Lords Sitting of 31 July 1962

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

REDEVELOPMENT OF ROYAL AVENUE
2.36 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: 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 recognise the architectural importance of the Royal Avenue in its relation to Wren's masterpiece of the Royal Hospital, and can assure the House that, in the event of any application for development, they will insist on the strict observance of the requirements of the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, set out in his letter of the 7th September, 1961, that the whole terrace shall be built at one time and that the design shall be worthy of the site.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government understands that an application has been made to the London County Council in respect of the proposed redevelopment of the sites of Nos. 1 to 15 Royal Avenue. He has directed that this application shall be referred to him for decision in view of the importance of the site in relation to the approaches to the Royal Hospital, and of his previous decision. In these circumstances the noble Lord will appreciate that I can express no views on the matter at this stage.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which shows that his right honourable friend rightly appreciates the importance of this matter? May I ask my noble friend this question: Does he recall the view expressed by the Royal Fine Art Commission in 1960, that the design of
108
the Royal Avenue forms a unified composition which should be retained in any redevelopment? In these circumstances, can he assure the House that the Royal Fine Art Commission will again be consulted before his right honourable friend approves any new application?
EARL JELLICOE:: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for his benevolent observations? I do recall the view expressed by the Royal Fine Art Commission, and I will of course bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the view expressed by my noble friend that the Royal Fine Art Commission should be further consulted
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, cannot the Minister go a little further than that? Surely, in a matter of this importance, he can give an undertaking that the Royal Fine Art Commission will be given an opportunity to express their views before a decision is taken?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am afraid that at this stage I could not go beyond that
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is it not equally prejudicing the matter the other way if, before the inquiry starts, the Royal Fine Art Commission are put into a specially privileged position? Is not the right thing for the Royal Fine Art Commission to give evidence at the inquiry, as any other interested party does, and for the Minister to take into account the representations that they make? I should not wish to disregard the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission, but I should deplore bodies having an opportunity of making representations outside the inquiry. I think the right place for them to make their observations is at the inquiry itself.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, am I not right in thinking that—
LORD SILKIN: Can the Minister answer my question now?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I shall be glad to answer if I am given a chance. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord opposite. It would be quite wrong for me to say anything at this stage, since the application has been called in, which would prejudice my right honourable friend's consideration of it either way. All I said was that I would bring

109
the observation made by my noble friend to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask, purely for information because I know the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is in no sense hostile to the purpose of my Question, whether it is not a fact (I think I am right) that under all Governments it has been the custom for the Royal Fine Art Commission to give their views to Her Majesty's Government and not to give evidence at the inquiry?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not quite certain to whom the question was addressed, and I am not quite certain that I know the answer. I will look into it.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, would the noble Earl convey to his right honourable friend the real anxiety that many people feel on this subject? I think it ought to be made perfectly clear that there is that anxiety, and that there will be great annoyance if that anxiety is not taken into account.
EARL JELLICOE: Most certainly.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that the function of the Royal Fine Art Commission is to give advice before being called to give evidence?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I said that I did not quite know the answer to that particular question and would look into it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, would the noble Earl keep in mind that, while the Royal Fine Art Commission has, as my noble friend Lord Silkin has said, a part, and an important part, to play in giving advice in this matter, some of us think that it would not be desirable for it to be elevated into a situation almost of dictatorship upon these matters, either to Her Majesty's Government or to the local planning authority? Teat seems to me to be the tendency of the questions Which have been put.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will wish to bear in mind all the observations made by your Lordships.

THE SUMMER RECESS
2.42 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that it is proposed that, after the Summer Adjournment, the House will meet again on Thursday, October 25, at 11 o'clock for Prorogation. It is expected that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday, October 30.
I should also like to inform the House that at a suitable time after 3.30, a statement will be made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham on the Leonardo Cartoon Appeal Fund; and another statement will be made by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne on the Colonial Development Corporation.

TAY ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
2.43p.m.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 25), Bill read 3a, and passed.

LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 25), Bill read 3a, and passed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Ashbourne, a copy of which order was laid before this House on 24th July, 1962, be approved.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GAS BOARDS (RATEABLE VALUES) ORDER, 1962
2.44 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Gas Boards (Rateable Values) Order, 1962, be approved. I hope your Lordships will also find it convenient if, in these brief introductory remarks, I also deal with the other Order, the Electricity Boards (Rateable Values) Order, 1962. Those of your Lordships who follow these matters closely may have observed that the Electricity Order was made on July 9, and the Gas Order on July 20. I should perhaps explain that an Order covering Gas Boards was originally made on July 9 as well. Unfortunately, at an early stage in the drafting two errors, one rather considerable and one very small, crept in, and these were detected only on July 20. As a result the original Order was withdrawn, and a new one was made on July 20. I trust this has not confused or inconvenienced your Lordships.
LORD LATHAM: I take that this is without prejudice to any of the parties concerned.
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, indeed. Briefly, these two Orders are made necessary by the general revaluation for rating purposes which is due to take effect next April. This revaluation is, of course, intended to take account of changes in the general level of rents since the last revaluation. Unless corresponding adjustments were made for the gas and electricity properties, which are not subject to the ordinary processes of revaluation, the two industries would enjoy a fortuitous windfall by way of a reduction in their rates.
To obviate this on a previous occasion, Parliament approved, in the Rating and Valuation Act, 1957, a 70 per cent. increase in the basic rateable values for the gas industry, that being the average increase in other rateable values as a result of the 1956 revaluation. The purpose of the present Order is to bring the gas rateable values up to the new levels of 1963. On this occasion your Lordships will observe that the increase which is proposed is some 87·6 per cent. This is the proportionate change in the net annual values of comparable properties moving on ordinary valuation processes
112
from 1956 levels to the 1963 levels as estimated by the Board of Inland Revenue. However, although gas and electricity rateable values are being increased by nearly 90 per cent. by this Order their total share of the rate burden is likely to fall by about 30 per cent. I should perhaps make clear that the circumstances of the Electricity Order are virtually the same as those of the Gas Order and the same considerations apply there.
Finally, I should make it clear that, of course, there have been the necessary statutory consultations with the associations of local authorities, with the London County Council, and with the Gas and the Electricity Councils. I think it is fair to claim that a broad measure of agreement has been reached, or at least, as the Opposition spokesman put it in another place, that "at least an equality of dissatisfaction" has been achieved between the two sides. I commend these two Orders to your Lordships as making fair and reasonable adjustments.
Moved, That the Gas Boards (Rateable Values) Order, 1962, be approved.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ELECTRICITY BOARDS (RATEABLE VALUES) ORDER, 1962
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Electricity Boards (Rateable Values) Order, 1962, be approved.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTOR VEHICLES (TESTS) (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1962
2.48 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT(LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, as your Lordships know, Sections 65 and 66 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, make provision for testing motor vehicles in respect of certain requirements which affect their safe use on the road. Subsection (3) of Section 66 empowers my right honourable friend to make an Order bringing down the original ten-year age limit to a lower one, and this

113
Order is subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. One of these Orders was made in October, 1961, when the age limit was changed from ten to seven years. When your Lordships considered that Order I mentioned that it was intended to reduce still further the age limit of vehicles subject to this test. The Order mow before your Lordships represents another stage in that process of substituting six years for seven.
Its effect is to require vehicles which have been registered for between six and seven years to be provided with a test certificate by November 1, and in other cases by the sixth anniversary of the date of first registration. In case your Lordships think that we should perhaps be reducing the age limit still further I would point out that as the limit comes down one finds an increasing number of vehicles in each age group, and we have to think about the capacity of the testing stations in relation to a reasonable opportunity for people to get their vehicles tested. I am satisfied my Lords that this is quite all right in this case, but we should not include a greater number in this Order at this time. I can say, though, that we shall seek further reductions in due course.
Your Lordships may like to know how the whole test scheme is running and how it appears to be justified. Well, my Lords, I can tell you that the records show that on the original ten-year-old test about 40 per cent. of the vehicles submitted failed and had to be either repaired or taken off the road. We also know that a good many were scrapped without facing the test at all, because they were too bad to be economically repaired. In the period when the seven to ten-year-old vehicles came in, and many of the over ten-year-olds were coming up for their second test, the number of failures became 33 per cent. Perhaps that does not sound very much, but when it is remembered that it represents comfortably over a million vehicles, and that the most common faults were with brakes, then with steering and then with lights, in that order, I do not think I need say much more about the value of the tests.
As your Lordships know, we have been carrying out spot-checks as well, and the results reveal that of the vehicles tested between five and seven years
114
old, 30 per cent. were in a condition in which they would not have passed the test, and were defective to a degree that made them a potential source of accidents at any time. I think, therefore, that what I have said will assure your Lordships that the testing scheme is achieving its purpose, and that this further extension of it is justified. I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Extension) Order, 1962, be approved.—(Lord Chesham.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there will be any variation or reduction in the charges to be made in the scheme?
2.52 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we on this side of the House view this Order with mixed feelings. First of all, we welcome the fact that the Government have found it possible to reduce the age limit of these vehicles to six, but our welcome is slightly diminished when we take into account the figures that the noble Lord has given us, in the sense that we wonder whether we are moving fast enough. The noble Lord has said that of the vehicles inspected in the course of twelve months a million were found to be defective, and that there was really little difference in the number of vehicles that were defective in the age group five to seven compared with the older cars. Therefore it makes one wonder what number of vehicles are on the roads at the present moment, even of a year old, which if inspected to-day would be found defective in one way or another. We feel that the Government must press on to reduce this age limit. The noble Lord said that it was the Government's intention to do so but that the capacity for inspection at the present moment would be strained. Can the noble Lord say when we can anticipate a further Order? Will it be possible to bring the age group down to five or four within the next twelve months?
I would make one other point to the noble Lord. I am sure the House was surprised at the figures he gave us. I think very few people, even in your Lordships' House—certainly very few among the general public, and even among the motoring public—are aware of the number of vehicles that are being

115
found defective upon what is really a limited inspection. One sees very little in the way of publicity. I should now like the Government to carry out a proper campaign, to bring these facts before every single motorist in the country, more or less pointing the question at each motorist: "Is your car one of perhaps three million on the roads today, which may be defective?" My Lords, I think this matter must be rammed home to the motorist, that it is he who is responsible for the vehicle on the road, and it is his responsibility to see that it is kept fit.
Many of us who have fairly "young" cars take them regularly to the garage and have them serviced. I should like to see the Government encourage persons who do that, and others who may not take their cars quite so often, to have them voluntarily checked, irrespective of their age. I would suggest to the Minister that we have a seal, something similar to a tax licence, that could be issued by the examining garage, to show that they have checked the car and passed it. That seal could then be put above the tax licence, and would clearly indicate to everyone that that driver had voluntarily taken his car and had it examined.
Then, my Lords, I would suggest that, if the Government are unable to reduce this age limit rapidly down to four or three years, they increase the number of persons who are doing the roadside checks. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who fought for this matter—that there should be considerable roadside checks. There are some that are going on, but if we could increase them, so much the better. Certainly, if you had a seal or a sign as I suggested, that you had voluntarily had your vehicle checked, you would not be likely to be stopped by these inspectors in the street. Therefore, apart from some prestige and satisfaction at having had your vehicle tested, you would have a sign and might not be stopped on the road by these inspectors.
There is only one other point which I would make. I am concerned about the sale of second-hand cars. It has become quite a habit in this country for people with a new or second-hand car
116
to drive it hard or, to use an expression of many, to "flog" it, and then to sell it at the end of twelve or eighteen months. Some of these cars can be "poshed up" quite considerably. Certainly, if you buy a second-hand car through a reputable dealer you are fairly secure, but there are many of these roadside car marts which do not appear to have any engineering facilities by which to examine cars. I think that every single car that is sold should be sold with a certificate. The noble Lord may say that it is an offence to sell a secondhand car that is defective, but those who go in to buy a second-hand car may not have much experience. They may only have the word of a salesman, a salesman who could disappear very quickly on to another job.
I think there should be a constructive approach to this matter, and when a second-hand car is sold a certificate should be issued. One gets a warranty with a new car, and I think such a warranty should be issued by the seller of a second-hand car. I hope the Government will seriously consider this matter, because there are reports from time to time of the sale of second-hand cars which do not meet up to the road requirements. If a firm has to issue a certificate to the effect that a car has been examined and found roadworthy—in other words, they must state that that is the case—there will be a greater stress on this matter, and the public when buying cars will look for that certificate, and will not buy a car unless the certificate is available. My Lords, we welcome this Order, we hope that the Government will move faster in the next twelve months, and will consider favourably this incentive to ordinary motorists to take their cars voluntarily for these examinations.
3.0 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the interesting part of the Minister's statement in putting this Order before your Lordships' House, if I understood him correctly, was that, in the spot-checks organised by the Ministry, 37 per cent. of the cars spot-checked proved to be in such a condition that they would not have passed the test. I understand from the noble Lord that the spot-check is made irrespective of age. It is obviously impossible for a Ministry of

117
Transport examiner to distinguish easily a motor car of a certain age. My Lords, to me, that is a most significant and alarming figure—37 per cent., irrespective of age. One, two or three-year olds, they are all in together.
That brings me to the real point of my intervention. It has been authoritatively stated that the Minister of Transport contemplates increasing the speed limit of commercial vehicles of certain types to 40 miles an hour. I will not discuss the rights or the wrongs of that—the time for that will be when the Minister produces the Order; but I am going to state quite emphatically to your Lordships that all too large a number of commercial vehicles on the roads to-day are so overloaded as to make them uncontrollable because of their damaged steering and inefficient brakes. I do say this to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham: that if you are going to increase the speed limit for these vehicles to 40 miles an hour, that will automatically increase their natural, overall speed; and the Minister must take into consideration that there will have to be a rather more rigid check upon the mechanical conditions of these vehicles.
Now I know his difficulties. As the number of motor cars that have to come in for compulsory examination increases, so the tax upon the examining facilities becomes greater. I also know (to follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd) that to increase the number of examiners on the roads would put a strain upon manpower, and this would be the greater if one included a rather more rigid check on commercial vehicles. Such a check, moreover, can be property carded out only on the road with the load it carries, and not in a service station unladen; because many vehicles that would pass a test unladen in a service garage would not pass a test with a 7-ton load on them on the roads. I think the British public will be very apprehensive of an order to increase the speed limit for many of these vehicles unless the Minister can at the same time give an assurance that there will be a very careful check of the mechanical conditions of those commercial vehicles so as not to endanger public safety. I hope the House will forgive me for bringing in this matter, but it is of the utmost importance, and I hope I may
118
have at least a sympathetic answer from the Minister on this point.
3.4 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, nobody enjoys driving "old crocks" about, but the fact of the matter is that a great many people in this country are driving motor cars when they cannot afford to do so, because the proper calculations have never been taken into account by them in advance. In other words, the depreciation factor is ignored, and they have to go on wearing out these old bits of machinery, being totally unable to find more capital to buy a new one. I quote from my own experience. I have some slight responsibility for a certain number of clergy who are doing a job which one might call an inspecting job. On making inquiries the other day, I found that in all cases they had no capital sum available with which to replace the motor cars which they were using on their job. They are doing 20,000 miles a year, and many private owners are doing far less. If, therefore any campaign is to be initiated, I think the most important thing is to bring home to the people that they are not paying for their motoring unless they are putting aside, into the Posit Office Savings Bank, or something of the kind, an amount to cover the replacement of this vehicle When it is thrown off the road as being unfit.
3.6 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH:: My Lords, there is a lot to be said for what the noble Lord opposite has just said. Not only do people hold a car longer than they ought because they cannot afford a new one, but they will buy a very old car in the first instance because it is Cheaper. But the trouble is that to remedy this would require an income test or a means test for the purchase of a car, which might then be applied to buying television sets, washing machines and so on. I think that the Government possibly might not feel inclined to do that.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of chilworth, raised the point of the loading of commercial vehicles, and I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether, in the administration of a test, account will be taken in the case of commercial vehicles of the loading of those vehicles. It seems to me, on

119
the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that, there is a prima facie case for perhaps being more careful and severe in those cases where they have to carry heavy loads, with consequent extra stress upon the brakes, than otherwise. I think it is a point that needs consideration.
Apart from the wider point that the noble Lord raised (we cannot develop that point far under this Order, though I presume we shall have a chance under the Order about the speed limit), there is the point of these heavy vehicles cluttering up the roads with consequences which were outlined in an article on the leader page of the Sunday Express last Sunday, which I thought was a very sensible contribution to the matter. In passing, and only in passing, I am bound to say that I think this idea of raising the speed limit of these vast vehicles to 40 miles an hour (of course, in practice, the answer is that they are doing 40 miles an hour now, and even more) is not a very satisfactory one, for if you officially raise it to 40 miles an hour you will have them travelling at 50 or 60. I think that this Minister of Transport is really road mad. He just wants to injure the railways; that is his primary purpose in life. But I reserve any further comment until the Order is before us; and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can assure us that the Order about the speed limit on these heavy, vast engines which the Minister is encouraging upon the highways will come before us.
3.8 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Order has led us into devious but interesting by-ways, some of which are not even on our particular map at all. To begin by answering my noble friend Lord Howe, I should tell him that it is not contemplated that there will be any reduction in charges under the test scheme, which are based on the cost of the tests. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, hotly pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, shot straight out of the ground altogether. Of course, their remarks about speed limits for commercial vehicles have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Order which we are discussing to-day except in so far as it applies to vehicles of up to 30 cwt. unladen weight, because the
120
vehicles to which they are referring are not subject to the tests to which this Order refers.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Oh!
LORD CHESHAM: I am sorry the noble Lord opposite says "Oh", as if that were a surprise to him. But, my Lords, they never have been, right from the start.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Why not?
LORD CHESHAM: May I just explain the reason to him? They are not subject to those tests because there is already in existence a system of testing them by the Ministry's own vehicle inspectors and it is clearly not necessary that they should also be subject to tests which were brought in for vehicles which were not otherwise subject to test. Therefore, we really are not talking about these heavy vehicles in relation to their loads, their speed or anything else. I will, of course, bear in mind what the noble Lords have said; because I agree with them that it is important. I only say—and I am sure your Lordships will forgive me—that this is not the moment to discuss it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the Minister forgive me if I say something in self defence? First of all, I knew that I was going a trifle outside the Order, and I asked the indulgence of the House to allow me to do so but the noble Lord himself brought up the question of spot checks by Ministry of Transport inspectors. I am perfectly well aware that the only test for a commercial vehicle is the Ministry of Transport spot check. This deals with vehicle checks; not only motor cars, but commercial vehicles. I said I did not think that it would be quite proper to bring these commercial vehicles into the service stations, but I suggested to him that he might consider an extension of the spot checking, because it is thrown into sharp relief by the authoritative statement that these vehicles will have a higher speed limit than heretofore. So I was not shot right off the mark; I perhaps deviated a little over a very thin white line.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH:: Will the noble Lord be a little careful in responding to the noble Lord, Lord

121
Lucas of Chilworth, whom I have hitherto supported, on that point? I am a little alarmed that the Minister should be urged to employ full-time inspectors over the whole field. We are a little in danger of becoming a nation where we are all getting a living by inspecting each other, and we had better be careful about it.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord; we must be careful, because it might be quite alarming what we find. Whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, skidded off the course or whether he went what, in the case of a pipe-line, would be only just outside his limit of lateral deviation, I do not think matters very much, because I do not think that we should devote much time to-day to the very interesting and important things he has brought up. Later on will be the time to do that. I am coming on to the question of spot checks again in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised, I thought, some interesting points, with none of which, as a matter of broad principle, I would disagree. He queried whether we were going fast enough, and perhaps it could be said: No. But I did give a reason for the present speed. This Order brings in (in round terms) a further 650,000 vehicles that will be subject to inspection, and experience has proved that people leave it almost entirely to the last few days before the due date, which imposes a very great strain on the testing stations. We have tried quite a number of measures—publicity and so on—to try to stop them doing this, but unsuccessfully. It is difficult to contemplate bringing in a greater number at this moment. I cannot specifically say to the noble Lord when the next stage will be, but I anticipate that I, or somebody else, will be back before your Lordships with further suggestions before very long.
My Lords, one of our difficulties is that through a legal defect in the manner in which these Orders can be made, it is not possible to stagger them. I shall be dealing with that matter later on, when we come to consider Amendments
122
to the Road Traffic Bill, because it has now been put right.
LORD SHEPHERD: What does the noble Lord mean by "staggered"? Does he mean the periods?
LORD CHESHAM: What I mean by that, is that at the moment we can attach only one date to one age group, so to speak; and I think it will be possible to move a Little bit faster when we are able to divide that one age group into, perhaps, four sections and give them four different dates under one Order. One could call them phases. That unfortunately cannot be done legally at the moment. I hope that, if your Lordships agree to the Amendment which is to be put later on, that will help us to get on a little more quickly. But I will deal with that when I come to it.
LORD HAWKE: When the noble Lord raised the question of phasing of timing, he appealed to people to spread their tests, which is very sensible. For instance, how long can the test be valid? Could I have one test on December 31 this year, and another one on January 1 the following day, the first one to apply for the 1963 licence and the next one to apply for 1964?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the test certificate is valid for twelve months from the date of test; so the noble Lord, by having two checks, will have paid in some useful money to get an extension of two days on his test period.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked for publicity to be given to these difficulties, and I will certainly consider that point and see what can be done. Of course, there is nothing now to stop anybody who wishes from taking his car for a test. That is by no means debarred. In the original stages, when it was a novelty, quite a number of people in fact did, and some of them, I think, got a sharp shock, which rather goes to prove what we have been so far agreeing on.
So far as spot checks are concerned, of course these are most useful if for no other reason than that they go further than the tests. But even with a greatly increased number of people available to do the spot checks, with the number of vehicles we have on the roads at the moment it could still only scratch at the

123
surface or the problem. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that the heavy commercial vehicles have in fact been subject to spot checks for a good many years as well as to the inspections which are normally carried out by the Ministry inspectors, probably at their garages. But I would agree on the broad principle that this is something that needs, if possible, to be increased and certainly kept under way.
So far as secondhand cars are concerned, I should certainly like to consider at greater leisure the suggestion the noble Lord has put forward. I am bound to say, even though he slightly discounted it in advance, that it is, of course, an offence to sell a car in an un-roadworthy condition. As a first reaction, I would say that I do not quite know how a requirement that any particular firm should give a warranty of roadworthiness with each car could be embodied in legislation. I quite see what the noble Lord means by saying that innocent people need to be protected. There are various ways that they can protect themselves; but I should like to consider what he has said in this respect.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, could the noble Lord inquire how it has been done in South Africa? It has been a legal requirement there for years that one must not buy or sell a secondhand vehicle that has not a roadworthiness certificate. That system works very well there, and I do not see why the same should not be done here.
LORD CHESHAM: I will tell the noble Lord exactly why it cannot be done here. They have had rigorous inspections of all cars that are on the road, sometimes to an almost absurd degree, for many years. They have a vastly smaller number of motor cars to deal with than we have, and I can remember that as long ago as 1947 all the vehicles on the road were subject to a roadworthiness test, down to a minute degree but then the problem was not so complicated or as great as it is here. Nevertheless, I should like to look into the noble Lord's suggestion to see whether something can be got out of it. My Lords, I think I have dealt briefly with the points, and I hope that your Lordships will now approve this Order.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I know that this is a little off the lines but, as a matter of information and courtesy, would the noble Lord be good enough to tell us if the 40 m.p.h. commercial vehicle Order referred to will be a statutory instrument and subject to Parliamentary challenge.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords; an Order of that kind is subject to Affirmative Resolution.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord was a little lukewarm about the idea that the Government should have a campaign to encourage motor owners to volunteer their vehicles for testing and to have an emblem denoting that their vehicles had been tested within the year. Would the noble Lord give this matter careful consideration? Because I am sure that we could persuade people to do this voluntarily; and, taking into account the dangers on the roads of these vehicles, I am sure that some good could be done in this way.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am sorry if I appeared to be lukewarm about this. Perhaps I did not do the suggestion justice, because of the other material which was presented to me. I should not like to commit myself without looking at a possible scheme, but I should think that it is likely that something useful could be done in this way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911 and read 1a.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, with permission, could I raise a matter of Business, which I omitted to do just now? Will a statement be made to-day or tomorrow on the statement in the Press, that there has been an agreement on Malaysia on its new basis?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, certainly not to-day. I will certainly make inquiries to see whether there is any possibility of one to-morrow.

UGANDA INDEPENDENCE BILL
House in Committee (according to Order):
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 25), Bill read 3a, and passed.

