Lords Sitting of 25 January 1962

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

PROVISIONAL DRIVING LICENCES
3.4 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: 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 when they intend to bring Section 102 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, into effect.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT(LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport, proposes to make an Order to bring this section into operation on April 1st, 1962. After this date licensing authorities will be able to refuse to grant a further provisional licence to an applicant who is vulnerable under the section. I must add, however, that full application of the section could create an appreciable additional burden on the driving test organisation and this could result in a longer waiting list for tests. Therefore, my right honourable friend will invite licensing authorities to limit the exercise of their power to refuse further provisional licences in appropriate circumstances to applicants who have held more than seven provisional licences. He will consider whether this number can be progressively reduced in the light of the capacity of the driving test organisation to meet any increased demand for tests arising from the operation of the section.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply. At least this is making an attempt to meet a situation which has been a serious abuse of the provisional licences. I am sure that many road safety organisations will welcome this move. I should like to ask
972
my noble friend one question. In view of the fact that the provision is a little complicated for the ordinary layman to understand, could a memorandum be sent round to councils so that they can explain to people exactly what this means?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the matter has already been discussed with representatives of regional conferences of licensing authorities, but I will bear in mind what my noble friend says and see that proper explanation and publicity is given so far as can be to this matter.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, my noble friend used the phrase, "in appropriate circumstances." The Minister will ask licensing authorities to exercise this power in appropriate circumstances after seven provisional licences have been held. Can he explain what "appropriate" or "inappropriate" circumstances are in this connection?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, what I meant by saying "appropriate circumstances" is that Section 102 (4) of the Road Traffic Act is not mandatory but is permissive on councils, so that they have a discretion whether to refuse a further provisional licence or not. In the exercise of that discretion there may be some legitimate circumstances where they should not refuse a licence. That is what is meant by those words.
LORD DERWENT: I am obliged to my noble friend.

THE EGYPTIAN COMPENSATION FUND
3.7 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: 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:—
(1) whether, as bearing on the question of "short-fall", they are mindful of the unequivocal assurance given in Parliament on May 16, 1957, by the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (now Chancellor of the Exchequer) that the blocked accounts then standing to

973
the credit of Egypt were the security for the claims of British nationals—victims of the Suez incident: that Her Majesty's Government had no intention of whittling away "that position" and that Parliament might be sure of that;
(2) at what figure these Egyptian credits stood on May 16, 1957, when the above assurance was given;
(3) how many releases—and of how much was each—wore made in Egypt in the interval between the above assurance of May, 1957, and the signing of the financial agreement of February, 1959, which released unconditionally to Egypt the residue of £41 million; and
(4) whether Her Majesty's Government do not agree, in the light of the above facts and figures, that some practical step should be taken forthwith to cover the discrepancy between the £27½ million received from Egypt and the duly established value of the British claims—as was so clearly foreshadowed by the Prime Minister, in his statement to Parliament on March 16, 1959 (see Commons Hansard, Vol. 602 (No. 78), col. 150) in regard to any short-fall".]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, on the first part of my noble friend's Question, I must remind your Lordships that the Agreement, however unsatisfactory it may now appear to be, was debated and approved by both Houses in March, 1959. It was clearly stated then that, if the Egyptian balances had not been released, there would have been no Agreement at all. Her Majesty's Government were mindful then, as they are now, of the assurance to which my noble friend has alluded: but the clear intention behind that assurance was that the balances would not be unblocked until an Agreement had been reached. Indeed, to have forgone the chance of making an Agreement would have meant, not "whittling away" the position, but abandoning it wholly at one stroke. And as the Agreement was then accepted by Parliament, Her Majesty's Government see no practical purpose in reopening the question now.
974
On parts (2) and (3) of my noble friend's Question, as the then Paymaster General stated in this House on November 23, 1955 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 194 (No. 37), col. 753] it is not the practice of banks to reveal the balances they hold, since such matters are always regarded as confidential between banker and client. For similar reasons I am unfortunately not able to give the information about releases asked for by my noble friend. All I can say is that, according to the records published by the National Bank of Egypt, the Egyptian balances in Accounts numbers 1 and 2 together amounted on May 30, 1957, to £93,400,000.
On part (4) of my noble friend's Question, the total value of the claims before the Foreign Compensation Commission has not yet been "duly established". Nearly half of the formulated claims have still to be assessed. There are, in addition, claims which have been presented but which cannot yet be formulated; and we know that there will be many more still to be presented. Your Lordships will understand that until more is known about these outstanding claims we cannot make any clearer estimate about the future total amounts of claims than that which I gave your Lordships on December 20.
I would also remind your Lordships that the Prime Minister's undertaking, to which my noble friend has referred, was
"to ensure a settlement that is reasonable and fair".
Of the claimants, whose claims had been assessed by the Foreign Compensation Commission up to the end of 1961, over 83 per cent. are being paid 90 per cent. of the assessed value; and less than 1 per cent. are being paid under 37 per cent. This last category comprises at present eleven claimants, almost all companies. Some of these have suffered losses largely due to circumstances which arose before 1956. In most cases these losses appear already to have been written off.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, as always, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his full reply. I fear that the Answer, rather like my Question, is slightly involved, and I would beg leave to take time to consider it a little before forming any general conclusion. In the

