Lords Sitting of 6 June 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 Manchester

FUEL OIL TAX AND HOSPITAL COSTS
2.35 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their estimate of cost to the Hospital Service of the proposed fuel oil tax, and how it is proposed that this extra expenditure should be met.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the cost of this tax to the hospital service cannot at present be accurately calculated, but it is likely to be of the order of £¾million for England and Wales. It will be met from the Exchequer as part of hospital running expenses and the Government are considering the implications for hospital budgets of this and other factors affecting costs.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, does that mean that in fact the allowances to hospitals for the maintenance costs will go up by an appropriate amount, so that the new tax will not result in a diminution of real spending for hospital services?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the Government are now considering whether or not there should be a further allotment of funds, and the hospitals will be told as soon as possible. But this particular cost cannot be considered in isolation: it must be taken together with other changes in costs which have occurred.
LORD TAYLOR: Nevertheless, my Lords, will it not inflict a burden, whether considered in isolation or with other items, unless an appropriate amount is allowed for hospital budgets to cover it?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it depends what the noble Lord opposite means by "burden". This estimated sum of £750,000 is a very small proportion—indeed, it is one-six hundredth—of the total allocation of monies to hospital authorities for their running costs, the total being £447 million.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, does not the noble Lord realise that hospital budgets are run down to the nearest farthing and that, therefore, it will make a big difference?
LORD NEWTON: Did the noble Lard say that hospital budgets are running down?
LORD AMULREE: No. What I asked was whether the noble Lord did not realise that the budgets of hospitals at the present time are run down to the nearest farthing, and, therefore, if there is an increase, it will mean that something else has to be dropped.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this is a very small increase and, as I say, the Government are now considering whether or not there should be a further allotment of funds.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this small increase works out at 30s. per year per bed? We have to work in hospitals to 1 per cent. on accuracy of spending. This is not an unimportant matter. Secondly, will guidance be given to hospitals regarding the implications of this tax as between burning solid fuel or oil fuel in the installation of boilers they will be making for the future?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I should not like to answer the second question without notice. As regards the first question, I hope that I did not suggest that it was an unimportant matter: I said merely that it was not a very big matter, taken in the context of the total allocation to hospitals to cover their running expenses.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would not a simple solution to this problem be not to levy this tax on hospitals?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, is not this tax burdensome on the whole community, quite apart from hospitals?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, could we have an answer to the question put by my noble friend Lady Summerskill?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend behind me, first, it does fall on all consumers of these heavy oils. With regard to the noble Lady's question, I think she will probably remember from her own experience how Government accounting works. And perhaps I should also remind your Lordships that there was until 1947 a tax on these heavy oils of 1d. a gallon—it is now 2d. a gallon—and it was taken off then, according to the thin Chancellor of the Exchequer, only because there was a severe shortage of coal and the Government wished to encourage switching over to oil.

PRESERVATION OF LANGTON GREEN
2.41 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 what attempt, if any, has been made either by local or national authorities to prevent the suggested housing development in the village of Langton Green, Kent, being constructed in such a way as largely to destroy the charm of this historic spot.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the responsibility for considering applications for permission to develop land at Langton Green has rested entirely with the local authorities. I understand that an outline planning permission has been given for 103 houses. However, details of design and layout have still to be approved by the authorities, and my right honourable friend feels sure that they will have every regard to the character of the area when considering any proposals submitted to them.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, does he not agree that it is much more important to try to give greater consideration than is at present being given to the destruction of these beautiful and irreplaceable villages? All over the country
1072
they are being pulled down and destroyed.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I fully agree with my noble friend that this is an important matter and that our villages are a most important heritage. But I cannot agree with him that careful consideration has not been given to this particular application and is not being given to other similar applications.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware that it is open to the Minister, in important cases of this kind, to take over the application and deal with it himself, and that many areas are being ruined by leaving a decision entirely to the local authority until it is too late to intervene?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am aware that this lies within my right honourable friend's power. Nevertheless, it is his policy to leave matters to the local authorities when in his view, as in this case, a decision lies clearly within their competence.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, recognising the responsibility that now lies on the local authorities, is my noble friend satisfied that they have always good enough taste to exercise it?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, taste, of course, is purely a matter of opinion.

MIGRATION IN THE COMMONWEALTH
LORD BARNBY: 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—

(a) they have taken cognisance of Lord Casey's recently published views on migration;

(b) they accept that the attitude of the Government is a factor of consequence in the minds of prospective migrants;

(c) they should not therefore attempt to stimulate the flow of migrants to the Commonwealth by utilising a larger proportion of the sum voted annually by Parliament under the Commonwealth Settlement Act.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have of course taken careful note of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Casey. With regard to the second,pant of my noble friend's Question, I should not like to dogmatise about the factors influencing prospective migrants. Only the individual can take the final decision. This must to a great extent depend on personal circumstances and on prevailing economic conditions, both here and in the country of settlement. There is no doubt as 'to the Government's attitude. It has, and continues to be, one of encouraging migration to other parts of the Commonwealth.
As regards the last part of my noble friend's Question, Parliament last year voted some £178,000 for oversea settlement purposes, and this sum was fully spent: the hulk of it went to the Australian assisted passage scheme, and the rest went to the various voluntary emigration societies. But the Commonwealth and Empire Settlement Acts, under which the money is voted, expire in May, 1962. The question of their renewal is now being considered as part of a general review of the Government's emigration policy. This review will, of course, take account of the scale of expenditure voted under the Acts.
LORD BARNBY: Would the noble Duke not agree that it is a matter of concern that the total United Kingdom proportion of the immigration into the Dominions is falling so that it reduces the degree of sentiment, tradition and loyalty to the Crown. Secondly, would it not seem that some mechanics for contributing towards the cost of housing British immigrants into, for instance, Australia and New Zealand would be a small sacrifice compared with the large sums being made available to extra-Commonwealth overseas countries and also the large burden falling upon national or municipal taxpayers in the United Kingdom? Might I also remind the noble Duke, who mentioned that £178,000 was spent, that that sum is a small part of the £1½ million voted or made available by Parliament under the Acts.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend when he says that the rate of emigration to Australia is falling off. The provisional figures for last year, 1960, show that there was an increase on the previous year; and when the final figures are reached it is likely that the figures for 1960 will prove to have been higher, at something over 44,000 than for some years past. On the question of providing finance for housing our emigrants to Australia, there are both legal and other difficulties in tackling such a question. On the final question, I must point out to my noble friend that he is incorrect in saying that £1½ million was voted. The figure of £1½ million represents the ceiling of money which can be voted for assisting emigration figures by way of schemes. It is not the amount voted; it is the maximum that is legal to be voted; and in point of fact the amount voted last year was £178,000.
LORD BARNBY: In thanking the noble Duke for that reply, I perhaps inadvertently said that it applied to Australia. I thought I said it applied to the Commonwealth as a whole, because the case for Australia is not the case for Canada, which falls within the Commonwealth. Also I thought I said that Parliament "made available", not "voted".
LORD CASEY: My Lords, may I ask, in extension of what the noble Duke said, if one is right in believing that only a very small proportion of the total amount of £1½ million, which Her Majesty's Government are empowered to spend on migration, has in fact actually been spent? Might I also ask the noble Duke whether he is aware that there is a problem of housing in Australia, although migrants from all countries are treated in respect of housing on exactly the same footing as Australian citizens? Might I also ask the noble Duke whether he is aware that the Dutch and Italian authorities have initiated housing schemes in aid of their own nationals migrating to Australia, and, further, whether it would not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to consider housing schemes for their own British migrants migrating to Australia on something like the same conditions as the Dutch and Italian schemes, or in some other direction?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, as I have already said, the problem of providing finance for housing of United Kingdom emigrants to Australia presents certain legal and other difficulties, the legal difficulty being that it is ultra vires the Commonwealth and Empire Settlement Acts that money should be provided for housing of our emigrants: it does not come within the terms of the Acts. I would also say that the problems confronting the Dutch and the Italians are not the same as those which face this country. In Italy there is considerable unemployment, so it is in their interest for people to leave the country, while in Holland they have a shortage of land for their own population. I can only repeat what I have already said, that Her Majesty's Government are in favour of emigration for citizens of this country to all parts of the Commonwealth.