PIPE-LINES BILL [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, before we actually consider the 124 Commons Amendments to this Bill, I should like once more to utter a protest against the way in which this Bill has been handled. It arrived in this House as a half-baked measure. It was rushed through. Inadequate time was given at all stages for its proper consideration—indeed, at one stage, the House was so revolted at the way in which the Bill was being dealt with, that they voted almost solidly against proceeding further with it in the way in which the Government desired. A number of very reasonable proposals that we put forward in this House were rejected, I thought, in rather a pigheaded way, without proper consideration, with the result that we are now faced with this large number of Amendments—they are not all, I admit, Amendments of substance, but a great many are—with inadequate time for their consideration. Obviously, we are left with the position that we have to take the whole lot or leave them.
I would refer to one of these Amendments in particular, No. 38. This was an Amendment which my noble friend Lord Lucan and others pressed hard
126
upon the Government. It relates to safety provisions. We were told by the noble Lord, Lord Mills (I am very glad that he is here) that the Government were not in a position to say what kind of regulations would be required to provide for safety and we put forward the proposal that the Government should take powers to make these regulations, because, as the Bill stood, they had no power to make them even when they had come to know what regulations they wanted. But we were met with a blank refusal, without any reason given for it. Now we have Amendment No. 38, which does exactly what we asked for. It takes power to make regulations. Obviously, I agree that the Government are not in a position to say what these regulations are. But I am bound to say that this example—and I could quote others—is an indication of the way in which this House is being treated in legislation. We spend hours upon hours laboriously and very little change is made of any substance. Often legislation is introduced too late to enable us to discuss it adequately and then we find coming from another place the Amendments which we ourselves had put forward and advocated strongly, but which had been refused us, and then accepted in the House of Commons.
I do not want to hold the noble Lord responsible for the sins of the Government as a whole, but I do ask him this: what is the use of this House if we are to be treated in this way? We get legislation too late to be effective. It is rushed through this House and then we have Amendments coming back from another place and we are unable to object, because, of course, we should be told that if we do not like any of these Amendments, we shall lose the Bill as a whole we have to accept them. That is not the way to propose legislation. I was going to say that I hope the Government will do better another time, but I have an even greater hope that before very long, they will not have an opportunity of doing anything, which will possibly be the case. But the Government have one more Session anyway, and I would ask the noble Lord to see that in the next Session of Parliament, when Bills come to this House, they will not come too late; and I hope that noble Lords in charge of Bills will be a little more responsive to the proposals we put

127
forward than they have shown themselves to be in dealing With this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, perhaps I may say a word in reply to the comments which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has made. That this is a complicated Bill in some respects no one would dispute, but if one compares the complexity of this Bill with that of the Town and Country Planning Bill, which the noble Lord once introduced, it is a comparatively simple measure. I cannot charge my memory when we discussed that Bill and I will not say any more about that, but I know that when this Bill was before the House further time was given to it, and after that time was given the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said this:
"We shall be able to deal with these matters in the course of the discussions that will take place on Report stage."
And those discussions took place. Of course, one regrets that this Bill has not been able to come back to us before. Perhaps the noble Lord knows something about the time it took in another place and the prolonged discussions on various matters that took place. One of course will bear in mind what the noble Lord has said and no one wishes to deny this House a proper opportunity of considering all the Commons Amendments, and, indeed, other proposals that are put forward.
In so far as the criticism was made of Amendment No. 38, I would just say this. I should have hoped that that Amendment would be welcome as it goes so far to meet the views put forward in this House. I think the noble Lord will find that a great many of the Amendments tabled are, in fact, Amendments which meet points raised in this House and which have been further considered I take note of what the noble Lord has said and I hope that having replied to it, not too shortly and I hope not to lengthily, we can now proceed to consider the Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill [100—] as first printed for the House of Commons]
Clause 1, page 1, line 13, after ("authorisation") insert ("or (except with the consent of the Minister) by a person other than the one named in the application for the authorisation as he who will be the owner of the line").
3.32 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I must endeavour to be accurate about this and start straight away by saying that this Amendment resulted from an undertaking given to the Opposition in another place. It was thought that the Minister, when he had satisfied himself of the bona fides of a person who has authorisation, or has been granted an authorisation, to construct a pipe-line, should be able to see that the construction is carried out by that person without change, otherwise there might be some danger that the pipe-line would be left half finished, that land might be inadequately restored, or, what would be rather more serious, that there would be a danger of some lapse from the standards of safety. I do not think that these risks were very likely to materialise and it would certainly be difficult to prevent any change in the ownership of a company to whom the authorisation had been granted as opposed to the transfer of the authorisation from one individual to another. But even if the risks are small it was thought that there would certainly be something to be said for trying to improve the safeguards in this respect, and that is what this first Amendment does. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, would it be correct to say that this Amendment goes a long way to meet the point that my noble friend Lord Shepherd made in moving an Amendment on Third Reading? It appears to be the same in substance.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it does not go quite so far as he wanted to go, but it certainly moves in the same direction.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 2, page 2, line 30, leave out from ("route") to ("as") in line 32 and insert ("delineated on the map which, by virtue of that subsection, must accompany the notice or within such limits of lateral deviation from that route").
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, No. 2 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to

129
move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
3.35 p.m.
The MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I intervene to make a statement in the same words as used by my right honourable friend in another place.
"It has been decided to extend the scope of the activities of the Colonial Development Corporation which have hitherto been confined to dependant territories. It is proposed henceforth to authorise the Corporation to undertake new development schemes in countries in which it was previously empowered to operate after they have become independent Members of the Commonwealth. The Corporation will be renamed the Commonwealth Development Corporation. The necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as possible."
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we welcome this statement for its own sake but also because this is something which has been urged upon the Government from this side of the House and from the other side of the House as well. We are very glad to see the Government in a receptive state of mind and we hope it will long continue.
LORD REA: My Lords, I think the whole House will agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has just said. This is a solution which has been urged from all quarters of the House and it should have taken place before. It is no good recriminating about it now. Although it is not too late, it is very late; but I am extremely glad the Government are taking this step.

PIPE-LINES BILL [H.L.]
3.37 p m
Consideration of Commons Amendments resumed.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 2, page 3, line 33, at end, insert—
("(5) The Minister may by order direct that subsection (1) of this section shall, in relation to pipe-lines of a class specified in the order, have effect with the substitution, for the reference to sixteen weeks, of a reference to such shorter period as may be specified in the order.
An order under this subsection may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order; and any such order shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to add a new subsection to Clause 2 which will enable the Minister to specify in relation to particular classes of local pipe-lines a shorter period of notice than sixteen weeks, as Clause 2 at present lays down, which must elapse between notification of the Minister and the start of construction work. My noble friend Lord Merrivale had views on this which he expressed at an earlier stage, and he thought that very short pipe-lines of less than half a mile in length should be excluded from the Bill. I could not agree to that at the time because of the safety factor, or lack of it, because they would have been outside that as well. My noble friend will, I am sure, remember what the argument was at the time. At the same time, I understand there are known to be about 300 pipelines running outside the actual areas—the curtilages of factories—which are less than ten miles long. I did not know that about half of them are less than a quarter of a mile long, and some of them less than 25 yards long; that these very short lines often have to be relaid or replaced either in emergencies or in the course of day-to-day business; and that many of them carry substances which are not at all dangerous. I think that there is a real problem in this.
I think there is a definite objection on the ground of safety to the exclusion from the Bill of all very short pipe-lines. On the other hand, sixteen weeks' notification seems in some ways inappropriate in cases where continual minor

131
alterations may have to be made to lines of this kind, and the solution which is embodied in this Amendment is to give the Minister powers to require a shorter period of notice than sixteen weeks in the case of certain specified classes of pipe-line; and this would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, does the noble Lord contemplate that the class of pipe-line would be defined by the number of yards in length?
LORD CHESHAM: No, my Lords, I do not think that they would be classified only by length. They would be classified also by what they were carrying.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE LEONARDO DA VINCI CARTOON
3.38 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has just made in the other place a statement in reply to a Question on the Leonardo da Vinci Cartoon which I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I repeated here. The statement is as follows:
"I asked the President of the Royal Academy to delay selling the Leonardo Cartoon in order to allow time for a public appeal. This was undertaken in a public-spirited and energetic way by the National Art Collections Fund, and I should like to express our gratitude to Lord Crawford and Balcarres and his colleagues for what they have done. As a result of the appeal, and of the contributions made by the National Art Collections Fund, Lord Crawford and Balcarres informs me that they can make available £450,000 towards the £800,000 which the Royal Academy are asking for the Cartoon.
132
"The Government have been greatly impressed by the very large number of individual citizens who have contributed their own money towards keeping this great work of art in this country. I am, therefore, informing Lord Crawford and Balcarres that, subject to the approval of Parliament, the balance of £350,000 will be found from public funds."
That is the statement.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for making that statement, and I am sure the whole House will welcome the fact that the Government are sufficiently interested in works of art to make this handsome contribution. I hope that that fact will have some effect in making the work of art known to the general public, because until the appeal was started very few people in this country or even outside had ever heard of it; but to-day it has, of course, become famous. I am sure we should like to express our thanks to all those who have made contributions to the Fund and so enabled us to save this work of art.
I am rather amused that the noble and learned Viscount personally makes this statement after his speech of yesterday. He will remember telling the House of the enormous numbers of claims that are being made upon the Government by all sorts of people in all sorts of directions. I am not sure whether he mentioned this particular one, but perhaps he knew this was coming to-day. At any rate, he mentioned a number of similar applications made to the Government which, by implication, I thought he was saying should be resisted. However, I am very glad that he is treating this as an exception, and the whole nation will be grateful that we have been able to save this work of art, with the help of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD REA: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Everybody will be extremely pleased that the Government have taken an interest in this matter. All of us are interested in art, some of us very deeply and sincerely, not only from personal reasons but from reasons of responsibility, and we are indeed grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, and his

133
colleagues for what they have done, and to the generous members of the public. Nevertheless, I am a little uneasy about the way this matter is being settled. By instituting this Art Collections Fund the Government were virtually instituting a referendum for the public, and the public refused to endorse that. They are now proposing to pay out taxpayers' money to make up the difference. One is pleased that this cartoon is to be retained in this country, but I am not quite happy about the method employed.
Baroness HORSBRUGH: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Viscount think it has been made clear that the public were in favour of retaining this cartoon if they were willing to subscribe this large sum of money? And does it not appear that this is in full agreement with what has been said on other occasions, that this Government are willing to help those who help themselves?
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, while welcoming our noble and learned Leader's statement that this grant may be forthcoming, but especially that it is to be subject to the approval of Parliament, since this is a question on Which differing views are sincerely and strongly held, may I ask my noble and learned friend how soon discussion of such approval will be possible and whether the Royal Academy have agreed to wait the necessary length of time?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount, in view of the fact that the taxpayer, through the Government, are making this contribution, whether the Government will ensure that this work of art is seen outside London?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, there are quite a number of questions there. I would thank both the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for their kindly thought about this matter and their generous remarks. Of course, all I said yesterday was that the public must realise that in contributions by the Government, great or small, handsome or niggardly, they are not the Government's pockets primarily which are being emptied, and if the public want it that way—and I think we have interpreted public opinion correctly in this matter—that is the way they can have it.
134
It is idle for them to complain at whatever price it is they have to pay, I would agree with my noble friend Baroness Horsbrugh: I know that what impressed some of my right honourable Mends and noble friends was the fact that great numbers of people had subscribed sums, which some of them may have been ill able to afford, to preserve this work of art. That influenced the Government in making what is not only a handsome but an unprecedented contribution to a matter of this kind, and I think it should have influenced the Government.
At all events, I suppose, as my noble friend Lord Moyne says, people will continue to hold slightly differing views about this particular matter. I do not think this can be discussed before the Recess; I suppose it will be discussed in the Commons in the ordinary way. I do not know of any specific arrangements that are being made with the Royal Academy, but when a statement of this kind is made it is assumed that Parliament will endorse what the Government have done, and I believe myself the Royal Academy would act in this belief. As regards exhibiting the cartoon elsewhere, the substance of which it is made of is of a highly brittle and fragile nature and I think where and how we exhibit it will have to be determined primarily now by our duty, not only to the country but to civilised mankind, to keep it in a reasonable condition. I know there are many people who would like to see it outside London if that can be arranged technically.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether this gift is unconditional or whether the Government feel they are in a position to impose conditions such as my noble friend has suggested?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think the Government can impose conditions. I had the impression—again I am speaking perhaps rather inadvisedly—that once the cartoon had been bought it would in effect belong to the nation, through whatever public organ it would be who would technically hold the legal property. I do not think it would be for the Government to impose conditions. It is a matter for discussion between public bodies who in one way or another represent the nation.

PIPE-LINES BILL [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 3, page 3, line 36, leave out from ("given") to ("or") and insert ("to the Minister for the purposes of subsection (1) of section two of this Act").
  Clause 3, page 3, line 38, leave out ("under the said section two") and insert ("for the purposes of the said subsection (1)")
  Clause 3, page 3, line 42, leave out ("specified in") and insert ("accompanying").
  Clause 3, Page 4, line 17, leave out from ("route") to ("as") in line 20 and insert ("delineated on the map which, by virtue of the following provisions of this section, must accompany the notice or within such limits of lateral deviation from that route").
  3.48 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think it would be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 together. They are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 5, page 6, line 7, after ("authorisation") insert ("or serving a notice under the last foregoing section")
  Clause 5, page 6, line 12, after ("1947") insert ("or. as the case may be, in so far as the removal of the works required by the notice to be removed, or any change in the use of land which is involved in the removal, constitutes such development,")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 go together, and No. 33 also goes with them. All of them were put down following an undertaking given to the Opposition in another place that an Amendment they had put down, or its substance, would be further considered. The object of the Amendment was to ensure that the removal of a pipe-line would be deemed not to involve the development of land for the purpose of the Town and Country Planning Act. 1947. It was thought that an absurd situation might arise if the Minister exercised his powers under Clause 4 to require the removal of a pipeline, because it was in some way in contravention of the provisions of Clauses 1 or 2, and the local planning authority then refused to give planning permission for the work to be done. It was somewhat difficult to meet this
  136
  point, because the removal of a pipe-line by the owner, when he is not obliged to do so by the Minister, is something for which planning permission ought to be sought. Therefore, the Amendments are drafted in such a way as to provide that where the Minister serves a notice under Clause 4 or Clause 20 requiring removal he may at the same time grant deemed planning permission for removal. This meets the essential point that was raised. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 7, page 7, line 8, leave out ("less than") and insert ("not exceeding")
  Clause 7, page 7, line 14, leave out ("less than") and insert ("not exceeding")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these are both drafting Amendments, and they correct a small anomaly. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 7, page 7, line 16, at end, insert—
  ("(2) The Minister, on an application in that behalf being made to him, and after causing if he thinks fit a public inquiry to be held, may by order (made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament) direct that the foregoing subsection shall not apply to the construction of pipelines situate wholly within an area specified in or described by the order, being pipe-lines of a class so specified.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Clause 7 provides that the construction of a pipe-line less than ten miles long as an addition to another pipe-line is to be regarded as the construction of a cross-country pipe-line and not a local one, if the combined length of the two exceeds ten miles. In the same way with the construction of a pipe-line under ten miles in length, to connect two, or possibly more, other pipe-lines is to be deemed to represent the construction of a cross-country pipe-line if the line and those it connects in all exceed ten miles. The purpose of the clause is to prevent anyone from evading the controls in

  137
  Clause 1 by constructing a series of pipelines under ten miles long and then joining them all together. But there are certain areas of the country in which there are particular industries which have extensive Local networks, and it might be rather unnecessary for each additional pipe-line or connection between the pipe-lines within such essentially local systems to be construed as a cross-country pipe-line and subject to the full procedure laid down in Clause 1.
  I think that it is reasonable to provide for the possibility of exemption in these cases. The Amendment meets the point. It provides that the Minister may, by order, direct that the provisions of Clause 7 shall not apply to the construction of pipe-lines of a specified class lying Wholly within a specified area. It really deals with the point that was raised by my noble friends Lord Colville of Culross and Lord Merrivale in connection with the china clay industry, which has a small but complicated system of pipe-lines and where to make the cross-country application every time it was desired to add 20 yards of line would make a nonsense. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause:
  Exception for emergency works
  (".—(1) In the case of any works for the construction of a pipe-line or the diversion of a length of a pipe-line, being emergency works,—

  (a) the execution thereof may be effected without any authorisation of, or notice to, the Minister; but

  (b) as soon as is reasonably practicable after the works have been executed the person who executed them shall send to the Minister three copies of a map (whereof the scale shall not be less than that of six inches to the mile) on which is delineated the route taken by the line constructed or, as the case may be, the route taken by the portion of the line diverted; and

  (c) where the works were for the construction of a line, section three of this Act shall, with the substitution, for the reference in subsection (1) to the map there described, of a reference to the map referred to in the last foregoing paragraph, have effect for the purpose of authorising the diversion of a
  138
  length of the line as if it had been placed as mentioned in that subsection and, where the works were for the diversion of a length of line, the length shall for the purposes of that section be deemed to have been diverted in pursuance of subsection (1) thereof.

  (2) If a person fails to send copies of a map in accordance with an obligation to which he is subject by virtue of paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection, he shall, in respect of that failure, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think it might be convenient to point out that Amendment No. 13 is a substantive Amendment, but Amendments Nos. 44, 46, 47, 63 and 64 are consequential upon it. The new clause, Amendment No. 13, provides for a carrying out of pipe-line works in cases of emergency. This Amendment is the one which does the job, the rest being as I say, merely consequential. As the Bill stands at the moment, there is no provision for the execution of pipe-line work which may be necessary at short notice as the result of some emergency. For example, it may be necessary to construct a new section to a pipe-line, to replace one that has cracked or burst. This may have to be done very quickly indeed because the flow of products up the pipe-line may cause some expensive damage or mischief to continuous industrial processes. Or it might be that there is a shortage of aviation spirit at some aerodrome or something like that. I do not think there can be much doubt that a provision on these lines is necessary, because otherwise a pipe-line owner might find himself breaking the law in an attempt to do what was only reasonable to avoid serious dislocation of some kind.
  What the clause does is, first, to provide that the emergency works may be executed without any authorisation in the case of cross-country pipe-line or notice for a local one, but that as soon as possible thereafter the Minister shall be sent three maps showing what has happened; and where the works consist of the building of a new line the provisions of Clause 3, which deals with the diversion of pipe-lines, shall apply to it. I think this is a reasonable provision. It is not a complicated one. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 8, page 8, line 16, at end, insert ("but requirements imposed for the purpose specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be so framed as, in the Minister's opinion to secure that compliance therewith will not prejudice the proper and efficient operation of the line for the purpose of the conveyance on behalf of the owner thereof in the quantity required by him of the kind of thing, or things of the class, which it is designed to convey").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 14 goes with Amendment No. 19. Together they make it clear that any requirement which the Minister may impose under either subsection (2) of Clause 8 or subsection (4) of clause 9 for securing common user rights shall in no way prejudice the proper and efficient operation of the line for conveying the products belonging to the pipe-line owner. I think this is simple and reasonable. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Page 8, line 17, leave out from ("subsection") to ("to") in line 18 and insert ("with reference to a pipe-line may authorise the owner thereof").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 15, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22 together are drafting Amendments designed to remedy a defect in the wording of certain sections of Clauses 8 and 9. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Page 8, line 24, at end insert ("construction").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Page 8, line 32, leave out ("on him").
  Page 8, line 33, after ("section") insert ("with reference to the line").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 9, page 9, line 34, at end, insert ("but requirements imposed for the purpose specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be so framed as, in the Minister's opinion, to secure that compliance therewith will not prejudice the proper and efficient operation of the line for the purpose mentioned in subsection (3) of this section").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment goes with Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Page 9, line 35, leave out from ("subsection") to ("to") in line 36 and insert ("with reference to a pipe-line may authorise the owner thereof").
  Page 9, line 43, leave out ("on him"),
  Page 9, line 44, after ("section") insert ("with reference to the line").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 10, page 10, line 25, leave out from ("effectual") to ("and") in line 27.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 is not of itself important. It is what I might describe as a preparatory consequential Amendment to the main substantive Amendment, No. 70. I do not know whether it would be your Lordships' wish that we should deal with this as consequential and that I should explain the matter on Amendment No. 70 when we reach it, because there are a further half-a-dozen Amendments which are consequential on that Amendment. If your Lordships would agree, perhaps we could pass this Amendment now and I can speak to Amendment No. 70 when it is reached. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 11, page 10, line 43, after ("authorised") insert (",subject to any conditions attached thereto under section (Power of Minister to attach conditions to compulsory rights orders),").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a similar kind of Amendment relating to Amendment No. 27, which is the main substantive Amendment, and to a good many consequential Amendments as well. Perhaps I had better speak to the whole matter on this Amendment. This group of Amendments go together, and comprise Nos. 24, 27, 29, 30, 77, 82, 93, 97, 102, 103, 105, 106, 118, 119, 120 and 122. I think they concern just about the most complicated-looking subject that we have had to deal with. These Amendments are designed to replace Clause 13 of the Bill, which applies to provisions of the Fifth Schedule, which is accordingly deleted along with Clause 13. The Fifth Schedule regulates the execution of pipe-line works in railway land by virtue of a compulsory rights order. The reason why that should be deleted is that examination of it, in the light of comments received from the British Transport Commission since the Bill was first published, have revealed that it was not wholly satisfactory.
  The Schedule largely followed what was in the Public Utility (Street Works) Act, 1950, but in order to provide satisfactory safeguards for the railway undertakers' operational land it would have been necessary to make substantial additions to the existing length of the Schedule. A considerable number of additional points would have had to be put in, and it became clear that the provisions that were in the Fifth Schedule, detailed and complicated as they were, were still not sufficiently comprehensive to cover every eventuality that might turn up. Even if they had been added to, and the Bill had been thereby even more complicated, there still would not have been any certainty that every possibility had been covered. The only solution was to remove that Schedule. The new clause which has replaced it will empower the Minister to attach conditions to a compulsory rights order with respect to certain matters which the clause will define in general terms—that is, the manner, the method, or the timing of the carrying out of works authorised by the Order. It means that there will
  142
  no longer be provisions which have to be applied in all oases, regardless of the widely differing circumstances that may apply: whether it is a busy main line or a branch line, and according to whether the pipe-line crosses the railway line or runs alongside it. Instead, the Minister will be able to attach conditions tailor-made to meet each case.
  A secondary, but by no means unimportant, effect of this change will be that it will be possible to apply special conditions in other cases, such as when pipe-lines cross or run alongside canals, or go through dock areas. It will also be possible to lay down conditions as to the exercise of compulsory rights over ordinary agricultural land for such purposes as ensuring that land, drains, ditches, water courses and so on are properly reinstated that rights of access are preserved, water courses and drainage systems safeguarded, and so on, and that the replacement of hedges and fences is carried out. That was the sort of safeguards for which my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney was asking at an earlier stage. I think that, taken in conjunction with the obligation on a pipe-line promoter to restore agricultural land, the new clause will give very good safeguards for the agricultural interests, as well as for the railway interests for which it was intended. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham)
  On Question, Motion agreed to

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 11, page 11, line 30, at end insert ("subsection (1) of").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  "Clause 11, page 12, line 4, at end, insert ("or be taken to confer a right of support for the pipe-line or length of pipe-line placed, by virtue of the order, in the said land").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment, arises out of the discussion

  143
  of the question whether a compulsory rights order confers any rights of support to a pipe-line laid in land. This is, in a sense, rather a legal question. There was lengthy discussion on this paint, and the Minister considered this subject very carefully in the light of what was said. But he was again advised, as he had been all along, that if there was a question to be answered as to whether a compulsory rights order under the clause as it stands conferred a right of support, the courts would be likely to hold that it did not. But it still can be only a matter of opinion that the court would be likely so to hold, because there have been no cases (there could not have been, of course) strictly comparable to those which might arise under the Bull. It is quite possible that, if the Bill were passed in its present form, it might be necessary for there to be litigation to establish conclusively whether or not a compulsory rights order conferred rights of support. I do not think it would be right to leave the matter like that, and it has never been the intention that it should confer rights of support. That is what this Amendment says, my Lords, and that is what it does.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, would the noble Lord explain what the phrase "rights of support" means.
  LORD CHESHAM: If I can put it in layman's language I will try, though I may have to sit down in favour of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. As I understand it, it means that, having acquired the right to put your pipe-line on somebody's land, the owner of the land must not then go and start quarrying gravel and digging material away, and so on, so that your pipe-line collapses. I think that is an oversimplified explanation.
  My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 11 insert the following new clause:
  Power of Minister to attach conditions to compulsory rights orders
  (".—(1) The Minister may, if he grants an application for a compulsory rights order, attach to it such conditions as he thinks fit (other than a condition for securing a matter that may be secured under the provisions of this Act relating to the safety of pipe-lines) with respect to—

  (a) the manner, method or timing of the execution of pipe-line works authorised by the order;

  (b) the execution, and the manner, method or timing of the execution, of works which it appears to him are or will be requisite or desirable prior to or in consequence of the execution of pipe-line works authorised by the order, or in consequence of a failure to comply with any such condition as has effect by virtue of the foregoing paragraph;

  (c) in a case where the order authorises a pipe-line or length thereof to be placed in land of which the owners are statutory undertakers, being operational land, the execution and the manner, method or timing of the execution, of works which it appears to him are or will be requisite or desirable in consequence of the pipe-line's or length's being situated in such land;

  (d) without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing paragraphs, the execution of works referred to in any of those paragraphs by or under the supervision of the owners of land comprised in the order;

  (e) the payment of costs of the execution of any works or carrying out any other requirements to which a condition having effect by virtue of this section relates;

  (f) the settlement of any dispute arising in consequence of any such condition as aforesaid,

  and any conditions attached to a compulsory rights order under this section shall be set out in a Schedule to the order.
  (2) Subject to the next following subsection, the Minister may at any time on the application of an owner, lessee or occupier (except a tenant for a month or any period less than a month) of land comprised in a compulsory rights order, or of the person for whose benefit such an order for the time being enures, or of his own motion, by order vary the first mentioned order—

  (a) where the first-mentioned order has effect without conditions, by attaching thereto a condition with respect to any of the matters referred to in the foregoing subsection;

  (b) where the first-mentioned order has effect subject to conditions, by revoking or varying any of them or by attaching thereto further such conditions as aforesaid.