975
meantime, I have a couple of supplementary questions that I would put to my noble friend. On the first point, I asked for a figure at which the Egyptian credits stood when Mr. Selwyn Lloyd gave his assurance. The answer to that was a "lemon"; I was not given a figure. There was a long reason why I could not be, but I was not given that figure, and it is very material.
I now come to my two supplementaries. The first is about the facts which I have not yet been given, which are the disbursements in the interval between the assurance and the signature of the Agreement. There was one made of £3 million to the Suez Canal Company. I would ask the noble Earl whether this country are not 46 per cent. shareholders in that Company—in other words, whether the British Government are not beneficiaries of this £3 million. That is question number one. The second supplementary question I would put to my noble friend, with which I think he will probably agree, is whether it is not far better, in the light of these questions and answers to-day, that I should leave it to the House—and, after all, there is no more balanced or experienced body in the country—to assess whether in their own unbiased judgment these wretched claimants have been treated with either decency or fairness.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I gave my noble friend the only figure which I could give about the amount of Egyptian balances: that is, according to the records published by the National Bank of Egypt. I said that the Egyptian balances on May 30, 1957, in Accounts Nos. 1 and 2 amounted to £93,400,000.
LORD KILLEARN: If that answers my first point I withdraw my stricture.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My noble friend's Question, which is long, and my Answer, which is even longer, both deal with the mount of compensation in the Fund of £27½ million for the purpose of compensating people who have had their property nationalised or who have claims for damage. I have no information here about any payments, made in respect of Suez Canal shares, which I think is a different question from that on the Paper. But I shall be very glad if my noble friend will put down a
976
Question upon it; or, if he does not want to do that, I will, of course, circulate the information.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I am afraid I have already done so and have had a brisk exchange of view with the then Leader of the House, the noble and learned Viscount. I take it that the noble Earl was talking about the £3 million. We had a very sharp exchange, which is on the Record. And I still maintain that it was, as I said then, pretty sharp practice.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it may be on record, but it does not arise out of the Question on the Paper to-day. I should, however, be delighted if my noble friend would like to put the question down again, and perhaps we may manage this time with a less sharp exchange about it.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords I see no point in putting it down again, because really the point I am getting after is the question of the "short-fall".
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD KILLEARN: I revert to the Question. However, I must not make a speech.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he can supply some additional information? He gave some figures of the total compensation which is being paid and which I must say surprised me. I think he said that something like 80 per cent. had been paid. One of the great difficulties in this matter is getting accurate information. Might I ask the noble Earl whether it would be possible for us to have more detailed information as to the actual amounts paid both for Egyptianised property and for sequestration claims up to date, so that I may check up with my own information? I have no doubt that the noble Earl is correct, but the information would be helpful.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the figure I gave was that 83 per cent. of the claimants for Egyptianised property and sequestration losses had received 90 per cent. of their assessed claims. I should be very glad indeed to get the more detailed information for which my noble friend asks. It is, as he will understand, changing every month.