ROYAL MARINES MASSED BANDS' DISPLAY
EARL HOWE: 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 it is intended to give a display of the massed bands of the Royal Marines on the Horse Guards Parade this year.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the last three occasions on which Beat Retreat was staged on the Horse Guards Parade were in 1950, 1958 and 1960. This event has not therefore followed a regular pattern in the past, and it is not intended to stage it this year. I am, however, considering whether the ceremony could be performed more regularly in future and I will gladly inform the noble Earl of the outcome.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Third Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT
A Report from the Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was laid before the Committee. The Committee were informed that Miss M. Riddell had been appointed to
1076
succeed Miss Hoath as Superintendent of the Refreshment Department. The Report was agreed to.
2.—REVISION OF ALLOWANCES
The Committee approved the application of Establishments Circular No. 18/61, dated 24th April, 1961, providing for the revision of allowances for special duties with effect from 1st January, 1961, to members of the staff of the House of Lords to whom it applied.
3.—HANSARD REPORTING STAFF

(a) The Committee considered the question of an application by a trade union to be granted representative capacity for the Hansard Reporters and agreed that the House of Lords should approach the House of Commons with a view to joint consideration of the matter by both Houses.

(b) The Committee reviewed the agreement with Messrs. H. Craig-Kelly Limited for the supply of typists for the reporting of debates and approved an increase in the rates of pay from 1st April, 1961.

4.—RETIREMENT OF SENIOR CUSTODIAN
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Arthur Sheppard on his retirement on the 25th August, 1961.
5.—RESIGNATION OF HOUSEMAID
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity under the Superannuation Acts to Miss A. Iggulden who resigned on 6th May, 1961.
6.—PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee authorised the appointment of an additional Office Assistant on the Staff of the Department of the Clerk of the Parliaments.
7.—HOUSEMAIDS
The Committee sanctioned an increase in the rate of pay of the Housemaids in the Lord Great Chamberlain's Department in accordance with Establishments Circular No. 22/61 (Pay &c. of Cleaners) dated 11th May, 1961.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to. I do not think there are any paragraphs in it to which I need draw the special attention of your Lordships, but I need not say that if any noble Lord wishes to ask any question with reference to this Report I will do my best to answer it.
Moved, That the Report be now agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SHERIFFS' PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Retiring age]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): This is a drafting Amendment which achieves the original intention of Section 6 (2). The intention was that the retiring age of 72 should apply only to part-time sheriffs who are first appointed as such after the date of enactment. But every sheriff is subject to a separate appointment, and so, unless the word "appointed" is altered, the effect of the Bill would be that if one of the present part-time sheriffs moved to another part-time sheriffdom he would in fact be appointed to it after the passing of the Act and would have to retire at 72, which was not the intention. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("appointed") and insert ("first appointed to the office of sheriff"). —(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDITURE ON SPECIAL PURPOSES) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
2.52 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to amend Section 339 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. That section permits a town or county council, with the approval of
1078
the Secretary of State, to make, and I quote:
"any payment for any purpose which, in the opinion of the Council, is in the interests of the Council or of the area of the Council or any pant thereof or of the inhabitants thereof"
This Bill was born of disasters to which the Secretary of State could not approve charitable aid. For many years when there was a disaster in Scotland, the councils, if they felt so disposed, under Section 339 gave subscriptions to disaster funds promoted by other areas. But some three or four years ago a legal ruling placed an unexpectedly narrow interpretation on Section 339, to the effect that the contribution could be made by an authority to a disaster fund only if some person within the area of that authority might possibly benefit.
In 1959 we had the first of three major disasters, for all of which local funds were raised: the Auchengeich Colliery, then the loss of the Broughty Ferry Lifeboat "Mona" and then the Glasgow whisky warehouse fire. In each case local authorities all over Scotland wished to contribute, whether or not anyone in their area had been affected, and in each case, under the legal ruling, my right honourable friend had many times to refuse permission to contribute. This caused grave public concern.
This Bill provides that certain types of payment may, without further test, be regarded as being in the Council's area. This overcomes the difficulties to which I have referred. The Bill, like Section 339, which it amends, is permissive. The need for the Secretary of State's approval applies here as to the original Section 339. This is proper, because we and the local authorities realise that there must be some check on the type of body to whom the gift is made. A local authority, for example, might not know that a certain body had political affiliations.
In spite of the widening of Section 339 by this Bill the upper limit to giving is still retained as the product of a 2d. rate. Local authorities in fact hardly ever spend anything approaching this figure under this section. This limit was raised in 1947 from 1d. to 2d. and as the result of the revaluation which has now taken place a 2d. rate will in the future be worth considerably more than it is now;

1079
so this limitation has, in fact, kept pace with the decrease in value of money.
Turning to the Bill, I would point out that three types of giving for Scotland rather than for the local authority area will now be permitted, if not already permitted under other legislation or powers: under paragraph (a) to any charitable body; under paragraph (b) to such bodies as the National Trust or the Royal National Lifeboat Institution; and under pargraph (c), to the disaster funds which, as I have said, highlighted the need for this Bill. The Bill has been welcomed by the local authorities; and such criticisms as have been directed at it have not been on political lines. So far as the Government are concerned we have no Amendments to make to it and, I trust your Lordships will give it a safe and easy passage. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Craigton.)
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether these extended powers are possessed by English local authorities?
LORD CRAIGTON: Subject to correction, Yes.
3.0 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has said on this Bill. I have done so because of my previous connection with at least one of the disasters to which he referred. I cannot, however, say that I am satisfied that there is any legal need whatsoever for this Bill. May I quote from what was said in another place by the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who perhaps did not choose his words so wisely as the noble Lord has done this afternoon? He quoted Section 339, and I think it would bear repetition here. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Scottish Grand Committee, 29th Nov., 1960, Col. 5]:
"That section provides that a town or county council in Scotland, with my right hon. Friend's approval and subject to its spending in total not more than the product of a 2d. rate in any one year, can make "—
and now we come to the actual quotation of Section 339—
1080
"'any payment for any purpose which in the opinion of the council is in the interests of the council or of the area of the council, or any part thereof or of the inhabitants thereof'. Such payment must relate to purposes which are not competent to the local authority under any other statutory provision."
He went on to say:
"As I have said, payments under the Section require the approval of my right hon. Friend. Difficulty has arisen because my right hon. Friend has been advised that the terms of the enactment are such that he can only approve payment, which will result in a direct and tangible benefit to the area of the local authority making the payment or to its inhabitants."
My Lords, it is quite a common misapprehension in certain quarters that belief in the wisdom of local authorities started only in 1951. That is far from the case. For example, the phrase "in the interests of" is obviously one which is capable of quite different interpretations. One person could say in all sincerity that it was in the interests of the inhabitants of an area to do a particular thing, while someone else, with equal sincerity, could deny that it was in their interests. But in 1947 Parliament decided that there must be some way of determining easily what was "in the interests of" a local authority or of its inhabitants, and they decided that the test should be the expressed opinion of the council.
This applied right up to 1956, until local authorities sought to make donations for Hungarian relief, and at that time there was obtained this ruling, presumably from the then Lord Advocate. I submit to your Lordships that the legal opinion which was then expressed, and by which the Secretary of State has felt himself bound ever since, was far from being a reasonable interpretation of what Parliament said in 1947. In fact I suggest that it is a complete re-writing of the section; and my only regret is that no local authority in Scotland took this matter to the Law Courts. I can think of at least two Lords of Session who would have had great difficulty in 1956 in upholding the opinion expressed by the then Lord Advocate. It is a long time since the expression "Am I my brother's keeper?" was first used, and the follow-up question "Who is my brother?" I would suggest to your Lordships that Scots did not approve the answer given by the Scottish Office to that latter question: that if it was an

