Lords Sitting of 30 January 1963

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester
The Earl Beatty—Took the Oath.

RETAIL MEAT PRICES
2.36 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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 the rather more detailed information on the retail prices of meat requested by the National Farmers' Union will be made available to the public]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, as I informed the noble Lady on January 24, and as I had explained on December 11 with illustrations, this request presents many difficulties, and it is still being examined. Accordingly the question of publication has not yet arisen.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord whether he could tell the House what type of detailed information the National Farmers' Union have required?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, my Lords. The National Farmers' Union asked for separate price indices for home-produced beef, mutton, lamb, pork and, if possible, bacon.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Might I further ask the noble Lord this: if information like this is requested by an organisation from the Government,
310
must both parties—in other words, the Government and the organisation—agree that the information be made public if requested?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, my Lords, I think that follows. I would not claim to give an authoritative answer, but I would assume that is bound to be so.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Finally, might I ask the noble Lord whether, if I were to put down a Question at a later date, the second part of my Question could be answered? I am sorry if I have not made my question clear. When the information has been made available to the National Farmers' Union, will the noble Lord then be able to state whether it may be made public?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, when it has been made available I shall be happy to answer the noble Lady's Question. But, as I have explained, we have very considerable difficulties in obtaining information which would be really significant or dependable in regard to this question.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, on a point of procedure, the noble Lord just announced that it was necessary for both the National Farmers' Union and the Government to decide whether a matter was to be made public. Surely if a Government Department decided that a matter should be made public it would not be necessary to ask for the agreement of any private organisation.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, it may well be that I misunderstood the noble Lady's question. What I understood her to ask was whether the agreement of both would be required for the matter of any consultations between one organisation and a Government Department to be made public. Naturally, figures produced by a Government Department and in the possession of a Government Department can be made available if that Department considers it advisable. I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lady's question.

LONDON TOWN PLANNING
2.39 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, now that it has been decided radically to increase the limits of London, whether they could state if any action has been taken to ensure that the developments that will in due course be made in the added areas conform to a properly prepared town plan as a guide to those who will be responsible for the changes which will eventually take place.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): Yes, my Lords. May I invite my noble friend's attention to the provisions contained in Clause 25 of the London Government Bill now before Parliament? Briefly, this clause provides that the existing development plans for the areas in question shall remain in being until such time as the Greater London Council can prepare a development plan settling the general policy for the area as a whole, and until the new London boroughs can bring their detailed local plans up to date in conformity with that general policy.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that information, may I ask him whether, in view of the unfortunate condition that has resulted in London to-day, owing to the non-existence of any properly controlled town plan, he does not recognise that it is exceedingly important that such a mistake should not be repeated in the development which is bound to take place in the enlarged London which will materialise as the years go by? Would he therefore make a point of insisting that local authorities conform to a real town plan in this connection?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think I should necessarily go along with all the statements contained in my noble friend's supplementary question. But if he will look at Clause 25 of the Bill now before another place, I think he will see that that provides for exactly what he is requesting.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, again I thank my noble friend for his answer. But, having had the experience I have had, I believe that if he thinks about it he will agree that they do not always conform to matters put into Bills.

U.N. MILITARY ACTION IN THE CONGO
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government—

(a) Whether the use of British taxpayers' money on military action for political compulsion is contemplated in any other sphere supplementary to the Congo;

(b) Whether it is to be understood that the hazard to civilian life in the Congo arising from military action of mercenaries foreign to the soil has attracted vehement disapproval in the United Nations by Her Majesty's Government's representative;

(c) By what instrument after completed conquest is it contemplated the dissenting area in the Congo is to be governed.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, your Lordships will recall that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary explained our views on the Katanga situation to this House on January 23. On that occasion the Foreign Secretary pointed out that, while it was difficult to judge whether the United Nations had exceeded the relevant Security Council Resolutions, it was more constructive for us to help bring about an implementation of the U Thant Plan for National Reconciliation, which could lead to an agreed settlement in the Congo. Her Majesty's Government have, of course, made clear on numerous occasions their view that force should not be used by the United Nations to impose a political solution. The answer to the first part of my noble friend's Question is therefore "No".
As for the second part of the Question, Her Majesty's Government have supported United Nations action designed to secure