  (3) It shall be a condition precedent to the making of an order under the last foregoing subsection that, in the case of an order for which an application is made, the applicant, or, in any other case, the Minister, shall have served on every person concerned (other than the applicant in such a case as is first above mentioned) notice, in the prescribed form, stating the effect of the order and specifying the time (not being less than twenty-one days

  145
  from the date of service of the notice) within which and the manner in which objection to the making of the order may be made to the Minister; and where an objection is duly made by a person on whom the notice has been served, and is not withdrawn, the Minister shall not make the order without affording to the objector an opportunity of being heard by him, and if the objector avails himself of that opportunity, the Minister shall afford to the applicant (in the case of an order for which an application is made under the last foregoing subsection) and any other person to whom it appears to the Minister expedient to afford it, an opportunity of being heard on the same occasion.
  (4) Upon the making of an order under subsection (2) of this section, in the case of an order made on an application, the applicant, or, in any other case, the Minister, shall take such steps for notifying the persons concerned as the Minister may direct, or as the case may be, shall think fit.
  (5) If any works are executed in contravention of a condition attached to a compulsory rights order under this section, the person executing them, or, in the event of a failure by a person to comply with a requirement to carry out any works imposed on him by such a condition, that person shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

  (a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment;

  (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both a fine and such imprisonment.

  (6) In this section the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively—
  "operational land" in the application of this section to England and Wales has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and in the application of this section to Scotland has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947;
  "persons concerned" means, in relation to a variation of a compulsory rights order, the person for whose benefit the order for the time being enures, and every owner, lessee and occupier (other than a tenant for a month or a period less than a month) of any land appearing to the Minister to be affected by the variation.
  (7) If any question arises, in relation to this section, whether land of statutory undertakers is operational land as defined by this section, that question shall be determined by the appropriate Minister.
  (8) The power conferred by subsection (2) of this section to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment we have already dealt with when discussing No. 24. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 12, page 12, line 20, after ("in") insert ("consequence of").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting point. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Leave out Clause 13.
  Clause 14, page 16, line 1, leave out from ("(7)") to end of line 2 and insert ("for the words from 'shall be determined' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'shall be referred to the arbitration of a single arbiter appointed by agreement between the parties concerned or, in default of agreement, by the sheriff; and in any such arbitration the arbiter may, and, if so directed by the Court of Session, shall, state a case for the decision of that court on any question of law arising in the arbitration.';")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these Amendments are taken together, and are consequential on No. 27. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 15, page 16, line 39, at end insert ("lateral").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 20, page 19, line 21, leave out ("have") and insert ("has").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 20, page 20, line 13, at end insert—("(4) Subsection (1) of section five of this Act shall have effect where a notice is served under subsection (1) of this section as it has effect where a notice is served under section four of this Act with the substitution, for the reference to the removal of the works required by the notice to be removed, of a reference to the removal of the works or length of line required by the notice to be removed.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Nos. 8 and 9. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 22, page 21, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 14, and insert—
  ("(2) If at any time the Minister is satisfied with respect to a pipe-line or a length of a pipe-line that, in the interests of safety, the unrestricted use of the line or length ought no longer to be permitted, he may by notice served on the owner of the line—

  (a) require that the line shall be so operated that the pressure of its contents, or, as the case may be, the pressure of the contents of that length of it, will at no point exceed such number of pounds per square inch as may be specified in the notice; or

  (b) prohibit the use (either absolutely or for the conveyance of any thing other than a thing of a particular kind specified in the notice or a thing of a class so specified) of the line or, as the case may be, that length of it, until there have been effected thereto such alterations as may be so specified, being alterations as to which the Minister is satisfied that the effecting thereof will suffice to permit of the resumption of the use of the line or length without restriction.")

  Clause 22, page 21, line 17, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("provisions of this section")
  Clause 22, page 21, line 22, leave out ("subsection(1)") and insert ("the foregoing provisions")
  Clause 22, page 21, line 31, at end, insert—
  ("(4) Where, in consequence of the effecting of alterations to a pipe-line or a length of a pipe-line in consequence of the service of a notice under subsection (2) of this section a person, other than the person on whom the notice was served, suffers loss by reason of damage to, or disturbance in the enjoyment of, any land or chattels, he shall be entitled to compensation in respect of that loss from the person on whom the notice was served.")
  LORD CHESHAM: These four Amendments result from an undertaking given by my noble friend, Lord Mills, in your Lordships' House, to put down an Amendment to give the Minister
  148
  power to impose requirements of construction in respect of any pipe-line, whether in the course of construction or already laid. This undertaking, as I recall, was given in response to certain anxieties that were expressed on the subject of safety—certainly I can remember the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, being involved in it. I hope that this Amendment will meet his point.
  Under Clause 19 the Minister may impose requirements in the interests of safety, in respect of works which are being or are about to be executed. But there are no powers, as the noble Earl pointed out, in regard to pipe-lines that are already there. I do not suppose that it will be necessary, in practice, to impose very much in this way, but it may be necessary to impose certain minor requirements, such as the insertion of safety devices or the addition of valves for the purpose of isolating certain sections. These Amendments enlarge the scope of Clause 22 so as to cover the points that your Lordships and the noble Earl, in particular, had in mind. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the Amendment on this point. I remember that we did express a good deal of concern on the safety aspect. I think this is not the point on which the noble Lord, Lord Mills, gave an undertaking to me, that retrospective power to impose safety restrictions was needed. I think that this particular Amendment concerns one of the points which the Minister, either on Third Reading or Report stage, agreed was worth looking at, and on which he promised to consider putting down Amendments in another place.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I thought I was right in what I said about that, but I must admit that I did not double-check it in Hansard. I certainly thought it was the noble Earl who had been concerned about this point.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: I certainly was, yes.
  LORD CHESHAM: Others were, too, but in particular I recollect the noble Earl.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
  Regulations for securing pipe-line safety generally
  (".—(1) Provisions may be made by regulations with respect to any matter or thing with respect to which it appears to the Minister requisite or expedient to make provision for the purpose of securing the proper construction and safe operation of pipe-lines (or any class of pipe-lines) or the proper execution of pipe-line works (or any class of such works).
  (2) Regulations made by virtue of this section may make different provision with respect to different classes of pipe-lines or works and may make provision for any incidental or supplementary matters for which the Minister thinks it expedient for the purposes of the regulations to provide.
  (3) A person who contravenes any provision of regulations made by virtue of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable—

  (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment:

  (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both a fine and such imprisonment.

  (4) Nothing in regulations made by virtue of this section shall be taken as operating to limit the exercise by the Minister (consistently with the regulations) of any power conferred on him by the foregoing provisions of this Act.")
  4.12 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is another slightly "blockbusting" Amendment, because No. 38 is the substantive one with Nos. 71, 74, 76, 80 and 85 tailing along in its wake. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his opening remarks, complained that efforts made by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, opposite, and, as I recall, my noble friend Lord Merrivale as well, had been met with a blank refusal and no reason given. My Lords, I never mind any noble Lord complaining that his Amendment or Amendments have not been accepted, because that is the luck of the game. They cannot be both accepted and rejected, if opposite sides of the House take opposite views of them. Therefore, someone must be disappointed. But I must say that I felt a little disappointed that the noble Lord should have used those words, "blank rejection without reason given," because at the time the Government had certainly taken the view that safety requirements
  150
  were much better imposed by notice than by regulation. It certainly seemed clear that individual, separate treatment of each pipe-line, since we were dealing with a more or less unknown quantity, was a more effective method of making certain that all the necessary precautions were taken. As I recollect it, my noble friend Lord Mills said that more than once, in extremely clear terms.
  Nevertheless, my Lords, the fact that one thought that, and that the Amendment was rejected at the time, does not mean that no attention was paid to the feelings of noble Lords who disagreed with the Government. Such feelings repeated themselves in another place, and between the two it was decided, when the Minister had further examined the matter, that a provision to make regulations should, after all, be written into the Bill, as an additional power to be used at his discretion. So noble Lords opposite, even if they lost the day at the time, must not think that their efforts proved absolutely fruitless, only to be replaced by efforts in another place, because I can tell them that it was a combination of the feeling expressed in both places that helped lead to this decision. My right honourable friend made it clear that, although he saw no prospect of regulations being made in the immediate future, he was quite ready to see included in the Bill a provision which would enable them to be made in due course, as and when that seemed to be both desirable and likely to be effective. What should go into those regulations is a matter to be settled rather in the light of experience yet to be gained; and that is, of course, the reason for doing it in this way. I hope that noble Lords opposite, and especially the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, will now feel a little happier about this point. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I appreciate that our representations have tad some effect, and I express gratification that the opinions of the Government and of noble Lords in all parts of the House now coincide. To the extent that the Minister thinks there is no occasion it present for making regulations I must

  151
  express some disappointment. I can only hope that in the course of time experience will show that the laying down of safety regulations will be for the benefit of all those who wish to construct pipe-lines.
  LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and also to say how delighted I am that my noble friend's right honourable friend has had second thoughts on this matter, and has decided to put down an Amendment which gives him power to make regulations. I am sorry he does not feel that this power will be used at the moment, or in the near future, because I think it is true to say that the petroleum industries and the chemical industries are well aware of the problems involved and could assist my noble friend's right honourable friend very extensively with regard to making these regulations.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
  Prohibition of change of use of pipe-line without previous notice to the Minister
  (".—(1) It shall not, when a pipe-line constructed pursuant to a pipe-line construction authorisation or in accordance with a notice given for the purposes of subsection (1) of section two of this Act is first brought into use, be lawful for it to be used for the conveyance of any thing other than a thing of the particular kind, or things of the particular class, stated in the application for the grant of the authorisation or, as the case may be, the notice to be the kind of thing, or the things of the class, proposed to be conveyed in the line unless, not less than three weeks before the date on which it is so brought into use, notice of intention to use it for conveyance of that other thing when it is so brought into use has been given by the owner of the line to the Minister; nor shall it be lawful, after a pipe-line has first been brought into use, for a change to be made in the thing or class of things conveyed thereby unless, not less than three weeks before the change occurs, notice of the change (specifying in what it consists) has been given as aforesaid.
  (2) In the event of a contravention, in relation to a pipe-line of the foregoing subsection the owner of the line shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment drags with it Nos. 56, 57, 73, 75 and 93. It deals with two matters. First of all, it deals with change of ownership of a pipe-line; and,
  152
  secondly, it deals with change in use of a pipe-line. Under subsection (2) of Clause 35, where there is a change of use of a pipe-line the owner must inform the Minister within three weeks from the date the change takes place. It was thought that there had been criticism to the effect that the Minister ought to be notified before any change in use occurred, so that he could impose fresh safety requirements from that time if necessary. This new clause, with the consequent Amendments I mentioned, meets the criticism. It follows logically on the Amendments to Clause 22—that is No. 34 and so on—which will enable the Minister to prohibit or restrict the use of a pipe-line until alterations have been carried out An the interests of safety. A pipe-line, after all, may be safe when carrying one thing and unsafe when carrying another. So before there is a change the Minister should have this opportunity to consider whether he needs to exercise his powers under Clause 22. It also provides that the same period of notice has to be given to the Minister if, once a pipe-line has come into operation, its use is thereafter to be changed. I think, my Lords, this will meat with your Lordships' approval and views on this matter. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 25, page 23, line 37, leave out ("day") and insert ("date")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 25, page 24, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 and insert—
  ("(5) The last foregoing subsection shall not apply to Scotland, but in Scotland—

  (a) any expenses incurred by the Minister under subsection (2) or (3) of this section, after giving credit for any amount realised by the sale of materials, may be recovered by him from the owner of the building or structure demolished or, if there is more

  153
  than one owner, from the owners thereof in such shares as the sheriff may determine to be just and equitable; and any owner who pays to the Minister the full amount of his claim may recover from any other owner such contribution, if any, as the sheriff may determine to be just and equitable;

  (b) any surplus in the hands of the Minister shall be paid by him to the owner of the building or structure demolished, or, if there is more than one owner, shall be paid as those owners may agree or, in default of agreement, as the sheriff may determine to be just and equitable;

  (c) the sheriff within whose jurisdiction the building or structure demolished is situated shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any proceedings under paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection; and in determining for the purposes of this section the shares in which any expenses shall be paid or contributed by, or any surplus shall be divided between, two or more owners of any building or structure, the sheriff shall have regard to their respective interests in the building or structure, their respective obligations and liabilities in respect of maintenance and repair under any agreement, whether express or implied, and all the other circumstances of the case.")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment goes with No. 107. Clause 25 makes provision as to the time of operation and effect of a demolition order made by the Minister to require the removal of a building or structure of some kind erected without consent within 10 feet of a pipe-line. He has power in Clause 25 to recover expenses incurred by him or to dispose of any surplus remaining in his hands as the result of such an order. He has that power only in England and Wales: the Bill as drafted does not cover Scotland in this respect The purpose of this Amendment, together with Amendment No. 107, is that the Bill should also cover Scotland. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 29, page 26, line 21, leave out ("are executed")
  Clause 29, page 26, line 22, after ("pipeline") insert ("have been executed (whether before or after the coming into operation of this section)")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Clause 29 provides for compensation to be
  154
  paid to anyone whose interest in land has depreciated as a result of the restrictions imposed by Clauses 24 and 28 on the use of land within 10 feet of a pipeline. The effect of these two Amendments is to make it quite clear that this clause shall have effect in relation to pipe-line works which have been carried out either before or after the coming into operation of the clause. There are a considerable number of pipe-lines which have been laid by voluntary agreement and which will be brought within the scope of the Bill; and if, by doing so, the landowner's interest were to be depreciated, compensation ought to be payable in exactly the same way as in the case of pipe-lines constructed after the Bill is passed. That is what the Amendments do. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 32, page 27, line 30, leave out ("and") and insert ("(2)")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No.13. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 32, page 27, line 31, after first ("of") insert ("subsection (1) of")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is drafting. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 32, page 27, line 37, at end insert—
  ("(3) A person who executes works for the construction of a pipe-line or the diversion of a length of a pipe-line, being emergency works, shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable after the works have been executed,

  155
  deposit with each local authority within whose area lies any part of the route taken by the line constructed or, as the case may be, portion of line diverted a copy (on the same scale) of so much of the map which by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section (Exception for emergency works) of this Act, he is under obligation to send to the Minister as shows the part of that route that lies within that area.")
  Clause 32, page 27, Line 39, leave out ("the foregoing subsection") and insert ("any of the foregoing subsections")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, both these Amendments are consequential on No. 13. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 33, page 28, line 20, leave out from ("shall") to ("specifying") in line 21 and insert (",within two weeks after the happening of the event, give to the Minister notice thereof")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Clause 33 lists certain events—the cessation of use, abandonment or resumption of use of a pipe-line—when notice has to be given to the Minister; and again it follows discussions with the Opposition in another place. They argued that danger could arise if old piping which had been abandoned was brought back into use without rigorous inspection, and asked the Minister to consider making provision for it. I do not think it is really very likely that a pipe-line owner is going to bring back an old and abandoned pipe-line into use without inspecting it very carefully, including attention to all the safety considerations, because it would clearly be as much in his own interest as anybody else's to make such an inspection. I think the same would apply to a disused pipe-line, though it is possible in this case that somebody might cease using one for three years or more, having every intention of using it again later, and in the meantime keep it in good order. I believe the risks of danger are fairly remote; but, all the same, I think that attention has been drawn to a real point in that Clause 33 as drafted does not specify any period within which notice of the events with which it deals is to be given. The present Amendment
  156
  remedies this defect by requiring it to be given within two weeks. I think it is perfectly sensible and reasonable. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 34, page 28, line 30, leave out from ("shall") to ("to") and insert ("in the case of every pipe-line, be the duty of the owner thereof")
  Clause 34, page 28, line 33, after ("given") insert ("(a)")
  Clause 34, page 28, line 36, at beginning insert ("(b)")
  Clause 34, page 28, line 39, after ("water") insert ("or flooding")
  Clause 34, page 28, line 39, leave out ("and") and insert ("(c)")
  Clause 34, page 28, line 45, at end insert ("and
  (d) to any other authority, board or undertakers whom the Minister, by notice served on the owner of the line, requires him to treat, for the purposes of this section, as relevant in relation to the line, being an authority or board, or undertakers, in the case of whom it is stated in the notice that the Minister is satisfied that they will or may have, in consequence of the happening of the event, to take in the public interest steps for such purpose as may be specified in the notice")
  Page 29, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 and insert—

  ("(b) in the case of any river board, river purification authority, statutory water undertakers or local water authority, to enable them efficiently to take, in consequence of the happening of the event, steps to prevent or combat pollution of water or flooding;

  (c) in the case of a sewerage authority, to enable them efficiently to take, in consequence of the happening of the event, steps for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c) of that subsection;

  (d) in the case of any authority, board or undertakers whom the owner is, by a notice served under paragraph (d) of that subsection, required to treat, for the purposes of this section, as relevant in relation to the line, to enable them efficiently to take, in consequence of the happening of the event, steps for the purpose specified in the notice.")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these Amendments together are to enable the Minister to serve a notice on the pipeline owner requiring him to give the same immediate notification, and to provide similar information when requested, in respect of any authority,

  157
  board or undertaking who the Minister is satisfied may have to take the kind of urgent preventive action, as he would have to give to certain bodies specified in the Bill. It may be that in certain circumstances there will be other bodies who may be required to take some action in the event of a burst or a fire, or anything like that. It occurs to me immediately that underground railways could be in some danger from seepage from a pipe-line into tunnels. It might cause explosion or fire if they were not ready to take appropriate action if it occurred. There might be similar considerations with regard to the apparatus of gas boards or harbour authorities or a number of people who need not normally, in many cases, be brought in on this. This batch of Amendments gives the necessary power for the Minister to direct that they should be fully informed, as are the others. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, we certainly welcome these provisions, but I would also welcome the fact that the Parliamentary draftsman seems to have been convinced of the advantages of breaking up his paragraph into little subparagraphs—(a), (b), (c) and (d). I would put the thought to the Minister that many Acts of Parliament might be easier for the layman to read if they were similarly broken up.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I will certainly convey that to the proper quarters. In the meantime, I am sure the Parliamentary draftsman will be delighted with the noble Earl's words.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 35, page 30, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
  Clause 35, page 30, line 13, leave out ("either of the foregoing subsections") and insert ("the foregoing subsection")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential on No. 39. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 36, page 30, line 18, after ("pipeline") insert ("above or")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is drafting. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 37, page 30, line 42, leave out ("wire or cable") and insert ("apparatus")
  Clause 37, page 30, line 44, at end, insert ("or the proper functioning of such apparatus")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these go together and are small Amendments to ensure that Clause 37, which is intended to secure that any electrical apparatus in connection with a pipeline does not interfere with Post Office lines or electric lines for controlling railway apparatus, includes railway "track circuits", which are used for signalling; and where the current runs up the line itself. They do not appear to be covered at present but now they will be. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 38, page 31, leave out lines 15 to 40 and insert—
  ("5. A pipe-line, that is to say, a pipe or system of pipes for the conveyance of any thing, not being—

  (a) a drain or sewer;

  (b) a pipe or system of pipes vested in an area board established by the Gas Act, 1948, or in a board established by the Electricity Act, 1947, or in the Central Electricity Generating Board;

  (c) a pipe or system of pipes forming part of the equipment of, and wholly situate within, a factory or petroleum storage depot or premises comprised in a mine, quarry or mineral field:

  159
  and exclusive of so much of a pipe or system of pipes forming part of the equipment of, and situate partly within and partly outside. a factory or petroleum storage depot or premises comprised in a mine, quarry or mineral field as is situate within, as the case may be, the factory or petroleum storage depot or those premises.

  In this paragraph—

  (i) 'factory' has the same meaning as in the Factories Act, 1961;

  (ii) 'mine' and 'quarry' have the same meanings as in the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954;

  (iii) 'mineral field' means an area comprising an excavation being a well or borehole or a well and bore-hole combined, or a system of such excavations, used for the purpose of pumping or raising brine or oil, and so much of the surface (including buildings, structures and works thereon) surrounding or adjacent to the excavation or system as is occupied, together with the excavation or system, for the purpose of the working of the excavation or system

  (iv) 'petroleum storage depot' means premises used primarily for the storage of petroleum or petroleum products (including chemicals derived from petroleum) or of materials used in the manufacture of petroleum products (including chemicals derived from petroleum)".)