1081
Edinburgh man his brother had to live in Edinburgh; and if it was a Glasgow man his brother had to live in Glasgow, and so on. Rather, I would suggest that the Scots believe that where there is no compassion there is no civilisation—and we do think that we are a civilised country in Scotland.
Not only is the Scottish Office's interpretation an inhumane one; it does not even make common sense. I was Lord Provost of Dundee when the Broughty Ferry lifeboat disaster occurred. Broughty Ferry is part of the City of Dundee, but at one time it was a small borough in its own right. If it had continued to be a small borough in its own right the Secretary of State would have said that it was in the interests of the people in the glens of Angus that they should contribute to the Broughty Ferry Lifeboat Disaster Fund, because seven of the widows would have been ratepayers in the county of Angus. But because Broughty Ferry in years gone by had become part of the City of Dundee it was not in the interests of anybody in Angus to make such a contribution, and the Secretary of State denied them the opportunity.
I recognise just as well as does the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that, despite all that has happened since 1956, Ministers are not proposing to repudiate the foolish advice which they received in 1956, but I recognise also that they are not prepared to put the Secretary of State for Scotland in the permanent position of being accused of being hardhearted and mean, as he so frequently has been in the last five years. I do not believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland is a hard man. At the risk of being misunderstood on the benches opposite, I would go so far as to say that I think he is a good Minister. I believe he would be an even better Minister if he were allowed to act on his own natural judgment. If he had been permitted to use his own judgment in the matter he would not have done what he has been compelled to do in these five years.
In the absence, therefore, of a repudiation of the 1956 doctrine, the Bill serves the merciful purpose of taking the Secretary of State out of the impossible position he is now in. It would be churlish of me in the extreme if I were to attempt to deny him this very necessary measure of relief, particularly at
1082
this time when he is being beset by educational problems caused by once again having to follow other people's decisions.
In this Bill, however, the previous position is not completely restored. No help can be given further than Scotland. I understand that that follows the English pattern, but how ridiculous can we be made to look! The fact that it is being done in England is no sound reason for a Scottish Minister inflicting that on Scotland. If a disaster were to take place in the extreme North of Scotland, under the terms of the Bill the Secretary of State would hold that it was perfectly competent for a local authority right down in the., South, on the English Border, to give assistance. But if the disaster—no matter how great, no matter how crying the need—were to take place just those few miles South of the Border, the same sympathetic authority would be told, "You cannot do it". The Secretary of State has therefore amended the situation slightly only in that he now permits people to say, "My brother lives in Scotland". In the past, Scottish authorities have contributed frequently to English funds. The Lynmouth disaster, the Gresham Colliery disaster, the Lord Mayor of London's National Flood Distress Funds, are examples which come readily to mind. But this new Bill will not permit us to do that once again. I shall probably move on Committee stage an Amendment to paragraph (c) in the new subsection (1A) to delete references to Scotland in lines 20 and 21. I believe that that would be in accord with Scottish sentiment as expressed by past actions, because I am sure that what we really believe in Scotland is that He who needs my help is my brother".
3.10 p.m.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, this its a very short and, I think, very useful Bill. Its usefulness has been stressed by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who brought gout very clearly the difficulties in which local authorities have been placed in the past in not knowing for what type of disaster, for what type of fund, they were entitled to contribute. Whether Scottish funds, public money funds, should be used Ito contribute towards disasters in England is a very

1083
moot point. After all, the money is largely the ratepayers' money, and I think it is right that there should be a fixed limit as to the boundaries beyond which that money should not be spent. After all, I think all local authorities have semi-private funds, in the nature of "common good" funds. They are much restricted, but such funds can be used for various purposes. So, as I say, I think it is right that there should be a boundary.
I also think it a good plan that the Secretary of State should be required to give his approval. These applications will be purely formal, but I think it useful to have in the background, somebody in the nature of a trustee, to give or to withhold approval. The 2d. rate will produce a good deal more since the Bill was drafted and revaluation in Scotland has taken place, but I hope that my noble friend will not find it necessary to reduce this sum by a comparable amount. I think that a 2d. rate, even on the new valuation, will not lead to any serious hardship. With those words, I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
3.12 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell for his welcome to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was bolder than I. He was bold enough not only to disagree with my right honourable friend's ruling and interpretation but even to refer to it as "foolish". I would remind him that, as he pointed out to your Lordships, nobody challenged my right honourable friend's ruling in the Courts, though many disagreed with it—and how right they were to do so! Clearly, as he elaborated to your Lordships, the situation was thoroughly unsatisfactory. Hence this Bill. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
LORD HUGHES: Yes. I should like the noble Lord to explain how it was possible to challenge the ruling of the Secretary of State. So far as I can see, the only people who had an interest in challenging the Secretary of State did not have a case which they could competently place before the Court. If I could have done it in Dundee I would have taken it to the Courts. But I had
1084
not been denied: it was the burghs of Craile, Anstruther, Carnoustie and all the rest of them.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord had been able to do so, perhaps this Bill would not have been necessary.
The noble Lord raised the point that no help can be given South of the Border. The noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, said that, after all, we are talking about the ratepayers' money. There are many other ways of giving money for good causes in England, or anywhere in the world. We had to draw the line somewhere; we draw it at the Border, where England also drew the line.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Bill to be further considered on Report.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Cliesham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are going into the final session of the Report stage of this most important Bill. I should like to raise with the Leader of the House a question which gives my noble friends on this side some anxiety. We have been getting a number of Bills in the last few years, and particularly this Session, which require a great deal of time, individual effort and attention, and then the Bills do not seem to get any further. The present most important Bill, which I think we are all anxious to see put on the Statute Book for the benefit and the improvement of the administration of the roads, will be going into its final session in the next few days. What promise is there that it is going to become law this Session?
It was before Easter that we sent down to the other place the Weights and Measures Bill, to which we had given

