gross—that is, unladen weight plus load —is 14 tons. I have here a schedule of what a manufacturer of that type of vehicle recommends. I have taken just five of them, and they range from a 25 cwt. Dropside lorry to a 5-ton drop-side lorry. In each of those categories the total weight that can legally be carried, so long as it is not slipshod and so long as it is not displaced, is 14 tons in all. The manufacturer here—and this is an example typical of all the popular manufacturers—for his 25 cwt. Dropside truck, says that the advised load is 1 ton 9½cwt; for the 35 cwt. dropside truck it is 2 tons 2½cwt.; for the 3-ton it is 3 tons 18¾cwt.; for the 4-ton it is 4 tons 6½cwt.; and for the 5-ton it is 5 tons 7¼cwt. After the manufacturer has said, "I have designed my vehicle, its brakes, its steering, its components and everything else, and that is the recommended load that I say my vehicle is built to carry", the Statute allows, progressively from the smallest to the largest, 12 tons, 12 tons, 12 tons, 11½tons and 11¼tons.
Now, really, that does not add up to sense. It is handicapping the police and handicapping the magistrates. If you go through the regulations, from the Construction and Use Regulations right the way through, you will see the impossibility of trying to enforce the law as it is at present. Regulation 68 of the Construction and Use Regulations says that the total laden weight of a goods vehicle must not exceed 14 tons for a four-wheeled vehicle. My Lords, prosecutions are very rare—almost none at all, although you do get prosecutions for shifting loads, for badly balanced loads and for displaced loads.
How can we contemplate increasing the permitted speed limits of these vehicles? The limit is going to be 40 miles per hour. If we have any common sense with which to judge, we know that the police to-day seldom prosecute under 38 miles an hour in a 30-mile limit. Will it be 48 miles an hour in a 40-mile limit? Although the police or the highway authority, or in some cases other authorities, can say to a driver, where they suspect that the load is in excess of what the vehicle should carry, "We want you to take this vehicle on a weighbridge", if the weighbridge is more than one mile away from
718
the place and the load Is not in excess of the permitted load—this is the language of the Statute—and the weight is found to be within the limits authorised by the law—14 tons—then they have to pay compensation to the owner of the vehicle.
I could cite quite a number of cases showing the ridiculousness of this situation. That is why a lot of these vehicles to-day are being so grossly overloaded. There is alarm among licensing authorities. They have drawn attention to it in their annual reports. There is alarm among the police. All I seek to do is to ask the noble Lord whether, if the Government cannot do so in between now and the time when the Bill arrives at another place, he will give me an undertaking that this matter will be looked at seriously. Because I feel certain that what he wants to do, what the Government want to do, and what we all want to do, is to carry the public with us. This question of speed limits is not an easy one. The public is not quite happy about allowing these goods vehicles a higher speed limit than the one allowed at the present time.
I am at one with the noble Lord in believing that the secret of good traffic control is to try to get all your traffic travelling at the same speed. But we must have some common sense in this matter, and we must try to amend this antiquated law, which was made years and years ago. when the first consideration was the safety of our bridges and drains. The fundamental fault with commercial vehicle taxation is that the taxation is based on the unladen weight, instead of on the total load which bears upon the road. My Lords, I do not want to say any more. 1 just wanted to make this, I hope, prima facie case. Will the Government look at this matter and see whether something can be done in between now and the time that this Bill gets to another place? My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 10, leave out paragraph 19.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am sure that many people will give support to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on this particular point which he has raised. I found it difficult to