  4.30 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment looks rather more complicated than it is. On the Third Reading my noble friend Lord Merrivale was given an undertaking, or at least an assurance, that an Amendment would be introduced, the effect of which would be to exempt from rating a pipe or system of pipes on premises occupied and used for the pumping or raising of brine. This was a technicality, because the scene of brine pumping operations fell into the category of neither a mine nor a quarry. Those are specifically excepted by virtue of Clause 38 of the Bill, and the brine pumping operations should be similarly excepted, which the Amendment does. It was noticed in considering the preparation of the Amendment that the same thing applied to petroleum storage depôts, and therefore opportunity has been taken to deal with them at the same time within the same Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 40, page 33, line 26, at end, insert (",and in so doing shall have particular regard to the desirability of ensuring that things constructed in the course of the execution of the proposed works are kept below ground so far as that is practicable.").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment stems from further consideration of the possibility of putting something down designed to ensure that pipe-lines should, wherever practicable and desirable, be placed underground. Your Lordships will recall that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross moved an Amendment in this sense in Committee, and I had to explain to him at the time that, while we were in sympathy with what he wanted, his Amendment went too far—to the point of being unreasonable and providing that they must be underground even when they did not need to be. This Amendment does not go quite so far, and the effect will be to place on the Minister and the pipe-line developer the duty of having regard to the need to bury pipe-lines in the interest of amenity without requiring the lines to be buried in all cases where it might serve no useful purpose. Therefore, I think this is quite a reasonable compromise which will be acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 43, page 34, line 21, leave out from ("with") to ("deposits") in line 22 and insert ("paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section (Exception for emergency works) of this Act, subsection (1), (2) or (3) of section thirty-two thereof or subsection (2) of section thirty-four thereof sends ").
  Clause 43, page 34, line 25, after ("recklessly") insert ("sends").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 13. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 44, page 34, line 39, leave out ("an") and insert ("a public").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a matter of drafting. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 44, page 34, line 39, leave out from ("inquiry") to ("as") in line 40 and insert ("caused by the Minister to be held in England or Wales under any provision of this Act (except section thirty-one thereof)").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is really consequential on Amendment No. 12, which has been agreed with, and Amendment No. 94, which we have yet formally to tackle. Both those Amendments give the Minister power to hold a public inquiry before making the orders to which those Amendments relate. As a result, the Amendment now proposed makes purely consequential amendments to subsection (1) of Clause 44, which relates to inquiries and hearings under the Bill. It is necessary because existing references to inquiries have to be revised. It is only a matter of revising them. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 44, page 35, line 3, at end insert ("and subsections (4) and (5) of the said section two hundred and ninety shall, with the like modifications, apply in relation to any hearing caused by the Minister to take place in England or Wales in pursuance of any provision of this Act (otherwise than by way of public inquiry or under the said section thirty-one) as if the hearing were a public inquiry caused by the Minister to be held as aforesaid").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Clause 44, subsection (1), lays down that the Minister can recover or award costs when any public inquiry is held under the Bill. The Amendment will allow the Minister to recover or award costs at hearings in the same way as he can at public inquiries. I beg to move that
  162
  this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Page 35, line 6, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 8 and insert ("apply to a public inquiry caused by the Minister to be held in Scotland under any provision of this Act (except section thirty-one thereof) as they apply to a public inquiry held under the said section three hundred and fifty-five, subject to the following modification, namely, that subsection (8) shall have effect as if references therein to the payment of expenses by a local authority not being a party to the inquiry had been omitted and subsections (8) and (9) of the said section three hundred and fifty-five shall, with (in the case of subsection (8)) the like modification, apply in relation to any hearing caused by the Minister to take place in Scotland in pursuance of any provision of this Act (otherwise than by way of public inquiry or under the said section thirty-one) as if the hearing were a public inquiry caused by the Minister to be held as aforesaid.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment does two things. It makes partly consequential amendments arising from Amendment No. 12 again, and secondly it introduces a small and rather technical modification to the application of Section 355 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, to inquiries held under the Bill in order to bring the Scottish application into line with that in England and Wales. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 46 insert the following new Clause—
  Provisions as to requirements and prohibitions imposed under this Act
  ("Any power, exercisable by notice, conferred by this Act on the Minister to impose a requirement or prohibition shall be construed as including a power, exercisable in the like manner, to vary or revoke the requirement or prohibition.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the purpose of this new clause is to make it clear, as the Opposition wanted it made clear, that where the Minister has powers under the Bill to impose requirements or

  163
  prohibitions these powers shall be construed as giving him powers to vary or revoke any requirement or prohibition which he has already made. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
  Provisions as to ecclesiastical property
  (".—(1) Where under this Act a document is required to be served on an owner of land, and the land is ecclesiastical property, a copy of the document shall be served on the Church Commissioners, and where under this Act the seeking of consultation with an owner of land is requisite, and the land is ecclesiastical property, the seeking of consultation with the Church Commissioners shall be requisite also.
  (2) Where the fee simple in any ecclesiastical property is in abeyance it shall be treated for the purposes of an application for a compulsory purchase or rights order in which the property is proposed to be comprised, and of a compulsory purchase of the property in pursuance of a compulsory purchase order, as being vested in the Church Commissioners, and (in the case of a compulsory purchase) any notice to treat shall be served accordingly.
  (3) Any compensation falling to be paid under the foregoing provisions of this Act in respect of damage to land that is ecclesiastical property shall to the extent to which it is payable to the owner of the fee simple in the land be paid (where the fee simple is vested in any person other than the Church Commissioners) to them, instead of to that person, and any compensation falling to be paid under those provisions in respect of the depreciation of the fee simple in land that is ecclesiastical property shall (where the fee simple is vested in a person other than the Church Commissioners) be paid to them instead of to the person in whom the fee simple is vested.
  (4) Any sums agreed upon or awarded for the purchase, in pursuance of a compulsory purchase order, of the fee simple in land that is ecclesiastical property, or to be paid by way of compensation for damage sustained by reason of severance or injury affecting such land (being severance or injury arising from the purchase of land in pursuance of such an order), shall, instead of being paid as provided by the Lands Clauses Acts, be paid to the Church Commissioners.
  (5) Any sums paid under either of the two last foregoing subsections to the Church Commissioners with reference to any land shall, if the land is not consecrated, be applied by them for the purposes for which the proceeds of a sale by agreement of the fee simple in the land would be applicable under any enactment or Measure authorising such a sale or disposing
  164
  of the proceeds of such a sale, and if the land is consecrated, be applied by them in such manner as they may determine.
  (6) In this section the expression "ecclesiastical property" means land belonging to an ecclesiastical benefice of the Church of England, or being or forming part of a church subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop of any diocese of the Church of England or the site of a church so subject, or being or forming part of a burial ground so subject.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I mentioned this matter earlier, but not at length. This new clause and the consequential Amendments that go with it are designed to correct certain defects in the Bill in regard to the service of documents relating to ecclesiastical property. I think I should tell your Lordships that they were suggested by the Church's Main Committee and have been prepared in consultation with the official solicitor to the Church Commissioners. The trouble is that cases could occur, and I believe in fact one has already occurred, where it is desired to lay a pipe-line over land belonging to the incumbent of a benefice of the Church of England. If the benefice happens to be vacant, the fee simple of the land is in abeyance and there is no-one with whom you can deal, either to grant a voluntary easement or to deal with compulsory purchase. Therefore, nothing can be done until a new incumbent takes over, and provision must therefore be made in the Bill for circumstances such as these. These Amendments do it by placing the Church Commissioners in a position to act. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 48, page 36, line 21, after ("regulations") insert ("for any purpose for which provision is by this Act authorised to be made by regulations and").
  LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 38. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 50, insert the following new clause—
  Access to pipe-lines by customs officers
  (".—(1) Where the thing conveyed by a pipe-line is chargeable with a duty of customs or excise which has not been paid, a person commissioned by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may, in order to get to the line for the purpose of exercising in relation to that thing any power conferred by or under the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, or to get from the line after an exercise of any such power, enter any land adjacent to the line.
  (2) Section ten (obstruction of officers, etc.) of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, shall have effect as if the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) thereof to an enactment relating to an assigned matter included a reference to this section.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this clause gives customs officers the same right as is given to Ministry of Power inspectors by Clause 39: that is, to cross adjacent land in order to obtain access to a pipe-line where that line is being used to convey dutiable goods in bond. Oil, or hydrocarbon oils, at any rate, are the most likely commodities to be moved in this way. It will often be moved in bulk before duty has been paid, and perhaps other dutiable liquids will be put through as well in due time. If there is a burst or leak or perhaps even a suspected illegal abstraction of the contents, the customs need to have access to the pipe-line for the purposes of investigation or supervision. As things stand, they have the right of access to the pipe-line itself, but not the right of transit over other land to get to it. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 52, page 37, line 41, after ("sixteen") insert ("subsection (1) of section (Regulations for securing pipe-line safety generally) section (Prohibition of change of use of pipe-line without previous notice to the Minister)").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 39. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Page 38, line 4, after ("In") insert ("subsection (1) of section (Regulations for securing pipe-line safety generally) and in")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 38. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 53, page 38, lime 24, leave out ("sections twenty-two, twenty-three") and insert ("section twenty-two, subsection (1) of section (Regulations for securing pipe-line safety generally) sections twenty-three and section (Prohibition of change of use of pipeline without previous notice to the Minister)").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 39. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Page 38, line 31, after ("In") insert ("subsection (I) of section (Regulations for securing pipe-line safety generally) and in").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 38. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 54, page 38, line 35, after ("thirty-seven") insert ("sections (Exception for emergency works), (Power of Minister to attach conditions to compulsory rights order). (Regulations for securing pipe-line safety generally) and (Prohibition of change of use of pipe-line without previous notice to the minister)")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 27. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Page 38, line 38, leave out ("or").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is the first of twelve Amendments to Clause 54 which have the effect of excluding from the application of the Bill pipe-lines wholly within certain petroleum depôts. This definition, by virtue of Amendment No. 92, will cover premises used wholly or mainly for the storage of petroleum spirit and includes petrol filling stations. Petroleum spirit has the same meaning as it has in the Petroleum (Consolidated) Act, 1928, and broadly speaking, covers aviation and motor spirit but not the heavier fractions of petroleum, such as diesel oil or fuel oil. The primary need for these Amendments is to exclude from the Bill small pipe-lines like those between the tank and pump at petrol filling stations, which otherwise, strictly speaking, would fall within the definition of a local pipe-line. Of course, it was never intended that such lines should be covered by the Bill, but since premises in which they are situated are not factories within the definition of the Factories Act, and therefore they are not excluded by Clause 54, we have to take steps for their specific exclusion. The twelve Amendments do this by making the necessary revisions to Clause 54. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Page 38, line 40, after ("quarry") insert ("or to a pipe-line forming part of the equipment of, and situate wholly within, a petroleum depot").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Page 38, line 40, after second ("in") insert ("subsection (1) of section (Regulations for securing pipeline safety generally) of this Act and in").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 38. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Page 38, line 42, leave out ("or quarry") and insert ("quarry or petroleum depot").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 78. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Page 39, line 1, after ("thirty-seven") insert ("and sections (Exception for emergency works), (Power of Minister to attach conditions to compulsory rights orders), (Regulations for securing pipe-line safety generally) and (Prohibition of change of use of pipe-line without previous notice to the Minister) of this Act").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 27. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Page 39, line 5, leave out ("or")
  Page 39, line 8, after ("premises") insert ("or to so much of a pipe-line forming part of the equipment of, and situate partly within and partly outside, a petroleum depot, as is situate within the depot").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, both these Amendments are consequential

  169
  on No. 78. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Page 39, line 8, after ("in") insert ("sub-section (1) of section (Regulations for securing pipe-line safety generally) of this Act and in").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 38. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Page 39, line 10, leave out ("or quarry") and insert ("quarry or petroleum depot")
  Page 39, line 13, leave out ("or the said premises") and insert ("the said premises or the depot")
  Page 39, line 18, leave out second ("or")
  Page 39, line 19, at end insert ("or the petroleum depot of whose equipment it forms or will form part")
  Page 39, line 20, after ("section") insert ("(a)")
  Page 39, line 21, leave out first ("and") and insert ("(b)")
  Page 39, line 22, at end, insert—
  ("(c) 'petroleum depot' means premises used or appropriated for use wholly or mainly for the storage of petroleum spirit and includes a petroleum filling station, and 'petroleum filling station' and 'petroleum spirit' have the meanings assigned to these expressions respectively by section twenty-three of the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential on No. 78. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 55, page 39, line 23, after ("thirty-seven") insert ("sections (Exception for emergency works), (Power of Minister to attach conditions to compulsory rights orders), (Regulations for securing pipe-line safety generally)
  170
  and (Prohibition of change of use of pipe-line without previous notice to the Minister)").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Nos. 24, 27 and 39. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
  Power of Minister to exclude application of sections 1 and 2 in relation to certain pipelines in particular localities.
  (".The Minister, on application in that behalf being made to him, and after causing if he thinks fit a public inquiry to be held, may by order (made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament) direct that sections one and two of this Act shall not apply to works executed for the construction of a pipe-line designed for the conveyance of a thing of a particular kind specified in the order or things of a class so specified, being a pipe-line wholly situate within such area as may be specified in or described by the order.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is complementary to No. 12, which your Lordships have already accepted. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 58, page 40, line 16, at end insert ("or

  (d) a pipe or system of pipes wholly situate within the boundaries of an agricultural unit and designed for use for purposes of agriculture; or

  (e) a pipe or system of pipes wholly situate in premises used for the purposes of education or research; or

  (f) a pneumatic dispatch-tube").

  Clause 59, page 40, line 38, at end, insert—
  ("'agriculture' includes dairy farming, the production of any consumable produce which is grown for sale or for consumption or other use for the purposes of a trade or business or of any other undertaking (whether carried on for profit or not), and the use of land as grazing, meadow or pasture land or orchard or osier land or woodland or for market gardens or nursery grounds, and 'agricultural' shall be construed accordingly;

  171
  'agricultural unit' means land which is occupied as a unit for agricultural purposes.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these two Amendments are designed to meet the purpose which my noble friend Lord Merrivale had in mind when he moved an Amendment at an earlier stage seeking to exclude from the Bill pipe-lines used for agricultural or horticultural purposes or for scientific research or experiment. In addition, it seems wise to exclude from the Bill pneumatic dispatch tubes which are used in some commercial buildings for the delivery of change and messages from one building to another. The Post Office use these on a larger scale for distances up to a mile under the street. There are a number of pipeline system in use on farms or horticultural establishments which, if not excluded, might constitute local pipelines. In the normal way, pipes for irrigation, heating and water are excluded by Clause 53, but pipes may be used for the distribution in liquid form of fertilisers and chemical sprays and it is clearly not intended to bring these within the scope of the Bill. The same applies to pipe-lines entirely within educational or research establishments. I think that this meets my noble friend's point. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Page 40, line 38, at end, insert—
  ("' appropriate Minister means,—

  (a) in relation to any railway, light railway, tramway, road transport, water transport, canal, inland navigation, dock, har-hour, pier or lighthouse undertaking, the Minister of Transport,

  (b)) in relation to any undertaking for the supply of electricity, gas or hydraulic power (other than the undertakings of the boards established by the Electricity (Scotland) Acts, 1943 to 1957), the Minister, and in relation to the undertakings of the said boards, the Secretary of State;

  (c) in relation to any undertaking for the supply of water in England or Wales, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and in relation to any such undertaking in Scotland, the Secretary of State.")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 27. I beg to move that this House doth agree
  172
  with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Page 41, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 11.
  LORD CHESHAM:: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 70. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Page 41, line 23, after ("land") insert ("or a street").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Page 42, line 35, leave out from ("railway") to end of line 38.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment also is drafting. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Page 42, line 40, at end insert—
  ("statutory undertakers" means any person authorised by any Act (whether public general or local) or by any order or scheme made under or confirmed by an Act to construct, work or carry on a railway, light railway, tramway, road transport, water transport, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, pier or lighthouse undertaking or any undertaking for the supply of electricity, gas, hydraulic power or water;").
  Page 43, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 4.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these two Amendments are consequential on

  173
  No. 101. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Page 43, line 6, at end, insert ("but where, in a system of pipes, a number of adjacent parallel lengths of pipe serve the same purpose as would be served by a single pipe of a diameter greater than that of any of those lengths, that number shall be taken to constitute a single pipe.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to revise the definition of "a length of pipe-line" contained in subsection (2) of Clause 59. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 60, page 43, line 26, after first ("order") insert ("varying or")
  Clause 60, page 43, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 36.
  4.50 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential on No. 27. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 60, page 44, line 3, leave out from ("under") to ("which") and insert ("subsection (5) of section twenty-five, or subsection (2) of section twenty-six, of this Act").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 107 is consequential on No. 41. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  First Schedule, page 46, line 7, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("twenty-eight").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 108 goes with Nos. 112 and 113. They are designed to increase from 21 to 28 days the period within which objections may be made to the Minister in the case either of a pipe-line project which has been published in accordance with the First Schedule or in respect of an application for compulsory powers under the section. The period of 21 days was based on the Acquisition of Land Authorisation Procedure Act, 1946. On the other hand, in the case of appeals to the Minister of Housing and Local Government under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, the period allowed is 28 days. An increase of a week in the period for lodging objections seems to be quite reasonable; hence the Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  First Schedule, page 47, line 5, at end, insert—
  ("5. Where the Minister refuses an application for the grant of a pipe-line construction authorisation, he shall give to the applicant a written statement of his reasons for so doing.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment No. 109 goes with No. 115 and they are to meet a point where it was suggested that the Minister, in cases where he refused an application for pipeline construction authorisation, should give his reasons in writing to the applicant. I think it can be considered that it would be normal for the Minister to give reasons for turning down an application, and, therefore, the Amendments are designed to provide that the giving of reasons shall be done. I understand that that is in accordance with the Lord Chancellor's rules for Town and Country Planning inquiries, and it seems perfectly reasonable. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  First Schedule, page 47, line 8, leave out ("were annexed to") and insert ("accompanied")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 110 is drafting. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Second Schedule, page 48, line 25, leave out ("sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph") and insert ("subsection (1) of section (Provisions as to ecclesiastical property) of this Act")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 1ll is consequential on No. 70. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Second Schedule, page 48, line 37, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("twenty-eight")
  Second Schedule, page 48, line 47, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("twenty-eight")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 are consequential on No. 108. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Second Schedule, page 49, line 1, leave out from the beginning to end of line 3.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 114 is consequential on No. 70. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Second Schedule, page 49, line 42, at end, insert—
  ("5. Where the Minister refuses to make a compulsory purchase order, he shall give to the applicant therefor a written statement of his reasons for so doing.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 115 is consequential on No. 109. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Second Schedule, page 50, line 13, leave out from ("order") to end of line 14.
  Second Schedule, page 50, line 21, leave out ("head (a) of sub-paragraph (1)") and insert ("sub-paragraph (a)")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments 116 and 117 are consequential on Amendment No. 70. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Second Schedule, page 50, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 51.
  Second Schedule, Page 52, line 24, leave out from ("In") to ("there") in line 25 and insert ("paragraph 7, for the words from 'the order shall not be made' to the end of the paragraph")
  Second Schedule, Page 52, line 28, leave out from ("aforesaid") to end of line 32 and insert ("unless he is also satisfied—

  (a) that the nature and situation of the land are such that the exercise thereover of that right will not cause serious detriment to the carrying on of the undertaking; or

  (b) that such conditions will be attached to the order under section (power of Minister to attach conditions to compulsory rights orders) of this Act as will ensure that the exercise over the land of that right will not cause such serious detriment as aforesaid, and certifies accordingly")

  LORD CHESHAM: Amendments Nos. 118, 119 and 120 are consequential on

  177
  No. 27. I beg to move Chat this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Third Schedule, page 53, line 38, leave out paragraph 4.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 121 is consequential on No. 70. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Fifth Schedule: leave out the Fifth Schedule.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 122 is consequential on No. 27. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Sixth Schedule, page 60, line 26, leave out ("hereunder") and insert ("hereafter").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 123 is drafting. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Sixth Schedule, page 60, line 36, leave out ("consider") and insert ("considers").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 124 is drafting. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
4.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  [The references are to Bill [54], as first printed for the House of Commons, and to Bill (23), as amended on Report in the Lords.]
  Clause 2, page 2, line 24, after second ("was") insert ("taken or")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 is drafting. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 2, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
  ("(6) Where, after the coming into operation of this subsection, a constable requests any person to provide a specimen of breath—

  (a) subsection (4) of this section shall apply in relation to the specimen as it applies in relation to a specimen of urine; and

  (b) the constable shall offer to supply to that person, in a suitable container, another specimen of breath which he may consent to provide.")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment adds a new subsection to Clause 2. The effect of it will be that, after it is enforced, a police officer who asks any person to provide a specimen of breath must offer to supply another specimen of that breath in a suitable container. If it is not so supplied, as in the case of blood or urine, evidence of the proportion of alcohol in it will not be admissible. In the case of blood and urine, specimens have to be offered in suitable containers to the accused, and so it will be with breath as and when tests come along. This provision will not be brought into force, of course, until there are proper, adequate and trustworthy methods of both testing and keeping specimens of breath in suitable containers,

  179
  but it seems wise to take powers now for when that day comes. I beg to move that this House doth agree with he Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
  Application of s. 2 to corresponding naval, military of air-force offences
  ("(1) Section two of this Act shall apply in relation to proceedings for a corresponding service offence as it applies in relation to proceedings for an offence under section six of the principal Act, but shall, as to applying, have effect—

  (a) as if references to the court included references to any authority before whom the proceedings take place;

  (b) as if references to a constable included references to any provost officer or any officer or person legally exercising authority under or on behalf of a provost officer;

  (c) as if the reference to the Secretary of State included a reference to the Admiralty and

  (d) as if subsection (3) were omitted.

  (2) In this section—
  "corresponding service offence" means an offence against section seventy of the Army Act, 1955, or section seventy of the Air Force Act, 1955, or under section forty-two of the Naval Discipline Act, 1957, committed by an act which is punishable under section six of the principal Act or would be so punishable if committed in England;
  "provost officer" means any person who is a provost officer within the meaning of either of the said Acts of 1955 or of the said Act of 1957.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, under Section 70 of the Army Act a person subject to military law who commits an offence against the ordinary criminal law in the United Kingdom also commits an offence against Section 70 of that Act and can be dealt with by court-martial or, if appropriate, summarily. It is necessary to bring that into line with the ordinary law in respect of Clause 2, and the effect of this new clause is to provide for the application of Clause 2 to proceedings under Naval, Military and Air Force law, in which the corresponding civil offence is to drive contrary to Section 6 of the 1960 Act, which is driving or being in charge of a vehicle when under the influence of drink or
  180
  drugs. In practice, it means that the kind of evidence which may be given in civil courts in the United Kingdom regarding tests to determine unfitness to drive may also be given in Service proceedings. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is it the Government's intention, when we have a new Army or Naval Discipline Act, to incorporate this proposal, or will they rest content with it in this particular Bill?
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without notice; I just do not know. But I will certainly see if I can find out anything and will write to the noble Lord.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
  Notification of disease or disability
  ("(1) If, in any proceedings for an offence committed in respect of a motor vehicle, it appears to the court that the accused may be suffering from any disease or physical disability which would be likely to cause the driving by him of a motor vehicle to be a source of danger to the public, the court shall notify the licensing authority in whose area the accused resides and, if he holds a licence, also the authority, if known to the court, by whom it was granted.
  (2) In this section "licence" means a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part II of the principal Act.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, subsection (1) of this new clause provides that if information comes to the notice of a court which suggests that the accused person may be suffering from some disease or physical disability which is likely to make his driving dangerous, the court must notify the licensing authority which granted the licence, and also the licensing authority in whose area the accused person lives. In the course of the Report stage of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, moved an Amendment which would have required courts to inform the licensing authority of any evidence that the person was suffering in that way, and I accepted the principle behind his

  181
  Amendment and undertook to frame it in rather more suitable drafting. This Amendment is the result.
  The principle he suggested, of the court communicating with licensing authorities has been followed, but the present clause goes rather wider than the noble Lord suggested, in that it covers the case where actual evidence is not given—for example, when there is a plea of guilty and the facts of the case are stated by Whoever is conducting the prosecution. Of course, in many cases the licensing authorities are already informed by the police of disabilities which come to their notice, but the present clause puts that non-statutory arrangement on a statutory basis with the onus on the court to do it. I think it is an entirely approvable arrangement and it meets the point which the noble Lord made and in which your Lordships were interested. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we, of course, welcome this Amendment, but I have one question that I should like to put to the noble Lord. He referred to proceedings in which a person might have pleaded guilty and the magistrates, or the court, might feel that the defendant had some physical disability or disease likely to impair his ability to drive. When the court make the report to the licensing authority are we to assume that it will inform the individual that such a report is being made? In such a case there may not be any evidence produced, and therefore, if the court is making this report to the licensing authority, I should have thought it right that the person should be so informed. Then, if he disagreed he would at least have the opportunity of obtaining a medical examination to prove to the contrary. I wonder whether the noble Lord could say whether a person on whom a report is made will be informed of the fact, and perhaps of the character of that report.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, again I do not think I can say offhand. But I should have thought that if there were a plea of guilty the accused would be aware of the circumstances affecting what he had done; and if part of the cause of the offence to which he pleaded
  182
  guilty included the fact that he was suffering from some illness or disability it would form part of his plea of guilty, Which he would not make if it were not true. Therefore, though the fact of the illness would not actually be offered in evidence, it might well be something of which the court ought to appraise the licensing authority. I should not have thought there was any possible injustice to the accused if that fact were being considered in support of a case to which he was pleading guilty.
  LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should have thought it followed, as night follows day, that it was vitally important, as a matter of sheer courtesy if nothing else, that if the court are to inform the licensing authority that they think Mr. "A" is suffering from some physical disability they should also inform Mr. "A" that they propose to inform his licensing authority to that effect. I should have thought that was absolutely essential.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I should have thought again—I think that the noble Lord has a reasonable point—that probably they will. I cannot say for sure. But I should have thought that if it is being stated in court that a man has had an accident, or done whatever he has done, and it is said that this was partly caused because he As blind in one eye, or has epilepsy, or something like that, and the man pleads guilty, he is not putting himself in a position where he is trying to defend himself from that disability.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, surely that is only when the person who has pleaded guilty has raised his disability as a mitigating circumstance, in order that it can be taken into account when a punishment has to be inflicted. The new clause here says:
  " Where it appears to the court that the accused may be suffering…";
  In other words, it may be the opinion of the court that this offence occurred because of a disability. According to this clause, they appear to be able to make such a report without stating so, when they award a punishment or acquit the individual. But it would still appear that, whatever they did, they could make a report that the man suffered from a disability. I think we must press upon