1085
an enormous amount of time and detail, on both sides of the House, and we have heard nothing at all about it since. If your Lordships' House is to be given these important tasks of detailed criticism and constructive proposal, and the amendment ab initio, of Bills introduced here, then we ought to have the reward of seeing something from them. As things are going this Session, and in relation to our experience, which the Leader of the House will remember so well, on the Shops Bill, we do not feel happy about the situation. Perhaps we might be given some guidance.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am not sure that I can help the noble Viscount very much. Of course I recognise the truth of what he has Said. These Bills are a considerable burden on Members of this House who give their time, without remuneration, for important legislation work; and it must necessarily be a great disappointment when anything happens to a Bill in another place. I cannot do more than say that I hope very much that if anything of this kind did happen it would always be the difficulties of another place, and not any dilatoriness on the part of this House, which led to it. I know that importance is placed on these Bills, or my colleagues would not have asked me to deal with them. I cannot tell the noble Viscount any more to-day, except that I think we must do the work which is placed before us, in good faith and believing that we are performing a public service, which I am quite sure we are. I can assure the noble Viscount of my sympathy. I have never forgotten the experience I had over the Shops Bill. It is an extremely painful one, and I certainly do not want to repeat it unduly often.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I follow that the noble and learned Viscount cannot say more this afternoon than he has done. He has referred to the disappointment that some of us feel. I would go further than that, and say "actual discouragement". Nobody knows better than the noble and learned Viscount that one cannot stand here at this Box, or anywhere else in this House, and make speeches on complicated and technical measures of this
1086
kind without doing a good deal of preparatory work at home. Many of us have spent our week-ends, week-end after week-end, working on these Bills, only to find, at the end of the day, that they make no further progress. I hope that we can hear something from the noble and learned Viscount on the next stage of this Bill as to whether it really will make progress in another place. If not, whether we like it or not, some of us may well feel that it is not worth while putting in the effort that has been put in by a large number of noble Lords in all parts of the House. The noble and learned Viscount will find that Bills will go through much more quickly, but that of course they will be much the worse for that. I hope that he can give us some encouragement.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I quite understand what he is saying. I think there is a great deal of force in it. There is only one thing with which I would not agree. I realise, of course, that the Shops Bill was not reintroduced. It was that fact which made it a particularly poignant experience for me, because I think by the time we had passed it through this House we had robbed it of a good many of its terrors and improved it a good deal. But I would not agree in principle that we are not doing a useful job of work, even when a Bill does not ultimately get through in the Session, because I think that the Bill which emerges, as I hope it will, from this House, will be, so much better than the Bill as it emerged from the departmental consideration. I do not think we ought to be discouraged about these things at all. On the contrary, I think that we have performed a useful legislative service which will not be lost.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to enable previous convictions of offences in Pant I or II of the First Schedule to be placed before the courts on any subsequent conviction for such an offence. Under the law of Scotland as it stands at present, you can lay before the court only previous convictions in respect of offences which are cognate—that is to

1087
say, of the same kind as, or analogous to, the offence of which the accused has been convicted. Some of the offences in Parts I and II—for example, culpable homicide in paragraph 1, and, in paragraph 12, carrying passengers on a motor cycle contrary to Section 8 of the 1960 Act—,are not cognate in the meaning of the word in Scots law, and so could not be placed before the court without further authority. This clause will enable these things to be done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
Cognate offences
". As respects Scotland, a conviotion since the commencement of this Act of an offence specified in Part I or Part II of the First Schedule to this Act may, if not otherwise capable of being treated as an aggravation of an offence so specified, be so treated."—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, after Clause 26 to insert the following new clause:
Holding on to vehicles
". In section two hundred and nineteen of the principal Act (which imposes a penalty on persons who, otherwise than with lawful authority or reasonable cause, take or retain hold of or get on to motor vehicles or trailers while in motion on a road for the purpose of being drawn or carried) the words drawn or' shall be omitted and at the end of that section there shall be added the following subsection:—
'(2) If a person takes or retains hold of a motor vehicle or trailer while in motion on a road for the purpose of being drawn he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.'"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think and believe that all your Lordships will agree with me that if you ride a pedal-cycle and hang on to the back of a moving vehicle, as is sometimes done, that is an extremely dangerous thing to do. The police are convinced of that fact, and I certainly agree with them. But they are having a little difficulty in obtaining convictions where there are cases of this kind, because of the wording of Section 219 of the 1960 Act, which says that an offence is committed if you take or retain hold of a moving vehicle on a road "otherwise than with lawful authority or reasonable cause". The defence is often put in that the driver, or possibly the
1088
owner, of the vehicle has given his permission and that constitutes "lawful authority". There is some doubt, but I understand that this is a difficult line of defence to refute. The purpose of this Amendment, therefore, is to make it quite clear that it is an offence for a cyclist to hang on to the back of a moving vehicle in any circumstances at all, whether or not the driver or owner has given his permission. I think that the Amendment is right; it does a good thing. I hope that it commends itself to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Chesham)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord one question? I could not agree more with this Amendment, but does it apply only to bicycles, or does it also apply if a person is on skis in snowy weather, which is equally dangerous? I have known it happen. Would that be covered?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if I may answer that question with the leave of the House, it is rather a "fast ball" that the noble Duke has bowled. But the words concerned are:
"If a person … for the purpose of being drawn",
and therefore my impression is that they would presumably apply to a person on skis. Whether the situation would become different if there were a length of rope between the vehicle and the drawee, I am not quite sure. It is a point I should have to look at; but prima facie, on the wording, I think it would apply to someone on some other form of transport than a bicycle. It would certainly apply to a bicycle.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would the noble Lord look into the drafting, because to my mind the word "drawn" does not connote the meaning he wishes it to have at all.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, that is the wording used in the principal Act, in which it is accepted for the purpose. I will certainly look at it, but I think I am right in saying that that is the proper expression for the purpose.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, on the Committee stage my noble friend Lord

1089
Derwent moved an Amendment which was designed to give greater flexibility in the operation of parking-meter schemes. We discussed it at the time and it found favour with your Lordships generally, and I asked him to withdraw it on my undertaking to put down another Amendment at this stage, because of the drafting that I felt I needed to be sure about. This is the Amendment, together with its two consequential Amendments, which are Nos. 54 and 55. I think that it does exactly what my noble friend intended, and if your Lordships approve I do not think it necessary to go into the matter in detail all over again. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Charges for Parking on Highways
". For subsection (2) of section eighty-six of the principal Act there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
'(2) For each parking place there shall be prescribed an initial period or initial periods and for each initial period there shall be prescribed an amount as the charge (hereinafter referred to as "initial charge") for leaving a vehicle in the parking place for a time not exceeding the initial period; and the initial charge or, if there is more than one initial period, one of the initial charges, shall be payable on the leaving of the vehicle in the parking place.'"—(Lord Chesham,)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for having done this. It is a very difficult matter of drafting. I have been carefully through the Amendments put down and I am quite certain that they carry out what we intended. As regards the actual wording of the drafting, I am most willing to accept my noble friend's assurance that the drafting is correct. Although I put down the Amendment on Committee stage, I take no credit for having persuaded Her Majesty's Government to do this, because I was not able to be here on the day, and it was the brilliant oratory of my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford which persuaded the Government to take this action. I am extremely grateful to both my noble friends.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule [Disqualification and penalties: Part I—Offences involving obligatory disqualification]:
3.28 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLING LORD SWAYTHLING moved to leave out paragraph 7. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment should be considered with No. 38, as they are part and parcel of the same thing. This Amendment was put down at the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, and I also had it down. Unfortunately, I had to be abroad and could not be here, but it was moved by Lord Teynham. The Parliamentary Secretary replied, not condemning it outright, I think, but he said that he would he glad to hear what Lord Goddard had to say about it. Unfortunately, Lord Goddard was not here and the Amendment was withdrawn.
It is an Amendment I aim very keen about, because I feel that it concerns the one offence under the Bill on which we have experience of what has happened with compulsory disqualification and discretionary disqualification. Your Lordships will remember that for the offence of not having third party insurance the penalty was compulsory disqualification up to 1956, when it became discretionary. Magistrates, I can assure your Lordships, had the greatest difficulty in reconciling their minds to compulsory disqualification in a large number of cases, because the seriousness of the offence varies so considerably. It is one of the offences under the motor driving Acts which vary most in seriousness. I have spoken to a fair number of magistrates and a stipendiary magistrate and they have all told me they hoped that the Government would agree to this change of taking this paragraph out of the first Part of the Schedule and putting it in the second Part.
I know that yesterday the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House twice remarked on the increase in the percentage of the offences for which there had not been disqualification. I think that is a rather backhanded argument, because it can equally be said to show that, before the power of disqualification was discretionary, the magistrates found that they had to disqualify in a large number of cases when they did not really feel the seriousness justified disqualification. I feel that it might have been possible to classify the offence into two parts, under one of which, if it were done knowingly, it