977
Disbursements have increased very rapidly month by month since last November.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in view of the concern of the claimants, would the noble Earl be in a position to state what is the amount remaining in the Fund out of the £27½ million, and can he give any indication of the total of the present agreed amounts? Could he give those two figures? Also, could he give any indication to the House of the progress which is being made on the release from Egypt of the agreed amounts?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in regard to the first question, the last figure I had was about £18 million still left in the Fund. That was a few weeks ago. But it is changing every week and I will get more up-to-date figures for my noble friend. My noble friend's other supplementary, about the question of exchange difficulties, we discussed on December 20 and I understand that some of your Lordships are arranging that we should discuss it again. It does not really arise out of the Question on the Paper, and I think it is better not to mix them up.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of the apparently rather promising figures which the noble Earl gave us of some 83 per cent. getting 90 per cent. of their claims paid, is it not the case that those rather hopeful figures are discounted by the fact that they do not include claims for sequestration, and they arc claims arising from nationalisation? The sequestration claims are unable to be included because people are not yet able to formulate their claims. Is it not the fact that sequestration claims will come to a very much larger total than the £27½ million?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I take it that when my noble friend talks about sequestration claims he is referring to the claims for damage suffered by the property while it was sequestrated andbefore it was restored. My noble friend will find in Hansard of December 20 all the figures I could give on that.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: They are not included in this total?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, but they form a very small proportion of it.
978
Speaking from memory, I think the figures I gave were about a total of £4 million for claims for sequestration damage, compared with £58 million or more for confiscation. So far, sequestration claims have been a very small proportion of the whole; but, of course, they take longer, much longer, to formulate, and therefore we expect a good many more to come in. The figures which I gave of 83 per cent. of the claimants getting 90 per cent. of their claims refer of course to those whose claims for Egyptianised property and sequestration losses have already been assessed and approved.

GOA
3.18 p.m.
LORD RATHCAVAN: 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 any statement to make on the recent Indian aggression against Goa and on the existing situation as regards the AngloPortuguese treaties of alliance.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, on the first part of this Question I have nothing to add to the statement I made on December 18 and to the further statement made by my noble friend, the Minister of State, in this House on December 20. With regard to the second part of the Question, the Anglo-Portuguese treaties of alliance remain in force.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that there is at the present time a strong feeling in Portugal, from which I have just returned, that we did not do all we might have done to fulfil our obligations under these very long-standing treaties? May I also ask him a question with regard to the statement made in 1954, when Her Majesty's Government told the Portuguese Government that in the event of an attack on Goa by a member of the Commonwealth we should not be able to intervene? If that was done, could my noble friend tell me how it was done? Was it in writing in any

979
form; was it published; or was it merely a verbal statement to an Ambassador?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, on the first part of the question, I know, of course, that there is a good deal of anxiety in Portugal about the operation of the treaty of alliance between Portugal and this country. When my noble friend asks whether we did all that we could do, I would reply that in the case of the Goa incident we did all that we were asked to do by the Portuguese Government, which was to make strong diplomatic representations to India; and that we did. In 1954 we told the Portuguese Government that in the event of a clash between them and a Commonwealth country we should not be able to go to their aid with military forces; and that was made clear to them. I will check up, but, if my memory is right, it was conveyed by the Ambassador.