  183
  the Government that where a court does make a report of this character to a licensing authority the person involved should be informed that such a report is being made so that he can take whatever actions he may wish to take.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is making rather heavy weather of this, if I may say so. As I see it (I do not claim to be an expert) the licensing authority cannot do anything without notifying the person. It is only a question of the stage at which he is notified. No action can be taken without notifying him. I should have thought this was just a piece of operating machinery which should work very well.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in spite of the noble and learned Viscount's remarks, I still think it is a duty of the court, if it is making such a report, to inform the person involved.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is overlooking the fact that the parson involved is before the count.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMENS AMENDMENT
  Clause 3, page 3, line 9, leave out ("for special reasons") and insert ("is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that there are grounds for mitigating the normal consequences of the conviction and").
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, it might be convenient if we take Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 35 and 59 together. This is of slightly more sub-stance than the Amendments which have just been considered, and I should like to explain quite shortly what has been happening. The series of Amendments, of which I am now moving the first, relates to the Whole question of special reasons, which were debated quite fully by the House on the two previous occasions when the Bill came before the House, I think both on Report and Committee stage. I successfully persuaded the House that it would be best to leave special reasons, as they then were, and to leave the courts to interpret the meaning of the phrase according to their own learning, which had been developed for some time after two rather well-known judgments of Lord Goddard, when he
  184
  was Lord Chief Justice, relating to special reasons which are very well known to the profession.
  When this Bill reached another place the provisions ran into a certain amount of criticism very similar to and parallel with the kind of criticisms which came from certain of your Lordships when it was before your Lordships' House. Broadly speaking, they were two quite separate strands of criticism. The first was the strand of criticism which said that the provision for special reasons, coupled with the nature of the offences contained in the Second part of the First Schedule, provided too draconian a code, and your Lordships will remember the moving speeches which were made about offences which might in themselves be trivial but which, none the less, infringed the provisions of the second part of the First Schedule to the code; and I think this was the more powerfully urged set of criticisms. A second and more esoteric, but equally powerfully urged, set of criticisms running in parallel really amounted to the proposition that Lord Goddard was wrong in the series of decisions that he had initiated, and that lawyers thought that by now they really amounted to nonsense. This was most strongly urged by the lawyers in another place. At one stage in the proceedings the discussion between the Committee and the Minister became so warm on these interesting topics that I was actually sent for and had to address an informal meeting which I think was in close touch with honourable members of another Party, so that no one was kept out of the discussion. I undertook at that meeting that I would try to do something to mitigate, to meet, those criticisms. I think it was accepted by another place that my bond had been kept by these Amendments, although I am not pretending that I regard them as absolutely ideal.
  Broadly speaking, what has been done is to take the second part of the First Schedule—that is, the offences which come in for the cumulative penalty and automatic endorsement only—and to apply a new formula to them, putting the burden upon the defendant to mitigate, but otherwise giving the court a discretion, retaining, however, the full draconian nature of the Goddardian special reasons for the more serious offences

  185
  in Part 1, on the hypothesis that these are intrinsically so serious that there is no need to mitigate the severity of the code in the fear that a purely trivial or technical offence might have been committed. This proved acceptable to another place. As I told your Lordships when it was before your Lord-ships, I should have been prepared to accept the more severe interpretation myself. But Parliamentary discussion leads to concessions, and I cannot say that I think this is an altogether unreasonable one. I would urge the House to accept it. I think justice will be done, and those who pressed upon the Government here that we were taking too severe a line will, I think, accept the fact that there is quite considerable concession being made to their point of view. Therefore, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 5.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 5, page 4, line 21, leave out from ("If") to ("the") in line 22.
  5.14 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in this said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 5, page 4, line 25, leave out from ("so") to end of line 29.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this, too, is consequential. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in this said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 7, page 6, line 1, leave out ("for special reasons").
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move
  186
  that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 7, page 6, line 4, leave out from ("required") to ("in") in line 8 and insert ("it shall state the grounds for doing so").
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this, again, is consequential. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 11, page 9, line 15, at end insert—
  ("(5) The first order to be made under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not be made until a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that Clause 11 (1) (b) of the Bill enables the Minister or the Secretary of State for Scotland to impose by order minimum speed limits on specified roads. Those speed limits will be experimental, and limited initially to four months in each case, and the roads affected must be specified in the orders. If the Minister wishes to extend the order beyond four months the extending order is subject to Negative Resolution, and it will be an offence for anyone to drive at a speed lower than the speed specified in the order, subject, your Lordships will again remember, to such exceptions as may be specified. Your Lordships will also remember, as I do, that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and my noble and learned friends Lord Conesford and Lord Goddard, strongly criticised this proposal, on the ground that a quite novel kind of offence was being created in rather general terms and therefore it was only fair to Parliament and the public that the exceptions which the Minister would be able to write into the order should in some degree be specified in the Bill. I think that was the gist of the matter.
  My noble and learned friend Lord Conesford put down some Amendments,

  187
  one of which was designed to provide that no order should come into force until one such order had been approved by Resolution of each House; so that Parliament could be satisfied as to the exceptions that were to be specified in such an order if one were made. As I say, I accepted the principle of that Amendment, and this undertaking is discharged by the Amendment which I am now proposing. It will enable Parliament to satisfy itself that adequate exceptions are provided in the first minimum speed order and that the courts will set the standard, as it were, for any subsequent orders there may be. I trust that your Lordships will find that satisfactory, and I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I thank the Government for this Amendment, which completely fulfils the pledge as the result of which I withdrew my other Amendment. In fact, I had drafted two Amendments. The first was much the better, but the Government said that, if I withdrew it, they would accept the second one in principle. I thereupon withdrew my better Amendment that would have made the Bill even better than it is now. Then they said they would improve the drafting of my second Amendment. That they have now carried out in the Amendment before the House. I thank them for it.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  5.19 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:—
  Articulated vehicles
  (".A vehicle so constructed that it can be divided into two parts both of which are vehicles and one of which is a motor vehicle shall (when not so divided) be treated for the purposes of the principal Act as that motor vehicle with the other part attached as a trailer.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the effect of this clause is to amend the law to correspond with what it was believed to be from the time of the passing of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, until the judgment of the Divisional Court in the
  188
  case of Moscrop v. Blair in October last year. The Amendment makes clear that for all purposes in the 1960 Act, unless otherwise specifically stated, as it is in Section 69, an articulated combination consisting of two vehicles which, when separate, are a motor vehicle and a trailer, shall, when linked in combination still legally be regarded as two vehicles. Since the Divisional Court declared in the case referred to Chat there was no reason, in fact or in law, why the justices should not have decided that an articulated combination was one vehicle and not two (and therefore that the combination was a "heavy motor car" which might not be driven by anyone under twenty-one) there has been a fair flutter in the dovecots. The fear is that the argument might be extended beyond the particular case, and beyond the subject of drivers' ages; and, if it were generally held that these vehicle combinations formed one vehicle, they would almost all be illegal.
  For thirty years it has been assumed that the appropriate two sections of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, together imply that an articulated outfit is two vehicles, not one. Not only are regulations—such as the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations—drawn up on this assumption (with "articulated vehicle" being specially and specifically defined where for any reason, such as the limitation on overall length, the combination has to be considered as one whole) but certain provisions of the Act made sense only on that basis. The clearest one is probably Section 69, which provides that, in the case of a breakdown only, an articulated outfit may, for the purposes of being towed, be considered as forming one trailer only.
  Though the decision of the Court dealt strictly only with the subject of the minimum age for driving, and that on the particular facts of the case, I do not think we can overlook the repercussions I have mentioned. While most of them would not meet the regulations if they were held to be single vehicles, there is one regulation at least which they cannot conceivably meet, and that is the one which requires the unladen weight of a heavy motor car to be painted on it. Where the drawing vehicle part of an articulated combination picks up and drops any number of

  189
  trailers in a day, as they often do, it would be impossible to paint the weight on it every time it picks up one vehicle and drops another, and then repeats the process with a vehicle of a different type. Any Amendment in this regard would be immensely complicated, if not impossible. Trailers axe separately licensed and are licensed on the basis, among other things, of weight. There is no provision for what one might call a "chamelion vehicle" which appears, disappears and changes its shape and weight whenever the tractor part and the trailer part are hitched up. Any extension of the argument in this case would produce an administrative tangle which would probably take years and much toil to sort out. It seems, therefore, best to clarify the situation completely by this Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
  Defence in certain proceedings against holder of carrier's licence.
  (".In any proceedings under subsection (6) of section one hundred and eighty-six of the principal Act against the holder of a carrier's licence for failure to comply with the provisions of that section or of regulations made for the purposes thereof it shall be a defence to prove that he used all due diligence to secure compliance with those provisions.")
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this is a "due diligence" clause, which was introduced in another place on Report stage following an undertaking given to the other House in Committee by the Government. It is again something of a compromise. Section 186 of the principal Act lays upon the holder of a carrier's licence an absolute duty to keep, or to cause to be kept, current records showing the hours of work of every person employed as a driver and particulars of every journey of a vehicle when goods are carried. As the law stands under the principal Act, if an employer is prosecuted, he continues to be guilty of an offence, however little he may have been to blame for the failure of his driver to keep proper
  190
  records. At first sight that seems very unjust. On the other hand, your Lord-ships will not forget the underlying background which causes the law to impose this duty upon employers.
  In a highly competitive industry like that which we are discussing, there is a constant temptation upon employers to persuade, or over-persuade, their drivers to disregard the law for the time being about the hours of work, or even, in extreme cases, to direct their drivers to disregard the law regarding hours of work. It is therefore not at all unreasonable that the trade unions should attach a good deal of importance to the obligation of the employer to see that the records are properly kept, because, in the nature of things, it is much easier to base a prosecution upon a failure to keep records than upon a breach of the substantive law referring to hours of work. Indeed, one of the marks of an habitual disregard of the law relating to hours of work would normally be reflected in a failure to keep proper records. It is therefore reasonable that the obligation should rest upon the employer.
  On the other hand, again in the nature of the case, it is quite clear that there are limits to what any employer can do to ensure that his drivers do keep proper records, or even that they drive proper hours. There are temptations, of carelessness or otherwise, which persuade them sometimes not to be up to the mark in that respect. The Amendment put the onus of proof clearly and squarely on the shoulders of the employers to establish "that he used all due diligence." This is a phrase which has been adopted in a number of other Acts, some of which will probably be known to your Lordships. The Food and Drugs Act, 1955, Section 113; the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, Section 156, are the two that I have cited in my notes here. But I am fairly confident that this type of defence is available in quite a wide range of cases of this kind. In the circumstances, I think I can commend it to the House as a reasonable provision. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we accept this Amendment, but with some reluctance. We certainly do not wish to relieve the employer of the duty of seeing that his drivers carry out What is required, certainly in regard to hours of work, because we believe that it is generally accepted that the chances of accidents increase in relation to the hours which the drivers work. I feel that if they are pushed too far the chances of accidents are certainly increased. I find it hard to believe that the employer will have difficulty in keeping records of the hours worked by their drivers, because these drivers are paid by the hour. They are not salaried people, and obviously a transport company will be paying its drivers for the hours actually worked. Therefore, if the payroll shows that a driver has been exceeding the hours—which can be seen from the driver's claim for wages—I should have thought that was sufficient warning to the employer that the rules were being broken. However, we will accept this Amendment, with, as I say, some reluctance.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
  Relaxation of duty of holders of C licences to keep current records
  (".—(1) Current records shall not be required to be kept as mentioned in subsection (1) of section one hundred and eighty-six of the principal Act as respects—

  (a) any journey made by a vehicle to which this section applies, if no point of the journey is more than five miles from the place where the vehicle is normally kept by the person by whom or on whose behalf it is used; or

  (b) the work or rest of any person during any period, by reason only that during that period he is employed in driving such a vehicle on a journey fulfilling that condition.

  (2)This section applies to any vehicle if, and only if,—

  (a) it is authorised to be used under a C licence; and

  (b) its weight unladen does not exceed sixteen hundredweight.

  (3) This section shall continue in force for a period of two years and shall then expire, unless before the end of that period an order is made under subsection (4) of this section and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
  (4)The Minister may by order made by statutory instrument provide either—

  (a) that this section shall cease to have effect at such earlier date as may be specified in the order; or

  192

  (b) that this section shall continue in force indefinitely, subject to such modification, if any, of the distance of five miles referred to in subsection (1) of this section, and to such modification, if any, of the weight of sixteen hundredweight referred to in subsection (2) of this section, as may be specified in the order.

  (5) This section shall be construed as if it were included in Part IV of the principal Act.")
  5.30 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, what this new clause, Amendment No. 13, does is to provide that for an experimental period not exceeding two years drivers of C licence vehicles of an unladen weight of not more than 16 cwt. operating within a maximum radius of five miles of base shall be exempted from the obligation to keep current records of hours of work, and of journeys and loads, as the Road Traffic Act, 1960, requires; and licence holders will be similarly exempted from causing such records to be kept. Secondly, by an Order made before the end of the two-year period, and confirmed by Affirmative Resolution in Parliament, the clause can be continued in force indefinitely and the 16 cwt. and five mile limits can then be modified.
  The clause is mainly an alternative to a clause which was moved and subsequently withdrawn at an earlier stage by my noble friend Lord Derwent. His proposals were not felt to be satisfactory, as what he suggested would, we thought, have been confusing to both employers and drivers and would make enforcement more difficult. In these limited circumscribed conditions, I think that there is a prima facie case for complete exemption from record-keeping on, as I say, this very limited scale and for an experimental period. It does not go as far as my noble friend Lord Derwent would have liked, but in the circumstances, and very cautiously, I think that this is an experiment which the Government are justified in making. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we are very uneasy about this new clause, first of all, because it seems to leave the way open to quite a degree of possible exploitation with regard to the number of

  193
  hours worked. We appreciate that it is for only small vans, and within only a five-mile radius for local delivery, but that does not mean that there will not be cases where there can be extremely long hours worked, and where man can get just as tired and just as overworked—therefore, increasing their liability to accidents—as if they were on long runs. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us the extent to which the unions have been consulted about this.
  Another thing that occurs to me is that the Government are going to agree under this clause that the keeping of records of journeys and hours worked will be suspended for a period of two years, and at the end of that period the Minister will decide to let it lapse—in other words, to return to the present position—or he will decide to continue it for a further period, or he will decide to continue it indefinitely. What occurs to me is this. If operators are not going to keep records, what kind of reliable evidence will there be available to the Minister for deciding that the Order should lapse—in other words, that records should continue to be kept after the expiry of two years—or to prompt him to go on for another trial period? It would seem to me that there are no reliable criteria at all. No one will know how long the man are working, because the records are not being kept. I should not think there would be any reliable criteria, by which you could judge whether in fact such vehicles worked over that limited area would be involved in accidents. Therefore, the provisions which are going to guide the Minister's future judgments in this matter cannot have very much value, because his future decisions will be based virtually on nothing at all.
  I should like the noble Lord to deal with this point, which seems to me to be going back, and seems to be a very unsound basis from which to proceed. It is virtually based on the assumption that these are small local journeys in little vans, and, therefore, the keeping of a log is not going to tell us much as the journeys will be only from one end of a small town to the other, or from a country district into a town, and that kind of journey. They are not going to tell us very much. But, surely, if there is going to be any control at all over this kind of journey, the pre-sent
  194
  situation is very much better than the proposals under this new clause, which will entirely deprive the Minister of any reliable information on which to base future judgments.
  LORD MOLSON: My Lords, if my memory is not at fault, this is a matter which has been under discussion between the Ministry and those concerned for quite a long time. The argument that was put forward was that it would surely be possible to have some very much simpler way of keeping the records in the case of these vans that were travelling round just locally within a short distance—perhaps it was a shop that was sending them out—and not to have the same kind of elaborate records that were necessary for longer distances. I think that the Ministry has generally been sympathetic to this idea, but has sought in vain to find some simpler way of keeping these records. I think that, for that reason, demands that this should be done have been resisted in the past.
  If my memory is correct about that, it appears that on this occasion it has been decided to give way completely, but only for an experimental period. That may be the best thing to do, but I should like to support what has been said from the Front Opposition Bench that, before this is continued beyond the experimental period of two years, it is very important that we should know how the Ministry could find out whether it is working in a satisfactory way. I agree that it is not going to be easy to find out, because there are going to be no records at all. But I think we should have some assurance from the Government, that this will really be regarded as an experimental period and that, before anything is done to make this a permanent provision of the law, Parliament shall be informed of the result of that inquiry.
  Many of these vans are not in a very satisfactory condition, the hours worked are frequently very long, and it is quite possible that there may be accidents, even within a radius of five miles from the starting point. I am not at all satisfied in my own mind that this concession is really wise, and I am most anxious that, before it becomes a permanent feature of the law of the land, we should

  195
  know whether it has proved in practice to be satisfactory.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that what has been said from both sides of the House has a considerable basis of reason. It is clear that this is the subject of a very limited experiment, which shows that the Government do not entirely believe that it is a thing that can be done but it is a thing worth trying. I say mo more than that. Of course, I think it goes without saying that there must be evidence produced upon which to base any decision about the future. Otherwise, when it came to any possible extension in the future the Minister could not vary well come to the House and say nothing, because if he had no evidence collected he would have nothing to say as to why it should or should not be continued. So I think that will definitely show what is going on, and there will be evidence available, not in the form of records but in the form of accident records, and other representations will no doubt be made if they are appropriate.
  On this subject of consultation with the unions, I rather wondered at one moment whether the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was speaking from the point of view of working conditions of the drivers employed or from that of road safety, in so far as they are separate issues. At one moment I thought he was approaching it rather from the viewpoint of one, and at another moment from that of the other. Of course, I cannot give the noble Lord chapter and verse of exactly which union was consulted on which date, but I do know that there was full consultation about it with the unions; and I know that the union view was, to say the least of it, that they were uneasy about the matter.
  If—and I have said this before to your Lordships—we thought that because of this move any great harm was going to come to the principle which is protected by hours of work and rest periods, we would not want any of it; but, without going into all the arguments it seemed that there was a case at least for this experiment. The noble Lord used the word "exploited" in this connection, but I would have thought that if there was anything of that kind going on it
  196
  would be a matter for the unions to arrange in the normal course of negotiations on working conditions. Out of that would arise evidence—and, after all, the unions are as free as anybody else to make representations in the usual way during the course, or at the end, of the two-year period of this experiment. If there were evidence (I will use the noble Lord's word) of exploitation in that regard, I would have thought it would come to light fairly quickly, and before the end of the period, and that there would have been the accident records, if any, to go by. I can tell your Lordships that the licensing authorities will also be watching this position, and I think it is something that at the moment we ought to agree to do.
  LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am comforted to some extent by the obvious fact that the noble Lord is himself uneasy about this provision. He asked what I had in mind about union representation. So far as these drivers are in a union, it would mainly be the Transport and General Workers Union, and I do know that they are uneasy about it. The noble Lord put the point as to whether I was concerned about the working conditions of hours, or was concerned from the point of view of road safety. One cannot put a dividing line between them. Unhappily, the position is that a very large number of the men who drive these small vehicles are very badly paid, very badly paid indeed, as compared with the general body of workers. The consequence of that is that, in order to live at all reasonably, they themselves welcome working a lot of overtime, and they themselves, very often unhappily, have been parties to the faking of records that are kept.
  I will go so far as to say to the noble Lord that, unless the Government propose to institute a quite new process of recording accidents, it is quite impossible for the Minister, at the end of two years, to have any reliable evidence at all of the effect of this new clause. The reason is this: that at present accidents involving motor vehicles are recorded in classifications of various tons unladen weight—up to one ton, two tons, five tons and over; that is the classification. But that classification means, of course, accidents in which such vehicles are involved anywhere in the country and on any length

  197
  of journey. There is absolutely no classification for road accidents which is related to the length of journey. I do not see that the Government can possibly go to the relatively fantastic amount of trouble which it would take to find out, first of all, the numbers of such vehicles engaged within this five-mile radius under 16 cwt.; to disect from the accidents involving vehicles under one ton those under 16 cwt.; and then to disect from those again those which are only doing the five-mile journey. With the best will in the world, the suggestion that the noble Lord has put up—that that is how the Government will gat their information at the end of two years—will not work; that horse will not run at all.
  The plain fact of the matter is that this clause has been introduced as a first step towards doing away with records. It is another step towards exacerbating an evil of which we are all aware: an evil which arises from low wages for this class of work; the consequent exploitation, to which the men are a party; and the further consequence of a higher incidence of road accidents which arises from it. I think this is a most regrettable move; and the explanations given by the noble Lord, which do not satisfy him, certainly do not satisfy your Lordships' House.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I did not interrupt the noble Lord, for reasons which I hope he will appreciate, but I think I should just say that we are not in Committee and, therefore, it is not strictly in order to speak twice on a Motion, unless one has moved it, except by leave of the House.
  LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sorry. I would have asked the leave of the House, but so far those who have spoken twice have not asked leave, and this is the first time I have intervened.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 19, page 13, line 31, at end insert—
  ("(c) that the age under which a person may not drive on a road a road roller falling within paragraph 4 of the Table set out in subsection (1) of this section shall, if the roller is of a description specified in the regulations and is driven in circumstances so specified, be seventeen instead of twenty-one;")
  5.42 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Section 97, subsection (1), of the 1960 Act sets out the minimum ages under which a person may not drive various classes of vehicles. For vehicles which are in the categories called heavy locomotive, light locomotive, motor tractor or heavy motor car, which excludes agricultural tractors, the minimum age is 21. Practically all road-rollers, except some very small ones, fall within one or other of these categories, and consequently cannot be driven by anyone under that age. Now it seems that it is very difficult to get road-roller drivers nowadays, because most of the potential recruits have gone into and settled down in some other trade by the time they are 21. I think this may be so, because I understand there are about 1,500 road-roller drivers in this country, and I understand that their average age is 60. The intake of the new drivers in the last few years has been very small indeed.
  A claim to reduce the minimum age for driving these rollers could be entertained only if it were clear that no risk to road safety was invloved. I gather that the majority of rollers which are the biggest worry are those powered by an internal combustion engine, (usually diesel, which are fitted with solid metal rollers and weighing about 11 or 12 tons. Because of their construction, they are limited to a maximum speed of 5 miles an hour. If you think of that, and the fact that rollers, except when they are going from A to B under their own power, are normally used on parts of the road where other traffic does not go; that their braking performance and manœuvrability have improved considerably; and that seventeen-year-olds can drive larger and faster lorries in other circumstances, it seems reasonable to propose this reduction to seventeen for road-roller drivers. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 19, page 13, line 36, after ("held",) insert (",or was entitled (on making the requisite application and declaration and on payment of the appropriate fee) to the grant of,")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Clause 19 contains, among other things, power to make regulations to raise the minimum age for driving an articulated vehicle up to 21. Paragraph (i) safeguards people who at the time of change, if one is made, are above the existing minimum age but below the new one by allowing them to continue to drive the articulated vehicle if they already have the appropriate substantive licence. As drafted, the provision does not cover drivers who are between the old and the new minimum ages and are entitled to hold a substantive licence through test, or however it may be, but for some reason or other do not actually possess one at that moment. Therefore, what it does, by adding to the reference to the holding of a licence a reference also to entitlement, is to put these drivers, who probably will be very few, on the same basis as drivers who are in the middle-age group and actually have a licence. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 21, page 14, line 38, leave out ("or displayed")
  Clause 21, page 14, line 42, leave out ("or displayed")
  Clause 21, page 14, line 43, leave out ("or displayed")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 are all drafting. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
  Experimental traffic schemes
  (".—(1) For the purpose of carrying out an experimental scheme of traffic control the authority hereinafter specified may by order under this section (in this section referred to as an experimental traffic order) make the like provision—

  (a) as respects any road outside the London Traffic Area, as may be made by an order under section twenty-six of the principal Act (including any provision which may be so made only if the order is made or confirmed by the appropriate Minister);

  200

  (b) as respects traffic on roads within the London Traffic Area, as may be made by regulations under section thirty-four of that Act.

  (2) The authority having power to make an experimental traffic order—

  (a) as respects roads which are neither trunk roads nor roads in the London Traffic Area, shall be the local authority;

  (b) as respects roads in the London Traffic Area which are neither trunk roads nor roads in the metropolitan police district or the City of London, shall be either the local authority or the appropriate Minister;

  (c) as respects any other roads, shall be the appropriate Minister;

  and the appropriate Minister may, after giving the local authority notice of his intention to do so, by order vary or revoke any experimental traffic order made by the local authority.
  (3)An experimental traffic order shall not continue in force for longer than the following period, that is to say,—

  (a) if it is made by a local authority, a period of three months;

  (b) if it is made by the appropriate Minister, a period of eighteen months;

  but the appropriate Minister may on the application of a local authority direct that an experimental traffic order made by the authority shall continue in force for such further period as may be specified in the direction, being a period ending not later than eighteen months after the order came into force.
  (4) An experimental traffic order—

  (a) may provide for the modification or suspension, while the order is in force, of any provision previously made by or under any enactment, being a provision that could have been made by the order; and

  (b) shall, to the extent that it is inconsistent with any provision subsequently made by or under any enactment cease to have effect.