1091
would incur compulsory disqualification, and, under the other, it would be subject to a discretionary disqualification if it were not done knowingly. But I dare say that that would have been too difficult a matter for the draftsman. I feel strongly that the magistrates should be left with a discretion to disqualify for this offence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 41, leave out paragraph 7.—(Lord Swaythling.)
3.32 p.m.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, on the whole, I should be inclined to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling. I think it is a very difficult point, because I recognise—and no one recognises it more than I do—, what a very serious matter it is for people to be driving uninsured vehicles on the road. But there is one point that I think is worth mentioning to the House: that is, that under the original Act there was a power in justices to disqualify a person from driving only a particular class of vehicle. For instance, take the case of a bus driver. He might have an excellent record as a bus driver, and might never have had an accident. Yet, one day, on holiday or when driving to his work on a motor cycle, he does something silly which perhaps deserves disqualification. It was open then to the court to disqualify him from driving only a motor cycle, and he could still have gone on earning his living driving a bus.
Now that provision has gone from the Act, and I think I know why it was taken away. It was probably taken away as a result of considerable correspondence which I had with the Ministry at one time over a very curious case in which a man who delivered goods in the country was disqualified by the justices from driving a 2 cwt. delivery van. The police naturally took some exception to this and said, "What does this mean?". But the Act said they could disqualify him from driving any class or description of vehicle. The difficulty was that, in the Act, there was a class of vehicle described but there was no such thing as a description of a vehicle, and no one knew what the position would be. Accordingly, when this case came before the court we
1092
adjourned it for the Ministry to be represented. The Ministry were represented, but could give us no assistance at all. They said only that they did not know themselves what the section meant. But the Minister told me that he was thinking of taking away that provision altogether, and it did go away.
As I say, the position now is that if you get the driver of a bus or a lorry —a man who makes his living by it, and who may have made his living by it for many years without any fault on his part —who is a thoroughly good bus driver but who goes and does something silly on a motor cycle, he will be disqualified and thrown on the streets. He will not be able to drive his bus any longer. That is one of the reasons why I think there should be a discretion in these matters.
Another point is that this matter often arises with regard to motor cyclists. The owner of a motor cycle is asked by his friend if he can borrow his motor cycle. The friend says, "I suppose it is insured?". "Oh, yes", is the reply, "it is insured". Off he goes, and meets with an accident. Then it turns out that, under the policy, the company have insured the motor cycle only so long as it is being driven by the owner, and that therefore the man is uninsured. Now who is to blame there? Both people, I suppose, could be disqualified: the man who owns the machine, because he has aided and abetted, and the man who has driven the machine, although in good faith he believed he was insured. That, again, is one of the matters that ought to be taken into account. You may say, "Yes, but special reasons can be taken into account by the justices". So they can; but a long experience of these cases—I think that in the High Court we used to have more cases under the insurance clause than under any other—has shown me that the number of special reasons that can be found by the courts is simply extraordinary and leads to a great many cases being brought up, at considerable expense to everybody concerned, to decide whether or not there is a special reason.
Very difficult questions sometimes arise. It sounds so easy to say that there is no difficulty in deciding whether a man is insured or whether he is not, but I assure you, my Lords, that there is. I have known cases which have taken a

1093
whole day before a court to decide whether or not a man is insured, whether an insurance company is on risk or whether it is not. One of the difficulties is that we always have to decide that kind of case in the absence of one of the most interested parties—namely, the insurance company—because, of course, they are not a party to the proceedings.
A further difficulty that has arisen is that often a point arises which no decent insurance company would think of taking. For instance—to give a very simple illustration—a policy always provides that the policy applies only if the driver of the car is the holder of a licence. A man who may have merely forgotten to take out his licence meets with an accident. No decent insurance company, if they are satisfied it was a mere piece of forgetful ness, would ever take that point. There are several cases of real difficulty which have arisen, in which insurance companies have come forward and said, "We should not take that point". Accordingly, some years ago the Secretary of the Home Office arranged for a meeting, at which I was present, between the chief constables and representatives of the insurers. The chief constables agreed that in difficult cases they would ask the insurance company whether or not they would take this point, and if the insurance company said, "No, we should consider we were on risk", then there was no necessity to prosecute, because the mischief that the clause was designed to prevent would not be present.
There are so many of these points that arise on insurance matters that I think it would be better if the change which was made in 1956 was allowed to remain, and it was left discretionary. I think justices are now much more inclined, and will in the future be more inclined, to disqualify in proper cases than they were. Very often they resent having to disqualify in cases where they feel that there is great: mitigation. There is enormous mitigation in many of these cases, and yet it would be very difficult to say that it was a special circumstance. Perhaps a person is genuinely mistaken, or has misunderstood his policy. Of course, it is the duty of everybody to understand his policy, and the courts have had to so hold: but, after all, people who are interested in these cases are not always lawyers. They are
1094
often young fellows of quite indifferent education, and so forth, and they may not understand all the provisions of policies, and they act in perfectly good faith. It might be a good thing that they should be brought up short and that some short period of disqualification should be given them to make them read the policy more carefully, but I submit to your Lordships that this insurance point raises so many cases, and such difficult ones, that it would be an excellent thing to leave the matter as it was after 1956, giving justices a discretion.
I know—at least, I have gathered from what the noble and learned Viscount said yesterday—that after that change in the law the number of these cases of persons driving whilst uninsured went up very heavily. I am not sure how far that may have been due to the increase in the number of vehicles or motor cycles on the road, but I myself have some doubt whether young men who buy motor cycles sit down and consider whether the compulsory clause applies or whether the discretionary clause applies. Most of them probably think that it is always discretionary: the question they always want to know is what the "Beak" is going to do. I ask your Lordships to consider carefully whether it would not be better, on the whole, to leave the matter as it is at present under the 1956 Act. After all, that was passed after the compulsory clause had been in force for a long time, It was then considered desirable to change it, and in the hope that magistrates will exercise their powers in proper cases—and I think they can be trusted to do so—I would support Lord Swaythling's Amendment.
3.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, in moving his Amendment, reminded us that, when it was moved in Committee, I persuaded the noble Lord to withdraw it, but I said I should like to hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, had to say on it because, as the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, has reminded us, the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was not able to be here on that day. The noble Lord also pointed out that between 1935 and 1956 for the offence of driving while uninsured it was obligatory, except where special reasons applied, to disqualify. In the