CIVIL AVIATION (EUROCONTROL) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Road Traffic Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Chesham.)
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, before we pass the Bill I should like to ask your Lordships' permission to make just one or two very brief observations. The Bill, it seems to
980
me, is very disappointing in that it has made things very complicated. In particular, Clause 21 has made no provision for strengthening the Minister's hand to deal with the growing paralysis of the London and other great city streets. As a result of the habit of drivers of parking motor cars on both sides of the street, reducing the carriageway to a single passage, vehicles enter the road from both ends, are unable to pass and one or other must then back out into the main traffic stream of a main road. It seems to me that if the Minister or other authorities (and which authorities it is very difficult to gather, even now, from this Bill) are responsible for maintaining a dual-carriage passage in the street, they should either maintain a road which has two passages, one up and one down, or mark it a one-way street. To do neither is to create a most appalling blockage. And the side-streets around this House in Westminster are among the worst congested streets in the town. I think that before we pass the Third Reading of this Bill we should ask the Minister to take immediate steps to strengthen his powers, if that is necessary; or if he already has powers to prevent this obstruction, or to mark the street a one-way street, to prevent vehicles entering it from both ends at the same time.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, owing to the technicality of the existence of a privilege Amendment I had intended to say a word or two when I moved, "That the Bill do now pass," but if your Lordships are with me I do not think it really makes the slightest difference whether it should be now or then. Since the noble Lord has already spoken, I think it might be convenient if I replied briefly to him and at the same time say now what I intended to say later.
If I may take the noble Lord's point first, I do not want to engage—and I am sure the noble Lord does not want to engage—in lengthy debate on this matter. because in principle, of course, he is perfectly right. It has been the aim and object of my right honourable friend ever since he got this particular job to unclutter the streets and I think your Lordships will all agree that that has been almost a cardinal point of his traffic policy—and quite unpopular it has sometimes proved! However, the streets are clearing.

981
We are, of course, very much aware of this matter, and I would only say to the noble Lord he is right to the extent that this Bill does not make some shattering contribution to what he considers should be done, but it does in certain respects further strengthen the Minister's hand, although he is quite reasonably well equipped with the necessary powers. It is a matter in which haste can only be made if not slowly at least steadily. If, instead of planning the routes of our one-way street system and the ways the cars are to go instead, we were in quite an unplanned manner to mark all streets one-way or unilateral parking or something like that, without the necessary amount of research, we might well end up with confusion worse confounded. We are trying to step up the various means of combating this obstruction, which in many cases it amounts to, in the streets, and I think it can be said that in London at least we have been able to make a promising start. But we do not want to relax on that start, and indeed we want to speed it up by any means that can be devised.
I fear there are one or two other remarks I want to make, now that we have reached this stage of the Bill, and I imagine that the most popular thing I can say to it, and which your Lordships will echo, is probably "Goodbye". On reflection, perhaps the better word would be "Farewell", and if your Lordships would bear with me for a few moments I should like just to say why I think it is a better word.
LORD DERWENT: Would not my noble friend be more technically correct if he said "Au revoir"?
LORD CHESHAM: That may well be so; but whilst I think that that is inevitable in the course of democratic Parliamentary procedure I still prefer to stick to, "Farewell". I feel that we have made very considerable progress with the Bill in its two passages through your Lordships' House. In presenting it to your Lordships again in virtually the same form as it was in when it left only a few months earlier, we were very conscious that we were asking a great deal of your Lordships. But your Lordships are well known for the quality of thought that you always give to road safety matters, and this was not least evident during the debates which we had
982
last Session on the Bill. The task of dealing with it again was not easy, though it was very necessary. I am particularly grateful for the courtesy and indeed the forbearance of the House in receiving it back again in the way you did. I especially welcomed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Latham, who said during the Second Reading that noble Lords opposite did not propose to resubmit their previous Amendments but only selected ones. I am sure that that was the most helpful attitude, and that it enabled our discussions to be a good deal more fruitful than some people might have expected.
We achieved, I think, three things. First, we were able to thresh out very thoroughly the major proposals of the Bill, and I am quite sure that the Bill is now very much the better for that. The second thing was that the issues which your Lordships decided to raise were such as to allow the Government to define more closely their attitude on certain important points. Here again I think there is now a better understanding of the Bill than there was in those respects, both inside the House and outside it.
Thirdly, your Lordships brought to attention some important matters which the Government have either accepted or promised to look into. Although the main provisions of the Bill remain unchanged, your Lordships have been much concerned to make sure that they did not contain any factor which would (or, on the other hand, did not leave out any factor whose omission would) either damage their value or bear unfairly on the public or on the police and the Courts. Following the persuasive advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and my noble friend Lord Teynham, we have introduced in Clause 2 the requirement that the police, when they request a person to provide a specimen for the purpose of an alcohol test, shall offer to supply him with part of the specimen, or, in the case of blood, with a second specimen. We have, in fact, had a most thorough discussion on that aspect of Clause 2. It was one of the most controversial clauses in the Bill, and I think that the majority of your Lordships are generally satisfied with the form in which we now have it.
After the five or six months which were available for reflection, your Lord-