719
follow his arithmetic, because he was comparing total laden weights in one case with the net weight in another case. I do not know what the unladen weight of some of these vehicles is, but obviously there is a very big discrepancy between the two, three, four or five tons he mentioned on the one hand, and the eleven to fourteen tons he mentioned on the other hand. The general public see vehicles on the roads in what appear to be an advanced stage of obsolescence, and I believe that it is very important that these vehicles should never he loaded to a greater extent than the weight for which the manufacturers have designed their brakes, and so on. This applies to goods vehicles. When it comes to passenger service vehicles, et cetera, they have the knowledge that the chassis and everything are designed to hold the thirty, forty or fifty passengers, that no excess weight is ever carried, and that the greatest possible safety margin is embodied in the vehicle. But we have not the same confidence in these goods vehicles, and now that the speed limit is to be raised to the speed at which they normally travel, I beg that Her Majesty's Government will look into this question of the limit of the weight they are allowed to carry.
5.55 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, now that the noble Lord has produced his hat and hung it on the peg, it has turned out to be a hat of interesting design, construction and texture. I think, if I may say so, that the noble Lord has done a good job in airing this matter. I think the first thing I should say is on the subject of the present position, and to point out that the regulations controlling the loading of vehicles fall into two groups. The ones which the noble Lord mentioned, such as the maximum weight of fourteen tons for a 4-wheeled lorry, and so on, are those which are imposed for the purpose of protecting bridges and roads. The other aspect of it is covered under quite separate provisions with regard to overloading. Regulation 73 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955, is the main provision. That says:
"Every motor vehicle, every trailer drawn thereby and all parts and accessories of such vehicle and trailer shall at all times be in such condition and the number of passengers
720
carried by, and the weight, distribution, packing and adjustment of the load of such vehicle or trailer shall at all times be such that no danger is caused or is likely to be caused to any person on the vehicle or trailer or on a road."
My Lords, that is, while certainly not laying down any specific load for any specific vehicle, the provision which covers such matters.
I suppose it cannot be denied that overloading occurs. I have tried, so far as I can, in anticipation of what the noble Lord would say, to come to some idea of what might be the size of the problem. Statistics of this kind are never fully conclusive, I agree. In 1958, which was the last convenient year for which statistics in this form are available, it seems that about 350 accidents occurred to goods vehicles which were attributed to overloading. Although, as I say, that is not conclusive I hope it may be slightly indicative.
The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Hawke know already, I am sure, that various schemes for fixing precise maximum weight limits have been considered several times over the last, at any rate, thirty years. One of the troubles is that goods vehicles, or those which are above the smallest sizes, are not normally standard articles, and, in effect, you would have to work out a maximum gross permitted weight for each vehicle. The weight which a vehicle can carry may be determined by what is, or may be, a single weak item of its equipment, which might be the springs or the tyres. Operators can, and do, legitimately alter these things in order to obtain heavier payloads, quite apart from more major operations such as the addition of an extra axle. The job of making these assessments would, of course, be a very complex operation and a skilled job which would make tremendous demands on the Department's technical and professional staff. It would be a heavy task indeed. To give your Lordships some indication of its size, I have here a directory of the different models of commercial vehicles listed by the manufacturers, which consists of some 500 closely printed pages with 20 to 30 models per page, and these, with private modifications, give a formidable number of different types with which we should have to deal. However, I do not want to make too much of this difficulty.

721
I should like, so far as I can, to accede to the invitation which has been extended to me by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and I say to him with sincerity that this matter will be looked at carefully again. I cannot say to him that a conclusion will be reached between now and the time the Bill appears in another place, or that a conclusion will be reached at all. What I can say to him is that our minds are not entirely barren of ideas on this subject and that we shall be just as pleased to do what he asks as I hope he will be to hear this. If he can see his way to withdrawing the peg from inside the hat, I shall be happy to do what I have said.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. When I put down this Amendment I knew that I had given him a headache. It has been a headache for years. I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that speed is becoming greater, loads are getting heavier, and vehicles are getting larger. We have to carry the public with us on the question of safety and this question is something which sooner or later has to be solved. I am grateful to the noble Lord for acceding to my request to give the matter his attention. I know that he will do so. Maybe he cannot do it in time for when this Bill appears in another place, but it has to be done none the less. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved to add to the proposed Amendments of the principal Act:
"Local Authorities' Traffic Regulation Orders

Section twenty-seven.

In subsection (4), after the words 'shall not require confirmation' there shall be inserted the words 'unless its effect is such as is mentioned in subsection (4) of the last foregoing section'"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment and the following one standing in my name is to permit local authorities to make orders, subject to confirmation by the Minister, to create peak hour clearways on through traffic routes, similar to the
722
clearways established by the Minister on A.4, the Cromwell Road Extension, which, as your Lordships know, is the main westward exit from London. The Amendment would enable local authorities to facilitate the peak hour traffic flow into and out of towns and cities on main traffic routes during mornings and evenings. The local authorities are well aware that drastic traffic restrictions are no substitute for road improvements and that a complete ban on waiting can cause considerable hardship on those whose premises front on to the roads in question. Therefore, they would be very reluctant to exercise the new power, confining it to cases where for the time being there are no other means of maintaining the flow of traffic at the busy times of day. I would repeat that any new order would require confirmation by the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 10, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, in our view, it is entirely desirable that highway authorities outside London should be able to bring in that useful traffic component (if I may so call it), the peak hour clearway, and in view of the fact that this Amendment enables them to do so, I am happy to accept it, with the consequential Amendment. In practice, the Minister would confirm orders for permanent clearways only if the prevention of access was nothing more than technical—that is to say, so long as there was access by a side road or some other means—otherwise orders involving substantial prevention of access would be confirmed only if they applied for limited periods of the day, such as for peak hours.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, and I am sure that local authorities will appreciate his decision. I can assure him that local authorities will use the new power with due discretion and not, I think, overwork the Ministry too much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 45, at end insert ("and in subsection (5), the words from 'in relation' to 'next following section'").—(Lord Burden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.