1095
1956 Act this offence was moved into the discretionary category. The noble Lord did not mention the main reason which I gave the Committee for not accepting the Amendment. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, but he did not quote the actual figures, which I think are rather impressive and alarming. In 1956, which is the last year in which this offence involved compulsory disqualification, there were 22,857 convictions. Of those, 19,000 received disqualification; the remaining 3,000 to 4,000 were not disqualified because of special reasons. In 1959, the last year for which we have available figures—only three years later—the number of offences had risen to 47,930, which is more than double the 1956 figure. If you allow for the increase in the number of cars, that figure is still very nearly double the 1956 figure.
The point I was not quite sure about was whether all the cases of possible or likely hardship which might arise if disqualification were compulsory could or could not come under the heading of special reasons. I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has said, and it seems to me that, on the whole, many of them could not. Naturally, we always listen with great respect to the noble and learned Lord when he speaks on these matters, especially as he has had special experience of them. Although I do not say that I was able to agree with every single example which he gave, it seemed to me, and I think to most of your Lordships, that, on balance, he was justified in suggesting to us that, on the whole, it would be better to leave things as they are.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, the hardship point has been decided over and over again. Hardship cannot be taken into account as a special reason.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I was not thinking of it as a personal hardship. I think a man ought to take proper trouble to see if he is insured. If, through some negligence, he fails to ascertain that he is insured, then he ought to incur the appropriate penalty. What I said in Committee was this: that if you do not know that you are uninsured because you have not taken the proper trouble to ascertain what your policy is about, then the law presumes that you do know. I think it is
1096
right that they should then be convicted. I also said that if you have taken reasonable care to ascertain whether or not you are insured, and have taken reasonable advice, but in spite of that you still do not know—for instance, if you have been deliberately misled—then you have a good defence. I am not quite sure whether the noble and learned Lord, from what he said, would endorse that or not.
LORD GODDARD: I think I should.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: On those grounds it seemed to me that any cases of real inequity could come under special reasons, and that therefore disqualification would not be imposed. From what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said just now, I am bound to say that it seemed to me, on balance, that his advice to your Lordships ought, at least prima facie, to be accepted; and in these circumstances I think my duty is to advise your Lordships to do so now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

PART II

Offences involving Discretionary Disqualification

Offence

Amendment of enactment mentioned in column 1

3.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this Amendment is in fulfilment of an undertaking which I gave in Committee to my noble friend Lord Conesford, who withdrew his Amendment only because it referred to the wrong provision of the 1960 Act. It is concerned with the offence of causing or permitting a person to drive a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of Section 97. The Government had already taken the view that offences in respect of this section might not necessarily involve any danger; but there was considerable support, both on Second Reading and in Committee, for the view that disqualification should be available for offences of this type. Therefore, I undertook, when my noble friend moved this Amendment in Committee, that if he would withdraw it I would put down an Amendment on Report stage giving effect to his purpose. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 22, at end insert—

("An offence under section 5 of the principal Act (driving, or causing or permitting a person to drive, a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of the Act relating to the minimum age for driving motor vehicles of different classes and descriptions).

For the words from 'to a fine', in the first place where they occur, to the end of the section there shall be substituted the words ' to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds'.")

—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful for this Amendment, which exactly meets my point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in Part II, to add to column 1 of paragraph 13:
"by a failure to comply with an indication given by a sign specified for the purposes of this paragraph in regulations made by the Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly".
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is really part of the concessions which the Government decided to make in Part II of the First Schedule, which I was explaining rather more generally yesterday.
The reason for this Amendment is that Section 14 of the 1960 Act makes it art offence to fail to comply with the directions given by a police constable, or indications given by certain traffic signs. As the Bill is now drafted, this would have been within Part II of the Schedule, with the result that it would have counted for the purpose of the automatic disqualification. On reflection after Committee stage, we thought that this was too harsh and it is intended by this Amendment to provide that the only offences under this section for which the courts will have power to order disqualification will be offences against such traffic signs as have been specified in joint regulations made by the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The only three signs which it is contemplated at present should be dealt with are the halt sign, the double white line and traffic lights. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 45, col. 1, at end insert the said new words.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is a much simpler one of the same sort. It will remove from Part II and insert in Part III of the Schedule offences under Section 26 of the 1960 Act, which are contraventions of traffic regulation orders, thereby ensuring that they will not count for the purpose of automatic disqualification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 8, leave out paragraph 15.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is exactly the same, but refers to contraventions of regulations made for experimental traffic schemes in London. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 21, leave out paragraph 16.— (Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is also on the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 32, leave out paragraph 17. (Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, on the Committee stage of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Conesford put down two Amendments, one of which I accepted and the other of which I did not, concerning the imposition of disqualification for driving or for employing a person to drive without a licence. I said that I could not accept his first Amendment but added [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 231 (No. 77), col. 206]:
"What I should be willing to do would be to put down at a later stage an Amendment which would provide that disqualification could be ordered for the offence of driving without a licence in those cases only where the person involved would have been entitled to apply for a provisional licence—that is to say, where he has not, in fact, passed the appropriate driving test."
My noble friend agreed to withdraw his Amendment on that understanding, and accordingly I have now put down the Amendment which I agreed to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 9, at end insert—

("An offence under section 98 (3) of the principal Act (driving without licence) committed by driving a motor vehicle in a case where either no licence authorising the driving of that vehicle could have been granted to the offender or, if a provisional (but no other) licence to drive it could have been granted to him, the driving would not have complied with the conditions thereof

For the words from '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 '.")

—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 30, to which your Lordships have just seen fit to agree. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, column 1, line 16, at end insert—
("— An offence under Section two hundred and one of the principal Act (Use of Motor Vehicles uninsured or unsecured against third-party risk)").—(Lord Swaythling.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.57 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, after paragraph 25 to insert:
". Stealing a motor vehicle. —".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be remembered that on the Committee stage I put down this Amendment, and in reply the Minister was good enough to treat it quite sympathetically, but said that he wished to have an opportunity of consulting his right honourable friend the Home Secretary. In moving the Amendment I pointed out that, of all the Amendments I was moving, it was the only one that made new law. In all the other cases, I was moving to retain a right of disqualification which exists at this moment and which the Bill proposed to abolish.
The offence of stealing a motor car has not been one for which the courts could disqualify, but it is a very logical extension of the law. Before putting down this Amendment, I consulted my noble and learned friends Lord Goddard
1100
and the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice has experience of cases in which men have pleaded guilty to the more serious offence of stealing a motor vehicle in order to avoid the risk of disqualification to which they would have been liable for the lesser offence of taking without authority. There is only one small change in phraseology. In my earlier Amendment, I said "larceny of a motor vehicle". The two expressions mean precisely the same thing in English law, but "larceny of a motor vehicle" is not an appropriate expression for Scotland. That is the reason for the change. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 23, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Conesford.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, when my noble friend moved this Amendment in Committee, I replied to all his arguments at great length, including those which he has put forward this afternoon, and I do not think that your Lordships will wish me to repeat myself. The substance of what I said was that I thought my noble friend had made out a case which ought to be considered, and that, since it would involve new law and not merely the retention of an old one, it would be right to consult the Home Secretary before finally coming to any decision on it. This I have accordingly done, and we are now prepared to accept my noble friend's Amendment. I am glad that he has altered it verbally so that it will apply to Scotland as well as to England.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the same point as my previous Amendments: it deals with lighting offences. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 24, leave out paragraph 26.— (Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment, again on the same point, deals with designation orders, including provisions about one way streets. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 40, leave out paragraph 27.— (Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Part III—Amendment of certain enactments relating to offences not involving disqualification:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 32. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 5, leave out paragraph 28.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 24. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 16, at end insert—

(". Section 26 (7) of the principal Act (contravention of traffic regulation orthr).