  (5) A local authority, before making an experimental traffic order, shall consult with the chief officer of police and give such public notice as the appropriate Minister may direct; and where the order would make or vary—

  (a) any provision prohibiting or restricting the loading or unloading of vehicles or preventing such reasonable access to any premises as may reasonably be required for vehicles of any class or description; or

  (b) any provision prescribing routes to be followed or roads not to be used, or not to be used in a specified direction, by any vehicles or the places where any vehicles may or may not wait, or the stopping places for any vehicles being a provision applying to vehicles used by any person in providing a service of stage carriages or express carriages;

  the length of the notice shall be not less than twenty-one days; and the appropriate Minister, before making any experimental traffic order, shall give public notice of his intention to do so.
  (6) Where a local authority proposes to make an experimental traffic order making or varying any such provision as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection and, before the expiry of the notice given under that subsection, an objection to the making or variation of that provision is made to the local authority—

  (a) if the provision is such as is mentioned in the said paragraph (a), by any person;

  (b) if the provision is such as is mentioned in the said paragraph (b), by the person providing the said service:

  and the objection is not withdrawn, the local authority shall not make the order except with the consent of the appropriate Minister; and no experimental traffic order shall, without that consent, be made by a local authority as respects traffic on any road within the London Traffic Area.
  (7) No appeal shall lie to the Minister from the traffic commissioners—

  (a) under subsection (8) of section one hundred and thirty-five or section one hundred and forty-three of the principal Act, in the case of a decision of those commissioners with respect to a road service licence; or

  (b) under subsection (4) or subsection (6) of section one hundred and forty-one of that Act, in the case of a decision with respect to the approval of a route for a road service;

  if and so far as it is certified by the commissioners that the decision was necessary to secure conformity with an experimental traffic order prescribing the routes to be followed, or roads which are not to be used, by vehicles affected by the decision, the places in roads where such vehicles may or may not wait, or the stopping places for such vehicles.
  (8) If a person acts in contravention of or fails to comply with an experimental traffic order he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine 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.
  (9) Section twenty-one of this Act shall apply in relation to an experimental traffic order made by the Minister as respects a road in the London Traffic Area as it applies in relation to regulations under section thirty-four of the principal Act made before the end of the period mentioned in the said section twenty-one.
  (10) Any power of the appropriate Minister to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
  (11) In this section—

  (a) "local authority" as the same meaning as in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section twenty-six of the principal Act; and

  (b) "road", in relation to the London Traffic Area, includes any street as defined in subsection (9) of section thirty-four of that Act.")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, we come now to an Amendment which is extremely
  202
  formidable to look at, but fortunately the explanation does not have to be quite so large. With this Amendment go also consequentially Amendments Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 58. The new clause makes provision for there to be experimental traffic schemes in all parts of the country, instead of just in the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London as at present. I know your Lordships agree, because it has often been urged that we are running into heavy troubles with congestion, particularly in urban areas, and obviously there is going to be an increasing need for schemes of more efficient traffic control in urban areas, not only in London, where a good deal has already been done, but throughout the country as well. Often it is not obvious at the outset which of a number of alternatives is the right solution to any given scheme, particularly one-way traffic schemes, and experience in London has shown that a quick trial may be necessary, followed by a reversion to normal for a period in which the results of the trial can be analysed. On the other hand, it may be urgently necessary to switch from one trial plan to another in order to avoid some difficulty which may not have been foreseen or, indeed, may not even have been foreseeable. The kind of snag which has cropped up in London is the need to ban more right turns, the need to make more waiting restrictions, and the need to make some minor variation in the route, possibly on amenity grounds.
  In London there are already special powers, but they do not exist outside. Until 1957 experiments used to be carried out under Section 21 of the Town and Police Clauses Act, 1847; but in 1957 the Court of Appeal decided that it was ultra vires Section 21 to do so, and since then any experiments, if they were done at all, have been done on a somewhat unofficial basis. I think it becomes necessary now, in the interests of urban congestion and increasing traffic flow, to give local authorities outside London powers to conduct the same kind of experiments as those which exist within the Metropolitan and City Police districts. I do not think it is good enough to expect them to use permanent powers and then cancel the scheme if it is not successful, because that would in many cases entail considerable delay and

  203
  possibly public inquiry in certain circumstances, and again in other cases the order would require confirmation by the Minister, who has to allow 28 days for objection and so on. It would be much too cumbersome to expect them to do it that way.
  The new clause enables a local authority to carry out an experimental scheme, which has to be limited to three months unless the Minister prolongs it to a maximum of eighteen months, with no preliminary procedure except consulting the police and giving such public notice as the Minister may direct, and in certain circumstances to obtain the Minister's consent. The only point is that exceptions have had to be made in the clause in order to safeguard three particular interests: hauliers, bus operators and those to whose premises access may be prevented by some such experimental scheme. To achieve that there is provision that if an experimental scheme either restricts loading or unloading or denies reasonable access or makes it neceessary to alter a bus route or a bus stop, then the period of notice to be given must not be less than 21 days, and if objections are made in a case involving loading or unloading or access from anyone, or, in a case involving bus routes or bus stops, from the bus operator, and are not withdrawn, then the Minister's consent must be obtained in England and Wales, and the consent of the Secretary of State obtained in Scotland. The local authorities' associations, I understand, have welcomed the new provisions, and I think they are going to prove to be very necessary as well as very desirable. I believe your Lordships will probably welcome them. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham)
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord just one question in this matter? No doubt he is aware of the considerable concern about the heavy lorry route through Highgate. Would it be possible under this clause, say if the local authority in Edinburgh says, "For convenience we will put our heavy lorries through what is basically a residential district", for the persons in that district to have an opportunity
  204
  to make an appeal against this experiment? Because one well knows that if an experiment is conducted and it achieves a freer flow of traffic, in spite of what may be done to the local amenities it is likely to be continued. I hope that if that case should arise where a heavy lorry route or another type of route is used for an experimental period, the local people will have an opportunity of some appeal before their amenities are completely destroyed.
  6.0 p.m.
  LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in saying a word on this point, I have to declare an interest, because I live in Highgate Village. On the question of appeal, can the noble Lord say whether the proposed new clause will provide conditions any different from those which operate in the metropolis now, because I understand that in the case of Highgate there is no formal appeal and no public inquiry? The noble Lord made it clear that the local authority can initiate schemes of this kind, subject, of course, to the Minister's approval, and if at the expiry of three months the Minister so thinks, such schemes can go on for as long as eighteen months. If the Minister himself initiates the scheme, it can go on for eighteen months.
  There are conditions under which a period of eighteen months would drastically change the whole life of a neighbourhood, and it would be impossible to revert to the former position, if it were found that the experiment was not satisfactory. Therefore I wonder whether the period of the experiment should not be very much shorter. Surely it does not take eighteen months to find out whether a scheme is likely to be beneficial or not. I should have thought that a week or two would have been enough. The noble Lord mentioned the local authorities but I understand from the local authorities themselves that in connection with the Highgate scheme they were not approached at all: the Minister had no word with them about it. In fact, at the very moment the Hornsey Borough Council decided to approach the Minister to go on with a scheme first mooted in 1948 they received notification about this new scheme of the Minister. Is this proposed new clause different? Obviously here the local authorities are

  205
  going to be consulted, whereas in the case I mentioned they were not. Finally, the noble Lord mentioned safeguards for property owners, the road haulage people and bus companies. Apparently the only people whose interests are not to be safeguarded are the most important: the people who live in the area and the travelling public. It seems to me most remarkable that we should be asked to consider a new clause in which safeguards are provided for the interests of the three classes I have mentioned and none at all for the interests of the public.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should have thought that the answer was apparent from the actual terms of the Amendment. It appears from subsection (6) (a) that any person can object to provisions mentioned in subsection (5) (a) but in the case of subsection 5 (b) objection is limited to bus operators. Where there is a valid objection in either case, protection lies in appeal to the Minister from the local authority. This is the object of these rather elaborate provisions. They do not provide for a public inquiry, but the defence of that is simply that this is an experimental procedure. If it were going to be a permanent feature of traffic, a public inquiry would be necessary in the ordinary way. The noble Lord said that eighteen months is a long time. But, of course, that is the maximum period. I do not think that one must assume that the maximum would be employed; indeed, those who have had experience would normally assume the contrary. In certain cases the Minister would want to see the effect of traffic at certain times of the year, because it might be altogether different in different places.
  LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that in connection with the Highgate scheme the Minister has been talking about am experimental period of seven years?
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That, at any rate, could not be done under this section.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I must admit at once that I have not fully studied this new clause which it is proposed to insert, but I want to associate myself strongly with the protest that is
  206
  being made against the Minister's making orders that can be quite ruinous to the localities concerned and, even in a short period, dislocate their life altogether. Since this clause has been passed by another place, I am sure that it will also be passed with little delay by your Lordships' House to-night, but I think that it is entirely appropriate that we should say that we are frightened, not about experiments made by the local authorities but about experiments made by the Minister without consulting any of the local authorities concerned and without consulting his own colleagues in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I regard the whole scheme for Highgate as a perfectly disgraceful scheme, which should never have been put forward and which is wholly shocking to anybody who has ever looked into any of the planning problems of London. I hope very much that nothing of the sort will be attempted under this new clause, even experimentally.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
  Replacement of certain provisions relating to parking places on highways
  ("(1) For sections eighty-six and eighty-seven of the principal Act there shall be substituted the sections set out in the Schedule (Parking places on highways) to this Act.
  (2) Nothing in this Act shall affect any order made by virtue of the said sections before the commencement of this Act, or the operation of those sections or of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, in relation to any order made under section eighty-five of the principal Act before the commencement of this Act, except in so far as an order under any of those sections may be varied or revoked by an order made under the sections set out in the said Schedule.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that it would be convenient if I discussed with this Amendment Nos. 32, 37, 46, 47, 52, 53, 56, 57, 64 and 65, as they all hang together. The main purposes of the new clause and Schedule are to permit a greater flexibility in fixing the charges for parking at meters; to make provision for new types of apparatus, such as parking ticket machines; to allow more flexibility in the administration of parking meter schemes; to simplify and bring together into one convenient package all the wide complicated and spread-out provisions regulating

  207
  charges at meters and conditions for their use.
  I am afraid that Amendment No. 37 itself is a very large piece of work, again of formidable appearance; but it is appearance, rather than anything else that is against it. When the Bill was originally introduced into your Lordships' House there were no provisions about meter parking places on the highway. Subsequently a clause was put in—(though it is now left out—to introduce flexibility into the present too rigid arrangements for charging for parking at meters, and to permit any charge to be made for any period, instead of the existing limitation to the standard period of charge, or half of it, which is the only alternative. The additional provisions which we now propose are necessary to make possible the use of new types of apparatus for controlling parking places which are likely to become available in the next few years. The most promising one of these is a ticket-issuing machine which has the advantage that one machine can serve a whole parking place containing a number of cars, instead of having, as at present, a separate meter for each one. This machine, I think, will have a rather special value in places where, for technical, amenity or æsthetic reasons, parking meters would not be suitable. It is not certain precisely how this machine would work in practice, and it is therefore not possible to lay down in the Bill, as has been done for parking meters, the precise conditions which should govern the use of it. Instead, the Minister will be given power to make orders containing such provision as he considers necessary or expedient for regulating the use for parking places, and these orders will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
  I think the power to make these orders is, in general terms, the new Clause 86, which lists the number of specific provisions that may be made; and these are taken, in the main, from points already covered by the I960 Act and the Road Traffic and Road Improvements Act, 1960. The detail of the change is necessarily complicated because it has to deal with complicated and detailed provisions of two previous Acts. But, broadly speaking, the substance
  208
  of the matter is that it seeks to remove from legislation cumbersome and inadequate restrictions on charges in metered on-street car parks and to give the Minister power to deal with this as he thinks necessary in orders, as well as with all other matters arising in the parking places, including the type of apparatus to be used and the presumption to be made from this apparatus.
  I think that not only is this extra flexibility in demand in various parts of the country where their requirements are different, but there is also a considerable difference, for instance, in demand between market towns inland and seaside places; and I think the flexibility is also reasonable because parking meters have proved their worth, and the principle of charging for the parking of cars is not quite as under suspicion as it was and is much more generally accepted. It is desirable to have this flexibility in order to facilitate the proper development and evolution of parking control so that new ideas and new techniques can be used. I think, from what I can recall of past discussions, that it accords, generally speaking, with your Lordships' views. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
  Contribution between local authorities providing parking places
  ("Any authority having power under section eighty-one of the principal Act to provide within their district parking places for vehicles may contribute towards the expenses incurred by any other authority in the exercise of their powers under that section.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment allows for co-operation between local authorities in the provision of parking places. At present a local authority has to get special dispensation from the Minister of Housing and Local Government if it wishes to contribute to the expenses of another authority. Section 81 of the 1960 Act empowers local authorities to provide within their areas suitable parking places for vehicles so that they can relieve congestion; and that section applies to the provision of parking places off highways

  209
  or, without payment, on highways. But from time to time the situation seems to arise where the site which is most suitable for a car park to relieve congestion in one district happens to be in the adjoining district, and the council where the car park is to be provided may agree to do so but may well insist on having some financial assistance, since the other authority will be the chief beneficiary from it. This point has been taken care of in London by Section 20 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1957. There is another precedent which enables a parish council to contribute to the expense of a cycle parking place in the area of another council, and the clause extends this reciprocal principle to the whole field of off-street and free on-street parking places. I think that it will be of benefit to all concerned. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause:
  Extension of power to authorise compulsory purchase of land for off-street parking
  ("The following provisions relating to the compulsory purchase of land for the provision of parking places under section eighty-one of the principal Act, that is to say, subsection (11) of that section and subsections (8) and (9) of section thirteen of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, shall have effect as if the references therein to the said section eighty-one included references to paragraph (a) of subsection (6) of the said section thirteen (which enables a local authority to let land for the provision of parking places).")
  6.18 p.m.
  Viscount HAILSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment requires some explanation, as a piece of legislation by reference. This new clause gives effect to an undertaking which the Parliamentary Secretary gave at the Committee stage in another place by which he induced Mr. Victor Goodhew to withdraw a similar Amendment. The situation is this. Section 81 of the principal Act empowers local authorities to provide parking places, and subsection (11) of that section gives them power of compulsory purchase for the provision of an off-street parking place. Section 13 (6) (I
  210
  am leaving out the Scottish provisions which are parallel) enables an authority to provide off-street parking places by letting land on which they could erect or adapt a building for the purpose of providing such a parking place with a view to some other person's doing so. Ordinarily I think one would have said that this was providing a parking place, but it is clear that it is not because it is provided by subsection (6) of Section 13 that:
  "Subsections (2) to (7) of Section 11 of this Act shall apply in relation to any parking place provided under any land letting as if it had been provided by the authority under Section 81."
  So it is Clear from the last section that letting does not count as providing.
  The effect of that, of course, is that the authority must run the off-street parking place itself, so as to come within Section 81, in order to acquire the benefit, if it is a benefit, of the compulsory purchase provision; and this leads to a really rather anomalous position. The effect of the Amendment is to extend subsection (11)—Which is the compulsory purchase provision—of Section 81 to the provision of parking places by letting, as well as those places which are run by the local authority itself. Some people might see an issue of great importance in this. I think that if we were in a very controversial mood we might argue about it a long time, but I have an idea that, if it were not for the fact that it adds to compulsory purchasing powers, I might have got away with it by saying that it was a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
  Warning devices for indicating temporary obstructions
  ("Regulations under section fifty-one of the principal Act prescribing any type of object or device for warning traffic of a temporary obstruction may include provisions for authorising, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the regulations, persons not otherwise authorised to do so to place an object or device of that type on or near roads or on or near

  211
  any description of road so specified, in such circumstances and for such periods as may be so specified.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to give the Minister power to authorise the placing of warning signs on the road when it is temporarily obstructed by a vehicle which has broken down or been damaged in an accident. Under existing legislation the driver whose vehicle is so obstructing the road is not authorised to put up any sign, even if the vehicle's lights have failed when it is dark. Technically it is an offence wilfully to obstruct the highway without lawful authority or excuse, and it could certainly be held that such a sign could do so. Traffic signs may be put up only by the police or the highway authority. I think there is no doubt that vehicles which break down, possibly just around a corner or something like that, do cause accidents, especially where traffic is fast.
  This clause empowers the Minister, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland, to prescribe in regulations the kind of warning device or sign which may be used, the persons who may put it on the roadway, the circumstances where it can be used, and the conditions with which its position on the road must comply. Therefore, he will be able to make it permissible for a warning sign to be put out where it is justified. Experience as to how this works in practice at the end of a year or two of experiment will enable consideration to be given as to whether all vehicles or, at any rate, certain classes of vehicles ought to be required to carry one and put it out when appropriate. There has been a certain amount of discussion of this point, generally I think on Questions, in the past; my noble friend Lord Gosford has raised the matter on one or two occasions, and I think probably he may welcome this clause. I hope your Lordships will, too. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Clause 24, page 16, line 4, after ("nine") insert ("or section (Experimental traffic schemes)")
  Clause 24, page 16, line 9, leave out ("section nine") and insert ("sections nine and (Experimental traffic schemes)")
  Clause 24, page 16, line 26, leave out ("section nine") and insert ("sections nine and (Experimental traffic schemes)")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these three Amendments are all consequential on Amendment No. 19. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
  Regulation of motoring events on public highways
  ("(1) A person who, after such day as the appropriate Minister may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, promotes or takes part in a competition or trial (other than a race or trial of speed) involving the use of motor vehicles on a public highway shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds unless the competition or trial is authorised, and is conducted in accordance with any conditions imposed, by or under regulations under this section.
  (2) The appropriate Minister may by regulations authorise, or provide for authorising, the holding of such competitions and trials as aforesaid, either generally, or as regards any area, or as regards any class or description of competition or trial or any particular competition or trial, subject to such conditions. including conditions requiring the payment of fees, as may be imposed by or under the regulations.
  (3) Regulations under this section may—

  (a) prescribe the procedure to be followed, and the particulars to be given, in connection with applications for authorisation under the regulations; and

  (b) make different provision for different classes or descriptions of competition or trial.")

  6.24 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this clause gives powers to bring about control of motoring events, which would principally be rallies, reliability trials and treasure hunts, on public highways. It makes it an offence subject to a maximum fine of £50 to promote or take part in such competition or trial involving the use of motor vehicles on the highway unless the event is authorised in accordance with regulations made by the appropriate Minister. The regulations would specify the conditions for holding authorised events or for authorising without conditions, though they could,

  213
  in effect, exclude any type of event or events in particular areas from the provisions of the clause. In his regulations the Minister could delegate to anyone he thought appropriate the power to authorise events, and he could enable the authorising body to charge fees as a condition of the granting of authority. The appropriate Minister will decide by an order made by statutory instrument when the clause is to come into effect.
  Since the power to authorise events will be exercised by regulations, the provisions of Section 260 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, will apply, and these will give sufficient safeguards for consultations before regulations are made. The regulations will have to be laid before the House and will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. I think that the part of the clause which provides for charging fees is right, because it is not intended—and I do not see why it should be—that any extra cost arising from the administration of this system for authorising events should fall on the Exchequer, and I think the control system should be self-financing. It would, of course, control all competition events and trials involving the use of cars and motor-cycles on the roads. It is intended that it should operate only for rallies, treasure hunts, reliability trials and events of that kind. It may be that in some parts of England and Wales there is no need to control these events, and the regulations would authorise the holding of events in those areas without any conditions. Possibly there may be no need at present to control them in Scotland; and until there is need, the Secretary of State may withhold bringing the clause into effect there.
  I should like to make it quite clear there is no intention of controlling rallies or treasure hunts or reliability trials or similar events out of existence. The object of the clause is to secure a reduction to manageable and acceptable proportions of the number of events that do take place, and to try to spread them out somewhat. We also intend that the regulations should authorise events such as the "Lorry Driver of the Year" competition and the "Motor-Cyclist of the Year" competition, both of which are road safety enterprises but which carry out part of their tests on selected
  214
  roads. They would also authorise the kind of competition which local road safety committees organise in the interests of road safety. So far as these events are concerned, very few complaints are made on road safety grounds. The people who compete in them are subject to the road safety laws in the same way as anybody else is—indeed, the organisers often insist on a very strict observance of them.
  I think it is generally accepted that rallies are probably, on balance, a good thing in the interest of road safety, because they encourage batter driving technique and skill and more interest. The only control at the moment, of course, comes from the R.A.C., and that extends only over the clubs which are affiliated to it, as the governing body of motoring sport in this country. They control these events in such matters as roads and timing, the number of fixtures they hold, and the areas they go in. They have certain black spot areas where they are not allowed to go at all. But that, of course, does not apply to events run by clubs which are not affiliated, and which may not even be motoring clubs at all—they may be social clubs, in the broadest sense, or clubs of some other kind which simply decide to hold a rally or treasure hunt or something like that.
  There have been many complaints recently—mostly, in fact almost entirely, on amenity grounds—and the number of events that take place is increasing. I think it has now gone up to between 3,000 and 4,000 each year. Most of the complaints seem to come from the Home Counties, and relate much more to noise and disturbance in rural areas, probably from events held at night—not only engine noise, but noise at check points, such as slamming doors and Shouting directions and so on.
  A meeting was held about this at which were represented the County Councils Association, the Rural District Councils Association, the N.F.U., the Chief Constables from the Home Counties, Scottish interests and the R.A.C.—almost Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all. The meeting was strongly in favour of control with the R.A.C. designated as the body to do it, and of a motor sport advisory committee to be set up as well. I think that is what my right honourable friend would want to do, to set up an advisory committee, which is not a

  215
  statutory committee but one Which advises him on the kind of event that ought to be allowed or on the delegated responsibility that would devolve on the R.A.C. whom he had in mind to do this particular job.
  As I say, it is not that anyone is against this form of sport, which is extremely popular and useful. It is a question of taking the power to control it before it gets out of hand and gets worse, because while one does not want to interfere with this useful form of competition the comfort and convenience of people has to be balanced up with it. I think the time has come—I hope and believe that the proposed regulations will be successful in this respect—where those concerned can continue with their sport and those who are only indirectly concerned from outside will have the necessary safeguards, and all can live happily. It is better, I think, to do it now rather than to wait until something worse befalls. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I feel that this clause is highly commendable, and certainly I sympathise with its objectives. I have nothing against notification or the regulations which the Minister will draw up with regard to car rallies and reliability trials. But when the regulations are drawn up I foresee a difficulty in regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, referred to as "treasure hunts", which can cover a wide field of endeavour. There is not always treasure at the end of it, but there is some competitive element in working out the number of clues en route and arriving at an eventual objective. A number of these things are quite small and often impromptu. Often there is not an organisation which has been advertising for weeks ahead that they are going to hold a motor cycle or a car treasure hunt. Some of the social organisations to which the noble Lord referred—I have even known one group of Young Conservatives do this—quite suddenly organise a thing of this kind. Even a small one can be just as much a nuisance to inhabitants of rural areas as 10 other parts.
  216
  It seems to me that the difficulty is as to how the regulations are going to deal with that kind of thing. Is it going to be prohibited altogether? In other words, have you to get a licence or some approval for a particular function of that kind, however small it may be? The noble Lord said that in parts of Scotland or Wales there is no need to prohibit these activities by regulation, because the roads are not likely to be congested or much used. I appreciate that point, but equally it is the case that these particular treasure hunts are not likely to be held in such areas, because they have not so many people to take part in them. It is more likely that they will be held in more populated rural areas, or indeed that the treasure hunts may involve a rural area with young people coming from a town.
  The noble Lord mentioned the number of some 3,000 functions of this kind. I have no doubt he referred to those we know about, those which are organised. But there might well be 10,000 small ones that we know nothing about, simply because they are on a local basis and were arranged with little fuss and bother. I imagine that we should wish to take regard of these things. But there are two difficulties. One is not to interfere with people's reasonable enjoyment, provided they behave themselves without danger or inconvenience to other people. The other thing concerning these small events is how the organisers, or indeed the competitors, are to know that they may be committing an offence. There is this question of notification. One can understand that the kind of people who organise major events, car rallies and so on, Will know all about these things, and will get permission and fix a date and a day and make their arrangements with the police. But I wonder how the regulations will be able to deal with the small, semi-impromptu affairs which take place all over the country?
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords as many Members on both sides of another place showed, there is a great necessity for some legislative provision of this kind, and for that reason I am glad that the Government have thought fit to introduce a clause dealing with this problem. I think my noble friend may have been quite right in suggesting that none of us wished to make illegal every event