983
ships decided that the new penalty provisions contained in Clause 3 and the First Schedule should remain in the form which you finally approved last Session. We had an Amendment from my noble friend Lord Derwent, which enabled us to have a further discussion on the principles on which the list of offences in Part II of the First Schedule was drawn up. Some of your Lordships at the time were once again anxious that drivers should be protected from being disqualified for speeding offences of what is called a technical nature. Most of your Lordships shared the Government's view that the density of traffic, which is greater in this country than in any other country in the world, and the number of accidents on the road, have now both reached such levels that stringent measures have become an absolute necessity. We cannot afford any longer a situation where some people—or perhaps I should say too many people—regard road conduct as a kind of game where they can interpret the rules liberally, and usually to their own selfish advantage. The responsible road user has nothing to fear from the provisions of this Bill. It is the irresponsible person, of whom your Lordships have recounted many personal and general experiences, at whom the provisions of Clause 3 of this Bill are aimed.
At the same time, the Government are conscious that in relation to speeding the new code will have the best chance of success if we have the right speed limits in the right places. As was announced during our discussions, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is conducting a review of road speed limits for this purpose. I can now tell your Lordships that he expects to complete the review of speed limits on trunk roads by Easter and that the local authorities have been asked to do the same for other roads between now and the end of the year. My noble and learned Leader also informed your Lordships, in Committee, that we are making progress with the proposal to raise the maximum speed outside built-up areas of ordinary commercial vehicles without trailers from 30 to 40 miles per hour.
My Lords, on the remainder of the Bill we had a number of useful Amendments, the substance of which the
984
Government were able to accept or undertook to look into. And, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth (now, I hope, satisfactorily in the sun), with his custoamarily well-documented presentation, moved two Amendments on Report, one to require a court to notify the licensing authority of any disease or physical disability disclosed in evidence about a licence-holder and one to press for a revision of the Statutes dealing with the permitted loads of goods-carrying vehicles. Your Lordships will remember that I was able to accept the first in principle and promised to have an Amendment put down in another place. On the second, I said that we would look at it most carefully again; and this we are now doing.
We had also a most helpful discussion on the provisions in the Bill about minimum speed limits. Your Lordships were anxious about the exceptions which the Minister would, under the Bill, be empowered to specify by order, and I accepted the principle of the Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, that Parliament should be able to debate the first order providing for such limits. I sincerely wish to thank the House for their concern in the matter. It is a completely new venture in road safety in this country, and your Lordships have shown great concern that, if it is to work, it shall work properly and fairly. This must be only right; and for our part, we shall do our utmost to put down a suitable Amendment in another place. Does the noble Viscount opposite wish to say something?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I want to say a few words. When would the Minister prefer that I say them: before he moves his privilege Amendment, or not?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I suppose that technically, as I am moving, That this Bill be now read a third time, I am, in a sense, winding up, so I had better suggest that the noble Viscount speaks now.
3.37 p.m.
Viscourrr ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I say first of all That I am quite sure that supporters of the Minister will have been most gratified by the tributes that he