For the words from 'shall be liable' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'shall be liable on summary conviction, in the case of an offence committed in respect of a motor vehicle by a failure to comply with a requirement to proceed or not to proceed in a specified direction or along a specified part of the carriageway, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and, in any other case, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds'.")

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment on Amendment No. 35. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 16, at end insert—

(".Section 34 of the principal Act (con travention of traffic regulations in London Traffic Area).

In subsection (4), for the words from 'in the case of a first offence' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words `in the case of an offence committed in respect of a motor vehicle by a failure to comply with a requirement to proceed or not to proceed in a specified direction or along a specified part of the carriageway, fifty pounds and, in any other case, twenty pounds'.")

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment on Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 16, at end insert—

(". Section 35 (3) of the principal Act (contravention of regulations made for the purpose of experimental traffic scheme in London).

>For the words from 'not exceeding twenty pounds' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'not exceeding, in the case of an offence committed in respect of a motor vehicle by a failure to comply with a requirement to proceed or not to proceed in a specified direction or along a specified part of the carriageway, fifty pounds and, in any other case, twenty pounds'.").

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 37. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 14, leave out paragraph 36.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.1 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, the next Amendment and Nos. 49 and 50 are somewhat related. On the Committee stage I put down an Amendment to paragraph 44 to change the maximum tine which was shown there from £20 to £50, because paragraphs 20, 44, 45 and 47 all relate to similar offences of not producing a licence or certificate of insumnce. It appeared to me that it was wrong to have a maximum fine of £50 for some and of £20 for others. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present on the Committee stage and my noble friend Lord Airedale moved the Amendment on my behalf, and after eloquently recommending it he withdrew it at the request of the Government. I am rather glad he did, because I prefer my Amendment of to-day which is to reduce it from a maximum of £50 to £20. I feel that they are all offences of not very grave import. The usual fine for not producing a driving licence is 20s. or 40s. and it seems to me unnecessary to put them all at a maximum of £50.

1103
I have therefore put down Amendments No. 47, 49 and 50, so that paragraphs 20, 45 and 47 may all match up with paragraph 44, and that there shall be a maximum of £20. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 25, leave out ("fifty") and insert ("twenty").—(Lord Swaythling.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, on these Amendments it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, and the Government are rather like a couple of puppy dogs chasing each other round in a circle but failing to catch each other's tails. The noble Lord's Amendment was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. In my reply I prevailed on him to withdraw the Amendment, but he pointed out to me afterwards that he did not think I had quite caught his point; and when I looked into it again I thought he was right in saying that. It seemed to me that the noble Lord had detected an anomaly in the fines proposed for this series of offences for not producing a licence or insurance certificate under the Bill. After consideration, therefore, we proposed to accept the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, had moved in Committee increasing these fines to a uniform figure of £50. Now, instead of being satisfied with our acceptance of his proposal, Lord Swaythling is suggesting that this offence should be subject to a maximum fine of only £20, and that the fine for a number of similar other offences should be brought down to that figure.
I do not think we want to go through the same arguments on all these Amendments, but I would suggest to your Lordships that failing after a reasonable time has been given to produce a document which is necessary to the police in order to carry out their duties and to enforce the law is a fairly serious offence, and that there ought to be a fairly large maximum fine attached to it. It is not as if you were fining a man for not having his licence with him at a time when he is asked to produce it. He is given plenty of time in which to do so.
I think it has already been pointed out to the noble Lord that the offence under Section 116 to which this particular Amendment applies occurs only where a
1104
driver who has been disqualified fails to surrender his licence to the court. It seems to us that this is comparable to the offence under subsection (4) of Clause 5, which requires the holder of a private licence issued in this country to produce his licence to the court for endorsement if he is convicted of an offence listed in Part I or Part II of the First Schedule. The maximum fine for an offence under Clause 5 is £50, and it is, therefore, in our view, appropriate that the maximum fine under Section 116 (2) of the principal Act should also be £50. I hope, in view of this, that the noble Lord will agree that our way is a better way of meeting his point, particularly since it is the manner in which he himself originally proposed to correct the anomaly which he had detected in the Bill.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I accept readily what the noble Earl has said with regard to Section 116, because it is different from the other three paragraphs in the Schedule. That is where it applies to the production of a licence by order of the court, whereas the others apply to production of a licence by order of a police constable who stops a motorist and tells him to produce it in five days. I am willing to withdraw this Amendment, but I hope the noble Earl will consider adopting my method for the other three paragraphs, which are of a different nature.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, it does seem that £50 would be excessive for these offences, because, so far as I can see, you can leave your vehicle in a dangerous position and that would cost you only £50. To go back to technical and non-technical offences, I feel that failing to produce a licence within five days is much more technical than leaving a vehicle on a dangerous corner. There may, in certain circumstances, be good reasons why you cannot produce your licence in five days, although I agree that you would probably not be fined £50. I should have thought that £20 would meet the case, in any circumstances, and I hope that the Government will accept Lord Swaythling's Amendment rather than their own suggestion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): The noble Lord, Lord I Swaythling, has asked leave to withdraw

1105
his Amendment. Does the noble Duke object?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Not at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, was withdrawing Amend-merit No. 47. Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I will put the Question.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THB EARL OF DUNDEE THB EARL OF DUNDEE moved in col. 2 of paragraph 44 to leave out "twenty" and insert "fifty". The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, suggested, perhaps rightly, that this was not entirely on all fours with the preceding Amendments, but I think it was one of the instances which moved him to suggest that the penalties provided for here were in some degree anomalous. Section 225 of the principal Act provides that the driver of a motor vehicle, or a person suspected of having been a driver, shall, if so required by a police constable, produce his driving licence, so that the constable can ascertain the name and address of the holder of the licence, the date of issue and the authority by whom it was issued. This is clearly a necessary provision for the purpose of helping the enforcement of the Road Traffic Acts.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, that it would be possible to argue that there is a distinction between failing to produce a driving licence, details of which can be obtained from the relevant licensing authority, and failing to produce, for example, an insurance certificate, details of which cannot be readily obtained by the police constable from any other source; but I do not feel that this is really a convincing distinction, because each of these provisions is relevant to the proper enforcement of the Act, and the law cannot he properly enforced without it. We therefore feel that to maintain any difference between the maximum fine for failing to produce a driving licence anal, for example, an insurance certificate, is an anomaly
1106
which ought to be removed. Since £50 is considered to be the appropriate maximum penalty for failing to produce certificates of insurance or failing to report accidents, we think that this anomaly should be removed by having a general maximum of £50.
I would quite agree with my noble friend that it might be hard to expect a man to produce a driving licence in five days, but the question of time is not really the point. The question of time ought, in all cases, to be reasonable, and a man should never be fined at all if he fails to produce it in a time which is so short as to be unreasonable in the circumstances. The question is whether, having given what is in all cases a reasonable time to produce the driving licence, an appropriate penalty should not be imposed for an offence which, if the document were not produced, would make it impossible to enforce the law which we are trying to provide for in order to reduce the number of road accidents. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 14, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("fifty").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I feel that in any prosecution under the sections concerned with paragraphs 44, 45 and 47, no court will impose a fine of more than £20, and that making the maximum £50 instead of £20 is rather an academic question and not one of practical affairs. I should much rather that the noble Earl withdrew his Amendment and accepted my other two. But I will not press it any further if he refuses to do so.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, in this argument for the reason he has indicated, namely, that the imposition of a maximum penalty here of £50 is quite unrealistic. It would probably do harm to the implementation of the Road Traffic Bill as a whole. As has become evident, there is in this House a considerable body of feeling that it is desirable, if it could be so arranged, for magistrates to impose greater penalties for the greater offences where they are permitted to do so. To give them a maximum penalty of £50 for what is not a great offence from the