  217
  of this kind, but at the same time I think he under-estimated the suffering caused by some of the events that have been taking place. There are inhabitants of some villages whose life has been made intolerable night after night. They have even taken the extreme step of organising parties to sit down in the road and to bock it. I saw a statement in one organ of the Press, that they knew they had no legal rights but thought that their moral right was so overwhelming that they took this step. I nearly went so far as to suggest that they might even have some legal rights.
  That brings me to one of my criticisms of the new clause. Had it been introduced at an earlier stage, or in this House, I am perfectly certain that various Members would have suggested some improvements. The particular doubt I have—I know it is not fair to press my noble friend on this because he is not a lawyer—is this. It seems to me not impossible that some of the outrageous events that have been organised, which disturb whole villages night after night, could possibly have been restrained under the provisions of the Common Law. There are provisions that deal with conspiracy and nuisance that might not have been found to be quite impotent. Whatever we do with the new clause, I should not like it to be said that we were enabling the Minister to authorise anything which could at present be restrained at Common Law, and I do not think that that is quite clear under the clause as it now stands.
  The second matter on which I wish to question my noble friend is this. The Minister has said that he proposes to set up an advisory committee—not a statutory committee, I agree, but an advisory one. From some words that dropped from my noble friend, I thought he implied that that advisory committee would consist almost wholly of people interested in organising motor events. I hope that that will not be the case. The advisory committee should, without any doubt, have representatives of local authorities, and it should certainly, in my submission, have representatives of other road users. There are still pedestrians in this country. Some of the highways that may be proposed for these events may technically be highways, but
  218
  nevertheless be very popular for use by walkers, ramblers, and others. I think that pedestrians should be represented on this advisory committee. I think also that amenity societies should be represented on it. This is of great interest, I think, to the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, in certain areas to the National Trust, and in all areas, I think, to the Noise Abatement League.
  Therefore, while welcoming this clause, but regretting that it has been brought forward so late that neither House has had much chance to consider it in detail and amend it, I would express a wish on one point and a doubt on the other. The wish is that when the Minister sets up his advisory committee it will not prove to be a committee of those interested only in promoting this alleged sport, but also include representatives of local authorities, of amenity societies and of other road users.
  The second matter which I personally deplore, but about which I quite agree the Minister can do nothing at this stage, is the fact that this clause does not make it clear, on the face of it, that the effect of the Minister's authorising one of these events will not make it lawful, if it could be restrained under the existing Common Law. I agree that, if we accept this Amendment, it is too late to do anything about that, but at least it may make the Minister a little careful when he comes to decide what it is he will authorise.
  My Lords, I have ventured to put before the House matters I believe to be of considerable importance, but I certainly do not wish to oppose the clause.
  6.42 p.m.
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said much that I wanted to say, particularly on consultation (with local authorities, and in regard to the point that, when these events are authorised, they should be authorised only over suitable roads. It happens that about four years ago when in mid-Wales I was travelling in the opposite direction to one of these rallies, on a very narrow road. I was forced off the road, and two of my wheels went on to the verge on the left-hand side; my wheels started to sink, and they went down to the axle on

  219
  that side. At least twenty of the competitors passed me, going in the opposite direction. Not a single one of them stopped to ask whether I wanted assistance, or whether they could send someone along to help. This was a society which had a London name—it may have been called the London Rally, or something like that. I admit, my Lords, that I was too lazy to write about that incident, although I felt indignant at the time, and I just let it pass. But it has always rankled in my mind that something ought to be done to stop these rallies if that sort of thing happens to ordinary road users.
  The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, told us that these events helped to develop road safety and the proper usage of the roads. If that is so, that was a pretty poor example which I experienced of the decent use of the roads by people who regard themselves, I suppose, as good motorists. In any case, they did not have the ordinary courtesy to stop and say, "Can I help you?" or "Can I do anything about this?" I hope that the Minister will be pretty tight in these regulations to try to ensure that the sort of thing that happened to me will not happen to other ordinary road-users; that where these events do take place, there shall at least be room for other road-users to pass with reasonable comfort in the opposite direction. It is possible that the rally was organised on a time basis—I do not know; but they certainly did not have time to stop in order to help me out of my difficulty. Eventually one of my passengers had to go back to get help.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if it had not been for the few words of my noble friend, I should have said we were dealing with associations and clubs that, in the main, try to be reasonable. It is true that they inflict on certain neighbourhoods a lot of hardship, but they do not set out to do that. The point that concerns me with this clause is the question of what one might call the unofficial clubs of motor cyclists. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has been down Sidcup By-pass or any of our main arterial roads out of London on a Saturday or Sunday, but he will see, 25 to 30 miles outside London, 60 to 70 heavy motor-cycles proceeding
  220
  along the road, making a great deal of noise, and usually travelling at a very fast rate. I believe there is a phrase "doing a ton". These people are as great a nuisance and as great a danger and inconvenience as any of these official rallies—in many ways perhaps more so. But it would not seem to me likely that that type of unofficial club will go to the Minister and say, "We are going out on Saturday. Can we have permission?"
  Here we are dealing with, I think, relatively civilised people, but when one considers these groups of motor cyclists one feels that some control needs to be exercised over them. Obviously, the Police are not able to do it to-day. But these groups of motor cyclists are increasing. On the roads at week-ends they axe a complete menace and a danger, and certainly they make life very difficult in the villages. I hope that the Minister, if he cannot do this within this clause, will consider some future means of controlling this nuisance.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, may I start at the end? The problem which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just raised is, of course, a different one. This practice may have the same effect in a way in that it is undesirable, or is having an undesirable effect on some people's lives, but it is a different one by virtue of the fact that it is unorganised and not an event of itself. When I was listening to the noble Lord, the thought came to my mind that it was rather like the kind of event which is fastened on to in some rather dictatorial countries, where people are not allowed to go about together more than two at a time. This is really another problem of how to tackle it. The difficulty is, as I say, the completely unofficial, unorganised aspect of the whole thing. This is primarily a problem for the police to deal with, and thought will have to be given to whether they require extra powers ox new methods, or whatever it may be.
  To revert to our particular subject, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, asked what would be the position of little unofficial affairs in connection with something else. I think it is difficult for me to say to him to-day exactly what would be the position, whether they would be included or excluded in some way from

  221
  the regulations, because what I thought was really rather more important was that the noble Lord asked how they would know. The answer is that it is intended to publicise the regulations as and when they are made, on television, through the motoring associations, and in the usual methods to which publicity gives rise. Otherwise, the position in this, as in many other cases, is that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I am bound to say that.
  With regard to what my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford said, I should be extremely surprised to find that the Minister would be in a position to authorise something which might be restrained at Common Law. I think if I pursue this point it will get us down to a legal "niggle", if I may call it that, on the interpretation of the word "authorised". I do not want to indulge in that with my noble friend, not only because I should probably come off second best if I did, but also because I think that his feeling on that is stretching legal interpretative elasticity almost to snapping point. But I am glad to say that he did not pick me up quite correctly, in what I said about the advisory committee. I thought I said that at meetings that had been held, there had been many representatives of the interests concerned. I do not know whether I said it or not but I will say it now, to make it absolutely clear. It has already been said in another place that it was intended to set up the advisory committee representative of all interested bodies.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I still want to know what the noble Lord means by that. That may be quite right, but "all interested bodies" might be taken to mean all interested in promoting this type of event. I wanted to make it clear that I mean all those also who are affected by it.
  LORD CHESHAM: I think, my Lords, that is exactly what it does mean, as I have understood the matter at any rate.
  LORD CONESFORD: Good.
  Lord CHESHAM: There must, of course, be rather strong representation of the people concerned because otherwise they are unable to advise the Minister on the type of event he should include
  222
  or exclude from his regulations. Nobody else would know that. Because I think we are going to find that that kind of expertise is going to be necessary, as in due course I think we are going to come across quite a number of events in which the interests involved will say, "You must not allow this kind of thing no matter Where it goes and when"; and I certainly would not want to think that there was no fairly strong representation of that kind. I will certainly see to it that what my noble friend has said is conveyed to my right honourable friend before he makes any regulations.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Leave out Clause 29, and insert the following new clause:
  Replacement of certain provisions relating to offences in Scotland
  ("As respects offences committed after the commencement of this Act, for sections two hundred and forty and two hundred and forty-six of the principal Act there shall be substituted the sections set out in the Schedule (Offences in Scotland) to this Act.").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendment No. 28 goes with Nos. 38, 60 and 61. It was suggested in another place that it would assist if the effect of the amendment which Clause 29 makes were written out at length, and this my right honourable friend the Lord Advocate said he would consider doing, and he did so. This Amendment is the result. Apart from presentation, there is no difference between this and the present clause which is being replaced. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:
  Wearing of protective headgear
  ("(1) The Minister may make regulations requiring, subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the regulations, persons driving or riding (otherwise than in side-cars) on motor cycles of any class or description specified in the regulations to wear protective headgear of such description as may be so specified.
  (2) Regulations under this section may make different provision in relation to different circumstances.
  (3) Any person who drives or rides on a motor cycle in contravention of regulations under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.").
  Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, this is an Amendment which would enable the Minister to make regulations requiring drivers or pillion passengers on motor cycles to wear safety helmets. It will not give him power to require sidecar passengers to do so, but he could require both the driver and pillion passenger, or only the driver or only the pillion passenger to wear one. He could exempt from the requirement certain types of rider, such as children under fourteen whom it might be difficult to fit with helmets, and he could also exempt certain types of machine such as mopeds. Although there are objections, and pros and cons of arguments, by and large it seems in the interest of the community that my right honourable friend should have the power to make such wearing compulsory. I can say this. My right honourable friend does not intend at the present time to make it compulsory, because he wishes to continue to do his best, by propaganda and other methods, to persuade people who ride motor cycles to wear them voluntarily. The latest figures I have heard reveal that 67 per cent. of male riders wear them, and 70 per cent. of females. That is pretty good, but it still leaves 30 per cent. who are at considerable risk. My right honourable friend wishes, as I say, to try to continue by persuasive methods to get them to wear helmets, but I think it is right, and I am sure your Lordships would wish, that he should have these powers in reserve for use if necessary. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:
  Driving with uncorrected defective eyesight
  ("(1) If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road while his eyesight is such (whether through a defect which cannot be or one which is not for the time being sufficiently corrected) that he cannot comply with any requirement as to eyesight prescribed under the principal Act for the purposes of tests of competence to drive, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.
  (2) A constable having reason to suspect that a person driving a motor vehicle may be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) of this
  224
  section may require him to submit to a test for the purpose of ascertaining whether, using no other means of correction than he used at the time of driving, he can comply with the said requirement as to eyesight; and if that person refuses to submit to the test he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I feel will commend itself to you. The object of this new clause, to which Amendment No. 36 is complementary, is to make it an offence for anyone to drive a motor vehicle on the road if at the material time he is incapable of meeting the eyesight standard laid down for the driving test, using glasses, of course, if necessary. In brief, what it means is that, if you can pass the eyesight test with your glasses on, then you should wear them for driving. If you cannot pass it with them off, it is not good enough to pass it with them on, and then not wear them, if your eyesight is defective without them. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord and his colleagues, in connection with this Amendment, have considered the practice which I think obtains in certain parts of North America, whereby a person who needs spectacles for driving has that fact recorded on his driving licence. It would certainly seem to make it easier for the police to enforce provisions of this kind if that course were adopted here; and the noble Lord has just said that it is not good enough for a person who needs glasses to drive without them.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I should like to think about that one.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 33, page 19 line 15, leave out from ("paragraph") to ("(which") in line 16 and insert ("(b) of subsection (1) of section sixteen of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1962".)
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Leave out Clause 34.
  7.0 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 20. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:—
  Approval marks
  (".—(1) Where any international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party provides—

  (a) for markings to be applied to motor vehicle parts of any description to indicate conformity with a type approved by any country; and

  (b) for motor vehicle parts bearing those markings to be recognised as complying With the requirements imposed by the law of another country;

  the Minister may by regulations designate the markings as approval marks, and the use of any markings so designated shall be deemed for the purposes of the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1953, to be a trade description, whether or not they are commonly taken, according to the custom of the trade, to be such an indication as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection.
  (2) Any person who, without being authorised by the competent authority to apply any approval mark, applies that mark or a mark so nearly resembling it as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence against the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, whether or not he would be guilty of such an offence apart from this subsection.
  (3) Section two of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1891 (which provides for the prosecution by the Board of Trade of certain offences under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887) shall not extend to the prosecution of any offence committed in connection with an approval mark.
  (4) The conditions subject to which approval of any type may be given on behalf of the United Kingdom or the use of approval marks indicating conformity with a type approved by the United Kingdom may be authorised may include such conditions as to testing or inspection and the payment of fees as the Minister may impose.
  (5) In this section "motor vehicle part" means any article made or adapted for use as part of a mechanically propelled vehicle or a vehicle drawn by a mechanically propelled vehicle, or for use as part of the equipment of any such vehicle; and "the competent authority" means—

  (a) as respects any approval mark indicating conformity with a type approved by the United Kingdom, the Minister; and

  226

  (b) as respects any approval mark indicating conformity with a type approved by any other country, the authority having power under the law of that country to authorise the use of that mark.

  (6) Any fees received by the Minister under this section shall be paid into the Exchequer.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this rather lengthy-looking Amendment does quite a simple and uncontroversial thing. It enables this country to adhere to an agreement which was drawn up at Geneva on March 20, 1958, with regard to the adoption of uniform conditions of approval and reciprocal recognition of approval for motor vehicle equipment and parts. The object of it is to bring about standardisation of various national systems which currently exist in Western Europe for the approval of component parts of motor vehicles. It is desirable that we should be able to adhere to this because of the difficulties encountered by our manufacturers if we do not; and, if we are going to adhere to it, my right honourable friend the Minister requires the powers that are given him by this clause to make arrangements for the necessary approval and marking of type parts. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 39, page 20, line 30, after ("Act") insert ("except so much thereof as relates to proceedings under the Army Act, 1955, the Air Force Act, 1955, or the Naval Discipline Act, 1957, and section (Approval marks)").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the application of Amendments Nos. 3 and 33, which your Lordships have accepted, to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  First Schedule, page 21, line 30, column 2, at end insert (",the words from 'if the court' to 'punishment for the offence' shall be omitted,").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  First Schedule, page 25, line 21, at end insert—

  ("25. An offence under section (driving with uncorrected defective eyesight) of this Act (driving with uncorrected defective eyesight or refusing to submit to test).")

  —

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 30. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After the First Schedule, insert the following new Schedule—
  ("Parking Places on Highways (Provisions replacing Sections 86 and 87 of Principal Act)
  Regulation of parking in places designated under s. 85
  86.—(1) The Minister shall by order prescribe the charges to be paid for vehicles left in a parking place designated under the last foregoing section, and any such charge may be prescribed either—

  (a)as an amount (hereinafter referred to as an initial charge) payable in respect of an initial period and an amount (hereinafter referred to as an excess charge) payable in addition to an initial charge, in respect of any excess over an initial period; or

  (b)as an amount payable regardless of the period for which a vehicle is left.

  (2) The Minister may by order make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient for regulating or restricting the use of a parking place designated under the last foregoing section, or otherwise for or in connection with the operation of such a parking place, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, provision—

  (a) for regulating the time at which and the method by which any charge is to be paid and for requiring the use of apparatus of such type or design as may be approved by the Minister, either generally or specially (hereinafter referred to as a parking meter) being apparatus designed either—

  (i) to indicate whether any charge has been paid and whether the period for which it has been paid or any further period has elapsed, or

  228

  (ii) to indicate the time and to issue tickets indicating the payment of a charge and the period in respect of which it has been paid;

  (b)for treating the indications given by a parking meter or any ticket issued by it, or the absence of any such ticket from a vehicle left in a parking place, as evidence, and in Scotland sufficient evidence, of such facts as may be provided by the order;

  (c) for prohibiting the insertion in a parking meter of coins additional to those inserted by way of payment of any charge;

  (d) for enabling the local authority to determine, subject to any restrictions specified in the order, the number and dimensions of the spaces in which vehicles may be left in a parking place;

  (e) for authorising the alteration of the position in a parking place or the removal from a parking place of vehicles in respect of which any order of the Minister has been contravened or not complied with, and for the safe custody of vehicles so removed;

  (f) for exempting from the payment of any charge any vehicle left in a parking place in such circumstances as may be specified in the order and for treating any vehicles so exempted as having been left there, and the charge from which it is exempted as having been paid, at such time as may be so specified;

  (g) for prohibiting or restricting the carrying on of trade or other activities, or the doing of any other thing at a parking place;

  (h) for conferring on the local authority powers of illuminating parking places, and of erecting notices or signs and carrying out work on or in the vicinity of a parking place.

  Provisions supplementary to ss. 85 and 86
  87.—(1) Where, under a designation order, vehicles may not be left at all times in the parking place designated by it—

  (a)the parking place shall for the purposes of sections eighty-six and eighty-eight of this Act be treated, as respects any time during which vehicles may not be left there in pursuance of the order, as if it were not designated by the order;

  (b)any vehicle left in the parking place which remains there at the beginning of a period during which vehicles may be left there in pursuance of the order shall for the purposes of those sections be treated as if it had been left there at the beginning of that period, but without prejudice to any rights or liabilities in respect of anything done or omitted at any time before the beginning or after the end of that period.

  (2) A designation order may revoke the designation of any place as a parking place under section thirty-four or eighty-one of this Act, and such an order, or a regulation under the said section thirty-four containing a designation of a place as a parking place or an order under the said section eighty-one containing such a designation, may provide that the designation shall not have effect as respects

  229
  any time as respects which provision is made under section eighty-five of this Act for the leaving of vehicles in that place.
  (3) The Minister may by order empower the local authority, the chief officer of police, or any other person specified by or under the order to provide for the moving, in case of emergency, of vehicles left in a parking place designated under section eighty-five of this Act, to suspend the use of such a parking place or any part thereof on such occasions or in such circumstances as may be determined by or under the order, and to provide for the temporary removal of any parking meters installed at such a parking place.
  (4) Any local authority may acquire, whether by purchase or by hiring, such parking meters and other apparatus as appear to the authority to be required or likely to be required for the purposes of their functions under sections eighty-five and eighty-six of this Act and of this section.
  (5) Where provision is made for the use of parking meters it shall be the duty of the local authority to take the prescribed steps for the periodical inspection of the meters and for dealing with any found to be out of order, and for securing the testing of the meters (both before they are brought into use and not less frequently thereafter than may be prescribed or on other prescribed occasions) and for recording in the prescribed manner the date on which and the person by whom a meter has been tested.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  After the First Schedule, insert the following new Schedule—
  ("Offences in Scotland (Provisions Replacing Sections 240 and 246 of Principal Act)
  Penalty for aiding, abetting, etc., commission of offences in Scotland
  240. As respects Scotland, a person who aids, abets, counsels, procures or incites any other person to commit an offence against the provisions of this Act or any regulations made thereunder shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on conviction to the same punishment as might be imposed on conviction of the first-mentioned offence.
  Inclusion in indictment in Scotland of certain summary offences
  246.—(1) A contravention occurring in Scotland of any of the provisions of this Act or of any regulations made thereunder, which is directed to be prosecuted summarily and which, if it had been triable on indictment, could competently have been libelled as an additional or alternative charge in an indictment
  230
  charging a person with culpable homicide in respect of the driving or attempted driving or use of a motor vehicle, or with a contravention of section one, section two or section six of this Act may, notwithstanding the direction aforesaid, be so libelled and may be tried accordingly.
  (2) In this section any reference to a contravention of regulations includes a reference to a failure to comply with regulations.")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Second Schedule, page 30, line 6, at end insert—

  ("Section four

  In subsection (1), for the words 'statutory speed limit' there shall be substituted the words 'limit imposed by or under any enactment mentioned in subsection (3) of this section'.

  For subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

  '(3) The enactments referred to in subsection (1) of this section are—any enactment contained in this Act; section two of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1926; any enactment passed after the commencement of this Act'."

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act stipulates the penalty for exceeding a statutory speed limit, and Clauses 3 and 6 of the Bill provide for an increase in that penalty. Subsection (3) of Section 4 provides for the substitution of the fine stipulated for any penalty for speeding stipulated in or under any enactment relating to a speed limit contained in any Act passed before 1934. That covers a variety of other Acts under which speed limits are imposed, and in fact it is intended to level up the penalty for speeding throughout the various Acts under which it can be infringed. There seems, in fact, to be some doubt whether the penalty contained in the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act, although dated 1926, applies

  231
  to the Royal Parks. It seems doubtful that the penalty provisions apply in the Royal Parks as they do on the road, and this Amendment makes it clear that they do. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, perhaps I might thank the Government for this Amendment. I think it arises out of a Question which I put years ago and which was answered by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and will give great relief, I think, to the friends of Richmond Park.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Second Schedule, page 30, line 10, at end insert—

  ("At the end of the section there shall be added the following subsection:—'(6) The power to give general directions under subsection (1) of this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.'")

  Second Schedule, page 30, line 42, at end insert—
  Traffic signs

  ("Section fifty-two

  At the end of the section there shall be added the following subsection:—' (3) The power to give general directions under subsection (1) of this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument'.")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 go together. General directions about traffic signs have in the past been given by Statutory Instrument, but there is no power to do this in the 1960 Act, and we can no longer do it. It is very convenient for everyone concerned, the public and the local authorities, that general directions regarding traffic signs should be made Statutory Instruments because Regulations regarding traffic signs are Statutory Instruments. In fact, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, 1937, were made as a single Statutory Instrument. That is a very convenient handbook, but it cannot be renewed as a single document unless these Amendments are made. The power got lost by accident, I understand. When the
  232
  Consolidation Act was passed in 1960, and we should like to have it back for the obvious reasons that I have mentioned. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Second Schedule, page 30, line 44, after (1) insert ("for paragraphs (b) and (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs:—

  (b) the emission or consumption of smoke, fumes or vapour and the emission of sparks, ashes and grit;

  (c) noise' and in the words following paragraph (j)")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 42 and 45 go together. They are rather more than drafting, and they are intended to facilitate the introduction of more specific Regulations on matters about which, until recently, there were not available scientific methods for setting up and enforcing standards, other than general standards. It relates largely to smoke and noise, about which your Lordships are rightly concerned. That is what these two Amendments do. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Second Schedule, page 30, line 47, at end insert—

  In subsection (4), the following shall be inserted after paragraph (c) and

  (d) of vehicles or trailers carrying loads of exceptional dimensions'.")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a slightly more important Amendment, because its purpose is to enable the Minister to make orders under subsection (4) of Section 64 of the 1960 Act to authorise the carriage by ordinary commercial vehicles—that is, those that comply with the Construction and Use Regulations—of loads which exceed dimensions allowed by Regulations made under Section 64. The point of this

  233
  is that we want to control, but not to prohibit, the movement of certain indivisible, wide loads on ordinary vehicles which comply with the Construction and Use Regulations. The point about it is this: if you put a large, indivisible load on an ordinary vehicle at the moment, it can move freely on the roads subject to notifying the police, and only if you put it on a specially-constructed vehicle does it have to be authorised by an order made by the Minister. That is the point, and we want to be able to control the large, indivisible loads when they avoid the present control, exercised by the Minister, by being put on ordinary vehicles. That is what this Amendment is for. We want to have control, whether it is on a special vehicle or on an ordinary one. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  LORD STONHAM: My Lords, does it mean that as a result of this Amendment the Minister will have more power to refuse some of these special loads, which in many cases cause major inconvenience and annoyance, quite apart from a great deal of expense to the taxpayer; and will he, in fact, be able to reduce the maximum permitted length, which at present I believe is 52 feet—not of special loads but of ordinary loads? Can this new Amendment be used for either of those purposes?
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the answer broadly is, Yes, if that is what the noble Lord wants. The answer broadly is (that there is a slight loophole for conveying exceptionally large loads without the control of the Minister which the Minister wishes to get, so that he can control and, in some cases, prohibit or otherwise control better than at present these large loads.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Second Schedule, page 31, line 3, column 2, at beginning insert—

  ("In subsection (8), after the words 'change in the length' there shall be inserted the words 'of the period specified under subsection (3) of this section or' and for the word 'regulations' there

  234

  shall be substituted the words 'order or, as the case may be, regulations'")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is the Amendment to which I referred earlier to-day, about vehicle tests. Under Section 66 of the 1960 Act the Minister can make an order substituting a period shorter than ten years for a vehicle. We know that. Experience has shown that when a large number of vehicles first become liable for test it would be wise to find some method of staggering them—phasing them out, I think was the phrase used. At present, because of the existing provisions of the Act, that cannot be done. All the Minister can do is to make an order, and then come back and make another order which cancels or repeals the previous order. It would be much more convenient to be able to phase one group, say one year's registration of motor cars between five and six years old, somehow into a few different groups. As I say, that cannot be done at present, and it is in order that it can be done in future that this Amendment is put in. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Second Schedule, page 31, line 31, at end insert—
  ("Testing of vehicles on roads

  Section sixty-seven

  In subsection (1), after the word 'reflectors' there shall be inserted the words 'and as to the prevention or reduction of smoke, fumes or vapour'")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 42. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Second Schedule, page 32, line 2, leave out lines 2 to 54.
  Page 33, line 2, column 2, at beginning insert—

  ("In subsection (1), in paragraph (a), for the words 'by the order' there shall be substituted the words 'by an order relating to the parking place', and for the words from 'prescribed' to 'foregoing section' there shall be substituted the words 'so authorised'."