985
has paid to the House and, of course, especially to them. I should Like to join with the "golden syrup brigade" for the time being, and say how much I appreciate the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, always addresses the House and his general consideration.
As to saying farewell to the Bill—I wonder. It is perfectly true that all Parties—the Government and the Opposition—are concerned by the extraordinary dangers on the roads to-day, and much of our general effort has been to try to bring at least some of the worst of the offences to an end. But we are bound to say as a parting shot, on the Third Reading of this Bill, that in the circumstances the Government might have been more urgent about it than to treat the House of Lords with a certain lack of courtesy after all their labours last year to get through the first Bill that was submitted on a decent basis. Twelve months have been wasted in this urgent fight that we are waging. Now the Bill is going away from us with at least one of the Amendments to Clause 2 which we put into the original Bill taken away from us. I say that just in passing, and I think that might be remembered when the Bill arrives at another place.
I still think that there are certain problems remaining before the nation and for Parliament to face. Even with Amendments which had the specific, beneficent object of reducing death and injury being put down and carried, I think the greatest handicap of all is the lack of enforcement. Any of us who has been motoring for decades must know that the standard of conduct upon the roads has not improved in the last 40 years; it has deteriorated. In driving home at night at a steady 30 miles per hour, right in the built-up areas of London, one has people passing one at 50 and 55 miles per hour when the vision is not too good. But there is no attempt at all to enforce the speed limit.
There are other things that really worry motorists into accidents. I feel that, for people of different temperaments and different ages, one thing that ought to be seen to is the enforcement of the law against unnecessary noise from motor cycles and cars. The powers are there. The noble Lord mentioned just now, quite truly, that they had them for other purposes, but the noise and
986
the sudden acceleration of vehicles which have their silencers removed is a disturbing nervous factor to many people who want to enjoy the ordinary and common-sense use of the roads.
The other point I want to make upon the Bill is that we are by no means unanimous that it is a wise thing for the Government now to have legislation raising the speed limit for commercial vehicles, apparently without any very Wong limitation of size and weight, to 40 miles an hour. It is very upsetting for the ordinary motorist who is driving along at a reasonable rate to be passed by vehicles whose drivers' attitude is "Well, we can pass at 40 miles an hour even with all our weight"—and very often they very much exceed that speed. It is extremely difficult for the average driver to be able to pass at all a commercial vehicle moving at 40 miles an hour. When the Members of another place come to consider this Bill perhaps they will give further attention to it.
I have nothing more to say. These are only comments en passant as the Bill goes through its final stage, and I would only repeat what I said at the beginning, our thanks to the Minister for his courtesy and his general attention to the wishes of the House, so far as he could give it within his instructions. But to say we are saying farewell to this Bill—well we have our doubts about that; and I hope that when it comes back for our final approval it will be rather better than it is now.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have given way to the noble Viscount for what must technically, I suppose, be an interruption of what I was saying, though I hope he will not take that word amiss, as I welcome the interruption as a whole. The noble Viscount will know I do not always entirely welcome his interruptions, but on this occasion I most wholeheartedly do, particularly for what he said in the first part of his remarks. If I did not perhaps welcome the middle part quite as much as the beginning and the end, I do not think we need say any more about that at the moment, because I should like to say that, while I may not agree 100 per cent. with all he said in the latter part of his remarks, at least his remarks were constructive. There is, as he said, no Party