1107
traffic point of view seems to me to invite them to inflict penalties which are considerably below the maximum. That seems to conflict with the general attitude that the House has been adopting hitherto.
On the other hand, I feel there is another argument. It is not really appropriate that the same maximum penalty should be available to a court for failure to comply with the request of a police constable, and for an offence of failing to comply with an order of the court. I thought that the noble Earl, in speaking to the last Amendment, made the point exceedingly well—that where the infringement alleged was the infringement of an order of the court, it was justifiable to impose a considerably heavier penalty than for an infringement of a request by a police constable. I should like to adopt the noble Earl's argument in this case, and I hope that he will reconsider the Government's position and allow the lower maximum penalty in cases where no order of the court is being infringed.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Swaythling, by the noble Duke, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, who has just spoken. I suppose one of the commoner instances of people being unable to produce their licences when requested by a police constable is when they have gone away for a holiday. They probably keep their driving licences in their bureaux at home, which strictly they should not do. They probably think it is safer to keep them there than to carry them about in their wallets. While they are living at home they know they can produce them within five days, if required. They go on holiday, and one of the things they forget is to take their licences out of their bureaux. They drive 200 or 300 miles and something happens, and a policeman asks them to produce their driving licence. They have to decide whether to turn round and go home to get it and spoil their holiday, or whether to take a chance of not being able to produce the licence within five days and face whatever penalty may be coming to them for that failure to produce. If the maximum fine is £20
1108
they may say to themselves, "This is a risk worth taking. The worst thing that can happen to me is that I may be fined £20". But if the worse thing that can happen is that they may be fined £50, they may decide to spoil their holiday and go back and get their licence. The net result is that they will probably be fined £2 and they will wish they had not spoilt their holiday. For those reasons, I would support what has been said by noble Lords against the Government on this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I quite appreciate the point which has been made so clearly by my noble friend Lord Brentford and by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I am sorry that this series of Amendments should be slightly complicated. We have done our best to meet Lord Swaythling's desire that there should be fewer anomalies in the Bill. In view of what your Lordships have said, I think it would be right that I should not proceed with Amendment No. 48 which is now before your Lordships. I am quite willing to withdraw it, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the next two Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling. For the sake of consistency (I recognise that there is a case for making an exception) I should prefer that your Lordships should not accept the next two Amendments, which again are not quite on all fours with this one.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of your Lordships, but I should say that if the noble Earl withdraws Amendment No. 48, if I get any support I shall press him to accept Amendments Nos. 49 and 50.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Earl withdraw it completely and unconditionally?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords. I think that in these circumstances I had better ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment. I am trying to make the Bill as consistent and as sensible as possible, and I do not think it would be right to reduce the fine to £20 in all these three cases.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Freyberg, L.

Molson, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Amory, V.

Hampton, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Hastings, L.

Peddie, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Henderson, L.

Perth, E.

Bathurst, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hughes, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Bridport, V.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Carrington, L.

Latham, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Lawson, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Chorley, L.

Limerick, E.

Salter, L.

Conesford, L.

Lindgren, L.

Silkin, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Long, V.

Soulbury, V.

Craigton, L.

Longford, E.

Strang, L.

Digby, L.

Lucan, E.

Twining, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Dundee, E.

Margesson, V.

Williams, L.

Faringdon, L.

Merthyr, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Milverton, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Lambert, V.

Allerton, L.

Cross, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Amulree, L.

Derwent, L.

Meston, L.

Arran, E.

Dynevor, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Atholl, D.

Falmouth, V.

Moyne, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Baden-Powell, L.

Foley, L.

Ogmore, L.

Brentford, V.

Fortescue, E.

Sinha, L.

Casey, L.

Glentanar, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Cawley, L.

Goschen, V.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Citrine, L.

Gosford, E,

Swaythling, L. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Hawke, L

Teynham, L.

Colwyn, L.

Iddesleigh, E

Waleran, L.

Colyton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.20 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 40. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 10, at end insert—

(". Section 12 (1) of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957 (contravention of Act or regulations made thereunder).

For the words from 'shall be liable' to 'twenty pounds' there shall be substituted the words 'shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds'.").

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 41. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 16, at end insert—

(". Section 5 (2) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960 (contravention of designation order).

For the words from 'to the like penalty' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'in the case of an offence committed in respect of a motor vehicle by a failure to comply with a requirement to proceed or not to proceed in a specified direction or along a specified part of the carriageway, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and, in any other case, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds'.")

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 29. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 13, at end insert—

(" Section eighty six.

In subsection (3), for the words the initial charge', in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words an initial charge'.

In subsection (4), for the words 'the initial charge' in the first place where they occur, and in paragraph (a), and in the first place where they occur in paragraph (b), there shall be substituted the words 'an initial charge',and for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

(c) if it is proved that the time for which the vehicle has been left in the parking place is less than the initial period or, if there is more than one, less than the shortest initial period, it shall be presumed that no initial charge has been paid in respect of the vehicle, unless either the contrary is proved or an initial charge is treated under subsection (4) of the next following section as having been paid in respect of the vehicle.

In subsection (5), for the words the initial charge', in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words an initial charge', and for the words the standard period' there shall be substituted the words' the initial period or, if there is more than one, the longest initial period'.

Section eighty seven.

In subsection (4), for the words the initial charge 'in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words' payment of an initial charge' and for those words in the second place where they occur there shall be substituted the words 'an initial charge'.

In subsection (6) for the words 'standard period' there shay be substituted the words initial period'.

1112

Section eighty seven.—cont.

In subsection (8), in paragraph (c), for the words 'standard period' there shall be substituted the words initial period 'and for the words the initial charge' there shall be substituted the words 'an initial charge'.

Section eighty eight.

In subsection (6) for the words the initial charge', in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words an initial charge'.")'

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 13, at end insert—
("Parking places

The Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, 8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 63.

In subsection (1) of section six, for the words the initial charge', in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words an initial charge'.").

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, This Amendment is consequential on No. 28. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 14, after ("nineteen") insert ("the words drawn or' and").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, as this is the last Amendment, if it is not too wildly out of order, may I express the hope that on the next stage of the Bill there will be a Government Amendment to meet the very strong observations of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of Regina v. Smith reported in this morning's papers?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty six minutes before five o'clock.