  In subsection (2), for the words from 'prescribed' to 'foregoing section' there shall be substituted the words 'authorised by an order relating to the parking place'.

  In subsection (5), for the words from 'the prescribed description' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'a type and design approved by the Minister'.")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential on No. 37. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Second Schedule, page 33, line 5, at end insert—
  ("Minimum age for driving

  Section ninety-seven

  In the proviso to subsection (2), after the word 'held' there shall be inserted the words 'or was entitled (on making the requisite application and declaration and on payment of the appropriate fee) to the grant of'.")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, your Lordships approved an Amendment Whereby, in the event of the driving age for articulated vehicles being raised from 17 to 21, those who were caught in the middle, entitled to but without licences, should be entitled to get one. This Amendment does exactly the same for people who would be caught in the same circumstances if the minimum age for motor-cycles were raised from a lower figure to a higher one. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMON AMENDMENT
  Second Schedule, page 33, line 42, at end insert—
  ("Northern Ireland drivers' licences

  Section one hundred and sixteen.

  For subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—

  (3) If the holder of any such licence is convicted of an offence and the court orders particulars of the conviction to be endorsed in accordance with section five of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, the court shall send those particulars to the Minister'.")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I will try to keep this point Simple. This Amendment relates to attempts to overcome a difficulty which exists in regard to holders of driving licences issued in Northern Ireland (these licences, of course, are valid in this country) who are convicted of driving offences involving endorsement of their licence. The procedure is different. When you drive on a Northern Ireland licence the court, if they order it to be endorsed, instead of endorsing it under Section 116 of the Road Traffic Act, have instead to send particulars of the conviction of an endorsable offence to the Minister. That is what the Act says. It follows that people driving on Northern Ireland driving licences in this country will never come in for the provisions of to-day's Bill, by virtue of the fact that they will never get their licences endorsed, and the cumulative disqualification provision in particular can be circumvented by doing that. So I should imagine that, before long, we should all have Northern Ireland driving licences, which I do not think is quite the idea. The Amendment puts this straight—I will not go into the technicality of exactly how it brings them in—so that that loophole is closed. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham)
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, am I to understand that if you start off with a Northern Ireland driving licence and you become a resident in this country, you can still continue indefinitely to be driving on a Northern Ireland driving licence?
  Lord CHESHAM: No, my Lords; only during the period of its validity.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Second Schedule, page 33, line 42, at end insert—
  ("Approval of type vehicles

  Section one hundred and thirty.

  In subsection (2), after the words 'after examining' there shall be inserted the words 'if he thinks fit'.")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is to meet a nuisance point. The existing legal requirement is that every individual new public service vehicle has to be examined by a certifying officer, and it is desired to make possible the introduction of a system of type approval, so that while the certifying officer will retain his discretion to examine any vehicle that comes along, if a vehicle is offered to him with a certificate of conformity to type he may accept that, if he so chooses. At the moment, as the Act is drawn, he cannot do that. He has no discretion in the matter and he cannot accept it. Quite frankly, with this arrangement I think we shall have quite a saving of useful professional manpower in this respect. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Second Schedule, page 34, line 22, column 2, at beginning insert—

  In the proviso to sub-section (1), for the words 'he produces the same in person' there shall be substituted the words 'it is produced'.")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is one which I think will be useful both to the public and to the police. At the moment if you are required by a policeman to show your driving licence, insurance certificate or, now, the vehicle test certificate, you may, in certain circumstances be able to do it within five days, instead of showing it at the time. As the law stands, you have to show it in person, and in some circumstances that is becoming a little bit of a bore;
  238
  because a number of commercial firms have block insurances with a master certificate, which means that the company secretary has to go off with the driver to the police station to display it. Therefore, it is suggested that, particularly as the insurance certificate and the test certificate relate to the vehicle and not to the driver, it need not necessarily be done by the driver at the time in person; but that that should not include the driving licence, which should certainly be shown by the driver in person. Also, it is thought that, as long as that is so, the police work will be much easier, because if there is any irregularity in the licence the person probably has it with him, and it makes it easier for them if he has to show it in person. I think this is a small but reasonable idea. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Second Schedule, page 34, line 37, column 2, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs")
  Second Schedule, page 34, line 41, column 2, at end insert—

  ("(h) any ticket issued by a parking meter")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 are consequential on No.37. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Second Schedule, page 35, line 18, leave out from ("for") to end of line 28, and insert ("sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (c)")
  Second Schedule, page 35, line 37, at end insert ("and after that paragraph there shall be inserted the words")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 deal with Section 241 of the Road Traffic Act, which provides that a person shall not be convicted of certain offences unless he was either warned at the time of the offence that proceedings would be considered or was within fourteen days served with a summons of notice of an intended prosecution. The first part of the Amendment

  239
  is intended to clarify the nature of the notice which the police require to give. On reconsideration, it seems unnecessary to amend the whole of paragraph (c). The present statutory requirements have been the subject of a number of High Court decisions, and if we made this change now, it might cast doubt on these decisions and cause a good deal of confusion. I think that it would be best to leave the paragraph as it is, except for the Amendments indicated. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Second Schedule, page 37, line 14, column 2, at beginning insert—

  In subsection (7) of section five, for the words 'section eighty-seven' there shall be substituted the words 'section eighty-six or eighty-seven'.")

  Second Schedule, page 37, line 17, column 2, at end insert—

  ("In subsection (6) of section eleven, in paragraph (6), after the word 'evidence' there shall be inserted the words 'and in Scotland sufficient evidence'.

  In subsection (1) of section fifteen, for the words 'under subsection (8) of section eighty-seven' there shall be substituted the words 'relating to a parking place designated under section eighty-five'.

  In subsection (1) of section sixteen, for the words 'under subsection (8) of section eighty - seven' there shall be substituted the words 'relating to a parking place designated under section eighty-five'.")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these two Amendments are consequential on No. 37. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMON AMENDMENT
  Second Schedule, page 37, line 17, at end insert—
  ("Experimental traffic schemes

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

  In subsection (1) of section nine, at the end of paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the words 'or any order made by him under section (Experimental traffic schemes) of the Road Traffic Act, 1962'.")

  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 19. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Third Schedule, page 38, line 16, at end insert ("In section one hundred and ten, the words from 'if the court' to 'punishment for the offence.'")
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 5. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Third Schedule, page 38, leave out lines 43 to 52.
  Third Schedule, page 39, leave out lines 5 to 9.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these two Amendments are consequential on No. 28. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Third Schedule, page 39, line 14, column 3, leave out ("and (d)") and insert ("(d) and (e)").
  Third Schedule, page 39, line 15, column 3, after ("paragraphs") insert ("2 to").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, these are formal Amendments. Owing to the bringing into effect of certain sections of the 1960 Act, certain paragraphs are no longer valid, and these Amendments remove them. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  Third Schedule, page 39, line 17, column 3, at beginning insert—

  In section six, sub-section (2).

  In section fifteen, sub-section (8).")

  column 3, after ("Schedule") insert ("the entries relating to sections eighty-six and eighty-seven of the principal Act, in the entry relating to section eighty-eight thereof, the words from 'and at the end' to the end of the entry and").
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords these two Amendments are consequential on No. 37. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Chesham.)
  LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord on leading us through nearly the whole of 189 Commons Amendments to two Bills and in the process showing such an easy mastery of the minute details of these two Bills?
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his very kind words: they make me feel a lot better.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

SCHOOL ATHLETIC COMPETITIONS
7.24 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the conditions under which school athletic competitions are carried on at present on a national and international level, and whether direct financial assistance can be given to encourage and foster such beneficial physical and competitive activities. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I must apologise to the House for raising this matter at this time of the evening, but I must say that I am not guilty of any crime, nor am I responsible for the lateness of the hour. The Question I am asking is of a somewhat
242
unusual type for your Lordships' House, but during the last two or three weeks Questions have been raised on kindred matters and that which I am now asking arises from the Answers which were given.
On June 28 I asked a supplementary question on a Question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, on teenage and school athletes and their associations. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, replied that the matter was being considered in the general context of the Wolfenden Committee's Report. On July 26, in reply to a further question by the noble Baroness, the noble Earl said [Official Report, Vol. 242 (No. 111), col. 1124]:
"I hope it will be possible to make a statement on this matter very soon after the House resumes after the Recess."
That gave me an indication that if I wished to raise this point, I should raise it before the House rose for the Recess. As the Recess will soon intervene, I thought that the new Minister of Education should have some idea of what was in our minds in regard to school athletics and should be informed of the conditions and difficulties under which school athletics are conducted on a national and international scale. My international reference is to the triangular sports in which England, Scotland and Wales compete. I do not want irrevocable decisions to be arrived at while we are away and then for us to be faced, when we come back, with the answer that the matter has been settled and cannot be reopened. I am anxious that whatever I have to say to-night shall find its way to the ears of the Sports Development Council, if and when such a body is appointed. I hope that my remarks will not fall on deaf ears.
It it usual for speakers in your Lordships' House to declare a personal interest. In this matter, I have a great personal interest but, I am glad to say, not a financial one. Like so many more, my position in athletic circles is honorary and unpaid. There are no great financial interests in British athletics, so far as I know. I have recently been appointed vice-president of the English Schools Athletic Association. This appointment is the more pleasing to me as I am not connected with the scholastic profession, except as comptroller of a

243
King Edward VI School in Suffolk. I am also President of the Norfolk Schools' and Women's Athletic Associations and of the Norfolk County Football Association and of the King's Lynn Football Club. It will be apparent where my sporting instincts lie.
I am active in my presidencies. I attend most county schools' athletic meetings and in recent years I have had immense satisfaction, I should like to emphasise, in attending the all-England schools annual two-day championship sports at Plymouth, Southampton, Northwich, Chesterfield and Hull. I would not have missed any one of them. I want to deal with these annual sports, but first let me say something about the formation of the Schools Athletics Association. I must be brief in all I have to say as I wish to cover several matters and I want to give a proper picture of the whole field.
The Schools' Athletics Association was formed in 1900 in and with London as the first county organisation. There was a steady expansion of county associations, and by 1925 there were thirteen in all. The first Inter-County Schools' Athletics' Championships took place at Crystal Palace in 1925, and in 1939, 29 counties had their own associations. I give these figures in order to show the build-up of the Association in which I am interested. War intervened and the next sports meeting was held at Eton in 1946. Expansion has developed rapidly since then, and in 1961 40 counties were included in membership.
At the championships sports at Hull about ten days ago 39 counties were represented covering over 1,700 competitors. On the track there were no fewer than 95 events, which covered, of course, semi-finals and finals, and there were 39 field events. The magnitude and efficiency of organising such an athletics meeting can be appreciated. Not only does this apply to actual arrangements on the sports arena, covering as it does, I believe, no fewer than 100 officials of all sorts, but it has to cover the accommodation of all the competitors and officials, together with care-free catering facilities. Practically the whole of the work involved is on an honorary basis and the greatest possible praise can be given to those teachers and
244
others who, with great enthusiasm and loyalty, give their services throughout the year, to the culminating point of championship sports. In recent years cross-country races have been held in addition to triangular sports and competitions have also taken place between county schools and schools in European countries.
May I say a few words about the actual sports? Over 1,700 of our finest school athletes, both boys and girls, between the ages of thirteen and nineteen were gathered together there in competition for the honour of their schools and counties. They came from secondary modern schools, grammar schools, private schools, technical colleges, public schools and girls' high schools. They are the pride of our nation; fit, healthy, of fine physique, keen, determined and enthusiastic: in fact, a very fine example to every teen-ager in the land—and I hope those words will go beyond the walls of your Lordships' House. Before each afternoon's events they stage a march-past in their county colours and in formation with banners aloft and they line up for the National Anthem in the arena. This is one of the finest sights of the year. I know of no better. I have seen Test Matches both here and in Australia, Cup Finals, international football matches, Trooping the Colour, military parades and a great many other outdoor ceremonials, and none can match this one. It is an Olympic Games parade in miniature; but in this case it is carried out by our own boys and girls. It has its emotional moments, and spectators and parents, looking forward or backward, are often deeply affected. Well may we all hesitate to think what the future may be for those young lives. Each year the records of the past are equalled or broken. The standards set are high. The competition, enthusiasm and ability are terrific. Only the very best in their own particular events can hope to succeed and, in fact, do succeed.
My Question raises a matter of finance. At the moment no direct contribution towards the expenses of the Association or of the sports is received from the Government. May I particularly stress that point because that is really the heart of my plea? Support is received from the various county councils towards the

245
internal expenses of equipment and athletics within their own counties; and in this I understand that my own county council is very generous and helpful, as, indeed, I expect others are also; but it may not always be so. In a sense, however, county and national school athletics are carried on almost on a shoe string and under great difficulty and financial worry. I want to deal with a few points in regard to finance.
According to my information, each national championship competitor pays a sum of about £2 to his or her own county organisation towards the cost of coach or rail transport, packed meals and competition entrance fee. This amount is handed over in part to the Schools' Sports Association. No boy or girl is barred by the parent county from competing in the sports by lack of means. This is a commendable fact, but it will thus be seen that some expenses may fall on the parents of the competitors. Arrangements as to costs may naturally vary county by county. Help towards running the championship sports is given in the following ways: by the local authority in whose area the sports are held providing the athletic equipment—and this is later used by local schools; by the use of their schools for reception and other functions at a nominal charge; by the use of schools meals service facilities at the nominal school charge for meals; sometimes by the provision locally of a permanent field event arena to meet the demands of the meeting; by the release of teachers for duties connected with the meeting.
The funds of the Association to carry on the day-to-day administrative work come from three sources: from the affiliation fee paid by county associations, which I understand is five guineas each; from the English Schools F.A., which is able to make a financial grant to all kindred schools' sports associations as a result of its Wembley international profit; and, from an annual grant from the National Union of Teachers. Here again there is no Government aid or grant towards the administrative expenses.
The expenses incurred in running the championship sports are met in the following way: from the counties themselves by the payment of one guinea per head for each competitor; from the
246
sponsorship of a well-known food and body-building manufacturer; from the gate and stand tickets' receipts; and from an appeal made locally in the area organising the meeting. The overall expenditure of a championship meeting amounts to approximately £5,000; so it will be readily seen that casual receipts such as I have mentioned need to be stretched to the uttermost to make ends meet. There is nothing left for improvements or the development of additional athletic facilities. That is where I hope the Government will come in and assist. Athletics is obviously a part of the schools curriculum and, in my view, the training of the body is equally as important as the training of the mind. For that reason I want the Government to come in and help.
I now come to another section of what I want to say. In August, 1961, the National Council for School Sports, a body which comprises representatives from the many branches of school sports, submitted detailed sectional memoranda to the Central Advisory Council for Education. The evidence thus submitted afforded an excellent guidance as to the activities of the various sections and was very valuable and comprehensive. Can the Minister say whether these submissions have reached him and been considered by the Minister? T ask that just for information, because I understand submissions were made, and it may be a matter of interest as to whether they have been considered or dealt with in any way.
It may be inopportune to anticipate what may be the Government's intention regarding the implementation of the Wolfenden Report and the setting up of a Sports Development Council, but I should like to stress the hope that if and when such a council is brought together the needs of school athletes, whatever sport they may be engaged in, will not be overlooked, and adequate representation will be granted to them. That is where we have to build our future.
In conclusion, I wish to suggest to the Government that it should be a national obligation to foster and encourage the work of training our boys and girls in athletics. I have already matched it up with training in scholastics. We are not a C.3 nation and must not become so.

247
Given facilities and encouragement, our youth can equal those of other countries. We cannot turn aside and leave the task for ever to those who are growing old in the service of youth. Some have given many years of fine honorary service. There is no surer way of establishing peace among the nations than by the encouragement of international sport among the young men and women of the world. In that moment of competitive achievement all thoughts of war, fruitless negotiations and international wrangling are forgotten. I hope the Government will come in and help.
7.43 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, at one time I was mildly athletic, although I suspect that my prowess was not up to that of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, when he was the same age as I was. I am also the proud father of a young son who this term at school was the victor ludorum. So I am very glad that the opportunity falls to me to reply to the noble Lord's Question this evening.
He said that he has a great personal interest, although not a financial one, in school athletics, and, my Lords, I think that must have been perfectly obvious to all of us who had the good fortune to hear his speech. He spoke with some knowledge, which I have always known he has, and great enthusiasm for his subject, and I only wish that the House might have been rather fuller to enjoy his speech just as much as I did. But, as he said earlier, the hour is fairly late.
In reply to the first part of this Question on the Order Paper, I would say that of course the Government recognise that the organisation of national school athletic competitions has for some time been in the hands of people who give their services to it voluntarily, and I should like to pay my tribute to what they do; they certainly do a very good job of work indeed. These volunteers organise the competitions under the auspices of the Schools Athletics Association, about which the noble Lord spoke. As he explained, this is an entirely voluntary Association, and I understand that its affairs are largely run by schoolmasters and school mistresses who are interested in athletics. The noble Lord told us about the foundation of the Association and explained that its object is to promote athletics in schools of all
248
kinds. What I think I ought to emphasise is that it is not formally connected with the Ministry of Education, although it has links with the Central Council for Physical Recreation and the Amateur Athletic Association. Analogous bodies which are similarly constituted and which also get no Government grants are the English Schools Football Association, the English Schools Rugby Union and the Schools Amateur Boxing Association. Similarly, voluntary work is done for school cricket and tennis and swimming.
The finance necessary to run school athletic competitions is provided by the "gate" at meetings, as the noble Lord said, by voluntary donations and subscriptions and, to some extent, by local educational authorities, who pay, for example, competitors' travelling expenses and other expenses. These contributions by local education authorities rank along with their other expenditure for the Government's general grant. So the Government do already "come in and help", to use the noble Lord's own words. So far as I know, the Schools Athletics Association have not sought a grant from the Ministry of Education, and the Government do not have details of their financial position, but we have had some words about it from the noble Lord this evening.
The present system, as the noble Lord explained, is one of an inter-county competition held once a year. The 1962 competition was held at Hull about ten days ago. I certainly was most impressed by the noble Lord's description of it. These competitions are between the best schoolchildren athletes—and he emphasised that—Who have survived previous eliminating rounds at school level and at district level. The winners of the events in the inter-county competition become the national champions for those events, but the honours and prizes, I understand, are regarded as going not to the individual boy and girl competitors or to their schools but to their county. So far as the Ministry of Education are aware, the national champions do not take part in international competitions of young athletes other than competitions between England, Wales and Scotland.
It is perfectly true that no direct grants from the Ministry of Education are paid to help the work of the Schools Athletics

249
Association. However, the Ministry does give indirect assistance to school athletics on an appreciable scale. There are the Government grants paid on expenditure by local education authorities on school sporting activities of various kinds. There are no figures, local or national, of the exact amount spent specifically on facilities for athletics, but the total is considerable. The number of athletic tracks, grass or cinder, is increasing, and for many years the Ministry of Education's guidance to local educational authorities on layout of school sports grounds has recommended provision of grass running tracks and other facilities for athletics. School athletics also benefit substantially, although indirectly, from the grants which the Ministry makes for training coaches and instructors to the Amateur Athletic Association and also to the Central Council for Physical Recreation.
The position, therefore, is this. Financial assistance from the Government is available indirectly towards the present competitions held by the Schools Athletic Association, since local government authorities can and do help with expenses. Local education authorities have powers which they can, and do, exercise to help competitors from their areas, and to them is given the duty and the power to provide primary and secondary education in all its aspects, the physical as well as the mental. I certainly agree with the noble Lord that both are important. For this reason I cannot encourage the noble Lord to hope that Her Majesty's Government could give direct financial assistance.
The noble Lord made some observations about what I might perhaps call the nation's obligation to youth, and I should like to say just a word or two about public expenditure generally on sports and physical recreation. Public capital expenditure on facilities for sport and physical recreation, including youth clubs, community centres and village halls used partly for sport and physical recreation was £16·5 million in 1960–61 and £20·1 million in 1961–62. Expenditure in 1962–63 will be £26·4 million, of which about £11 million will be in connection with the school building programme—that is to say, for playing fields and other sports facilities for schools. The Government's contribution to this
250
expenditure is, of course, mainly through general grant. The value of new starts to be sanctioned for 1962–63 was to have totalled £26·5 million, including, again, £11 million for the school building programme. However, just after the Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that this total would be increased to £27·5 million. The Government also increased their grants this year to national voluntary organisations for schemes for coaching, and to help in the administration of sport (though not to defray the cost of competitions), and for direct grant to local voluntary capital projects, from £470,000 to £670,000.
Mention has been made of the National Council for School Sports, a voluntary body which seeks to promote in schools various national games and sports. It submitted evidence in October, 1961, to my right honourable friend's Central Advisory Council which is currently investigating the education of the average and below-average children in secondary schools. This evidence deals with the value of sport to such children and makes a number of suggestions by which its value can be increased. I have no doubt at all that its evidence is being most carefully considered, but as the Central Advisory Council has not yet submitted its Report to my right honourable friend I cannot say anything more about that this evening.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Wise, made some suggestions about the composition and activities of a Sports Development Council, if one is established. As the House knows, the Government hope to make a statement on this soon after the House resumes after the Summer Recess. I think your Lordships will understand that this evening I cannot anticipate that statement.
7.54 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, by the Rules of this House on an Unstarred Question, my noble friend is not in a position to say anything on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and I know that again he cannot reply to anything that I say. But as he mentioned that he was the proud parent of a victor ludorum I know that we have his sympathy in this matter, and I hope, therefore, that I may put to him one or two points on this subject which perhaps

251
he will convey to his right honourable friend.
I join with him in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Wise for the most comprehensive and, at times, moving way in which he presented his case. I, too, have some idea of the extraordinary effect of nearly 2,000 fine fit young people assembled in that way. The noble Lord, Lord Newton said that the Schools Athletic Association have not yet made an application to the Ministry of Education for grant. I understand from my noble friend that this is a disability which is likely to be speedily removed; and I hope that, when it is received, the noble Lord will see that the request receives sympathetic treatment. There was virtually no difference at all between the account given by my noble friend Lord Wise and that of Lord Newton in the way these events are financed and paid for. I do not think there is any doubt at all—and no one wishes to conceal it—that the amount of money which comes from central funds and eventually finds its way into schools sports is quite substantial. But the whole crux of the matter is that there are certain specific things which cannot be provided for by the county, or even by collections of counties; and the question of a grant for the annual meeting is therefore of importance, although the actual amount of the grant in relation to the total expenditure on school athletics, will not be large.
But this is the kind of difficulty that many voluntary bodies come up against. They can get grants from various sources for the work in the field; they can have facilities loaned to them, and equipment provided. But when it comes to administrative expenses for a central administration or a national event, as it were, they cannot obtain any grant from the same source, and apart from voluntary contributions or fund-raising of various kinds from voluntary sources, their only hope is from the Government. I hope that that point will not be evaded.
This applies equally to the Schools International, to which my noble friend
252
referred. It is no use arguing that a competition in athletics between England and Wales and Scotland is not international: it is an international, and it is so regarded. But again we get the point that the athletics bodies associated with each county cannot themselves pro-vide funds, or at least significant funds, directly for the running of the Schools International. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that the administrative costs are not large, because almost everyone gives his services free. But there is the fact that the work of administration in organising these events is so large that often expenses of various kinds do crop up; and unless some central grant is given, then the cost has to be borne by devoted people, who are not really well off. It seems to me that it is not fair that they should provide this shoestring without help. We must not be blind to the fact that in athletics up to the age of nineteen some are still called juniors, but immediately afterwards they come and give senior performances which are greatly to the credit and prestige of this country. It seems to me that for the comparatively minute sums which are necessary, and for which my noble friend is asking, we are entitled to a more favourable Answer than we have received to-night. For that reason I hope that when the application is made by the Schools Athletic Association, it will be given a favourable reception.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
REGENT REFINING COMPANY BILL
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
    RIVER DART NAVIGATION BILL
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.