987
business between us on this matter. We are all trying to do exactly the same thing for the same reason, with perhaps varying opinions as to what exactly is the best method; and that, my Lords, will ever be so. All I want to say is that my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport, and other colleagues directly concerned, I am perfectly certain, have taken very close account of what has been said in your Lordships' House, as they will do, no doubt, of what the noble Viscount has said to-day.
It seems to me that in the circumstances we have had a remarkably successful series of discussions, and I am most grateful to all the noble Lords who have responded to the return of the Bill in this way; in their various ways they have been very constructive about it. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and my noble and learned Leader for all the work they have done on some of the more important aspects. My noble and learned Leader asked me particularly to apologise to your Lordships for his not being in his place to-day, but it is unavoidable as he is attending upon Her Majesty. As I say, he asked me to say that, because of the interest he has taken in the way your Lordships have worked with him.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. It is good of the noble Lord to have expressed appreciation of the attitude of the Opposition on the second consideration of the Bill in this House. But does he not think he ought to say some word of apology on behalf of the Government for having troubled your Lordships on two occasions with this Bill, and give us some sort of undertaking that they will try very hard not to do it again?
LORD CHESHAM: I will indeed, if the noble Lord wishes me to do so. I thought that when this Bill was originally introduced my noble Leader had dealt with that matter quite extensively and revealed the Government's attitude. He explained at the time exactly what it is the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, wants me to explain now. I think the matter was fairly fully discussed, with the aid of the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition and
988
the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I agree that it is not a desirable way to handle this matter, and we would not have chosen to have done it that way. I have very little hesitation in saying to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that I certainly hope it will not happen this way again.
My Lords, I am now going to end on a note of only the slightest controversy, because I wish to say that I am quite sure that if they receive this Bill in another place in the same way that your Lordships have received it, then I think the Bill will fare well. What is more important is that in due course many people on the roads of this country will fare better.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move that the privilege Amendment be agreed to.
On Question, an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ACTS OF PARLIAMENT NUMBER ING AND CITATION BILL [H.L.]
3.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, this Bill has the great merit of being both short and readily intelligible, and I hope that it will be found to have the additional advantage of being entirely uncontroversial. There is not a great deal I need to say in commending the Bill to your Lordships, but I hope that a few words of explanation will not come amiss.
The system with which we are all so familiar of giving Acts of Parliament chapter numbers related to Sessions of Parliament identified by the regnal year in which the Act receives the Royal Assent dates from the time when it was customary to reckon all time by reference to the regnal year—that is, the year commencing with the anniversary of the Accession of the Sovereign. More than three centuries ago a learned mathematician and astrologer in a book which he dedicated to Sir Edward Coke spoke of the "inconveniences that happen to vulgar wits and mean capacities" through reckoning time by the regnal year. Of course this has long ceased to be the general practice, and the last

989
trace of it is to be found in our present method of numbering Acts of Parliament.
There, however, the old practice has lingered on in a way which is inconvenient to all who have to do with the Statute Book. So much is this so that it was not until the year 1940 that the Statutes began to be published in annual volumes containing the output of each calendar year. Before that they had been published in volumes related to the regnal year, which was a throughly inconvenient system. But although this practice has been abandoned, we still number our Statutes by reference to the regnal yeas in which they receive the Royal Assent.
Accordingly, the first Act of 1960 is numbered not as Chapter 1 of 1960 but as 8 & 9 Eliz. 2, Chapter 10, while the last Act of that year is identified as 9 Eliz. 2, Chapter 6. To add to the confusion, the last six Acts in the volume of Statutes for 1960 which are numbered 9 Eliz. 2, Chapters I to 6, were, in fact, the first six chapters of the Session 9 & 10 Eliz. 2. However, since it could not be predicted at the time these Acts were passed that the Session would continue beyond the anniversary of Her Majesty's accession on the 6th February the Acts in question could not be numbered in this way.
But these difficulties are as nothing compared with those which arise where a demise of the Crown takes place, or where a Session runs into three regnal years, or where the normal timing of Sessions is disturbed by an Election. Thus the Acts of 1952 are, for the most part, chapter numbers of 15 and 16 Geo. 6 and 1 Eliz. 2, while some of the Acts of 1948, and all of those of 1949 belong to the Session 12, 13 and 14 Geo. 6. It is plain that this system of numbering and citation is intolerably complicated and inevitably leads to confusion. Sir Cecil Carr, who was for many years the Counsel to Mr. Speaker and is the acknowledged authority on this subject, has described the present system as requiring a Mansfield Park standard in knowledge of history. Your Lordships will remember that Julia and Maria Bertram were held up in the schoolroom to the admiration of little Fanny Price who was ten years old and had never heard of Asia Minor.
"How long ago is it, aunt"—
990
asked one of Fanny's cousins—
"since we used to repeat the chronological order of the Kings of England with the dates of their accession and most of the principal events of their reigns?
"'Yes', added the other, 'and of the Roman emperors as low as Severus, besides a great deal of the heathen mythology, and all the metals, semi-metals, planets, and distinguished philosophers.'
"'Very true indeed, my dears, but you are blessed with wonderful memories, and your poor cousin has probably none at all.'".
As Sir Cecil Carr has said, this immortal dialogue must awaken sympathy for all of us who lack the full Mansfield Park equipment for citing Statutes.
The inconvenience of the present system has been recognised for a long time. Indeed, when the Bill which subsequently became the Interpretation Act, 1889, first came before Parliament it proposed that citation by calendar year should be expressly authorised. This provision survived consideration by a powerful committee, but it was subsequently dropped for reasons which I have been unable to discover.
The proposal has recently been reconsidered by the Statute Law Committee, of which I am chairman, and whose duty it is to keep the form of the Statute Book under review. That Committee has consulted those who are primarily concerned with these matters, including Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's Judges, the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Church Assembly, all of whom agree in supporting a change to a system of numbering and citation by reference to the calendar year. This convenient practice has already been adopted by the great majority of the countries and States within the Commonwealth, including Northern Ireland, which passed an Act to give effect to it in 1943. I hope therefore that your Lordships will agree that we should not be acting precipitately if we now follow suit here and rid ourselves finally of a practice which really has nothing whatever to commend it. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.53 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, after the very clear and charming way in which this Bill has been introduced by the noble and learned Viscount, it needs very few words from me to express the

991
cordial support for this measure which I am sure the House will give it. It will of course be of immense value to practitioners of the law, and I can speak from personal experience of the occasional inconvenience which the use of the regnal year has caused. The only wonder is that the noble and learned Viscount was not able to explain to us why, when this thing was first thought of in the year of my birth, 72 years ago, it has taken all these years to bring it into operation. I calculate that normally the period of gestation between a good idea and the time when it is implemented is about twenty years. Why this particular matter was not introduced at least fifty years ago, I cannot conceive. But better late than never, and I cordially welcome this measure and hope that we shall be able in the year 1963, as this Bill predicts, to use the ordinary calendar year instead of the regnal year.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I as a non-lawyer speak without authority in welcoming this Bill as what is obviously a very good measure to simplify matters. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has been implemented with great success after 72 years, and I am also glad to see that this Bill is coming on the Statute Book.
There is one small point about which I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount would enlighten me. I should feel some regrets if the name of the Sovereign were not in future to be used in the title of a Bill. I quite understand about the numbering of the Bills, but could the noble and learned Viscount let us know whether or not the name of the Sovereign of the day is to be used? With those few words, my Lords, I should like to express my full approval and support of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have offered their assent. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has said that he is not a lawyer, but in view of a certain prophecy as to the occupancy of the Woolsack an "out law" has every claim to speak. On the point that he has raised, this Bill, of course, concerns a matter of numbering and of citation. The introduction to a Bill, which deals with the procedure by which a measure becomes law, will remain the same, and I do not think he need have any qualms
992
about that. As to the actual numbering and citation, as I tried to show, it will be of great value to do both these things, numbering 'and citing, by reference to the calendar year. I would conclude only by thanking your Lordships for your patience in listening to my somewhat lengthy introduction, and by thanking you again for the reception you have given the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
ASSAY OFFICES BILL [H.L.]
GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
INDEPENDENT CHAPEL MAWD SLEY STREET BOLTON BILL [H.L.]
KENT QUARTER SESSIONS BILL [H.L.]
KENT RIVER BOARD (HARBOUR OF RYE) BILL [H.L.]
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
LONDON BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS BILL [H.L.]
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL [H.L.]
ORPINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
ROYAL RUSSELL SCHOOL BILL [H.L.]
RUNCORN DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
SAINT PETER'S CHURCH, NOTTINGHAM, CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
SCOTSWOOD BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL [H.L.]
UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX BILL [H.L.]
WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
YORKSHIRE WOOLLEN DISTRICT TRANSPORT BILL [H.L.]
ZINC CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.