313
the removal of mercenaries from the Congo, and it would appear from Press reports that the majority have now left.
In reply to the last part of the noble Lord's Question, U Thant's Plan, which has been accepted by both Mr. Tshombe and Mr. Adoula, provides for the association of Katanga with the rest of the Congo, under a Federal Constitution. Katanga, like any other Province, has its own elected provincial authorities to administer the territory within the Federal Constitution.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply, and particularly for its fullness. It would seem, by inference, that we must accept subservience to the United States, since she, by her subvention, is in fact paying for the operations an Central Africa. Is it to be understood from that that in a vast area, with people of many languages, guided largely by tribal customs such as we find in the Congo, the pursuit of aims by force rather than by civil action is more likely to bring results?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we, and I think the United States and the United Nations, are all aware of the social character of the Congo. Although we sometimes differ as to the correct methods to be applied, I think we are all agreed in working for a peaceful and united Congo under a Federal Constitution.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I just ask whether it will not be both satisfactory for the British taxpayer and more likely to introduce sane and reasonable policies in the United Nations and outside it if Her Majesty's Government make it plain that, while still continuing to support the United Nations, we will be perfectly firm in refusing to pay into the budget of the United Nations anything more than what I may call our statutory contribution?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that, of course, is a question which I cannot answer at this moment. I think my noble friend Lord Home said to your Lordships on January 23 that we could not expect to go on for ever paying our subscription to this operation when so many other people refused to pay theirs.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, am I not right in saying that there has been a recommendation from the International
314
Court laying it down that all expenses involved in operations by the United Nations should be paid by all members of the United Nations; and is that not the proper way to deal with the matter rather than by asking this Government to withdraw their contribution?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we were glad to note the decision of the International Court on this point, which we had been awaiting for a long time. It remains to be seen, of course, whether, and to what extent, other members of the United Nations will obey the decision of the International Court.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, has the noble Earl any information about any State which is about to obey, or is arranging to obey, what the International Court has laid down?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, some countries pay their subscriptions with regularity, but others do not.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, has not the Assembly itself accepted the opinion of the International Court? If so, are they proposing to proceed with the matter and bring some pressure upon the States that have failed to pay up till now? Secondly, may I ask the noble Earl whether or not the problem is that there is no permanent organisation in the United Nations to deal with the sort of situation that we have in the Congo, as I hope will come out in a debate which is fixed in this House for February 20.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, on the first question, I do not think the occasion has yet arisen for any action to be taken by the Assembly, and I cannot say what action they would be likely to take. As to the noble Lord's second question, I think he asked whether there was any organisation in the United Nations capable of dealing with the Congo. Was that the question?
LORD OGMORE: My question was: is not the difficulty in cases of this kind due to the fact that there is no permanent force or organisation in the United Nations to handle a situation like this? I hope that this will come out in the debate here on February 20.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That is a view which has been shared for a long time, I know, by many of your Lordships—the question of an international force.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, has not the noble Earl just propounded a most curious argument, namely, that if others do wrong, we should do likewise?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I would point out to your Lordships that this is, so far, a hypothetical question, because the point has not come at which we have to make any decision of this kind; nor has the point yet come at which it would be necessary for the Assembly to take any action in accordance with the decision of the International Court.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, is not the position now that Mr. Tshombe has withdrawn from the policies that he has followed before and is doing his best to come back to a policy for unity in the Congo; and would it not be just as well, therefore, to let that mature, and then to let the Foreign Secretary deal with the matter if it arises?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, subject to the observation that we, of course, are not responsible for the Congo, I think the noble Viscount's observations are wise ones.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the noble Earl's reply to the supplementary of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, with regard to troops in the Congo, read in conjunction with the statement in the Press this morning that it is understood that the total number of troops which the United Nations is using in its operations in the Congo are going to be substantially reduced, can it be understood that Her Majesty's Government will press that the first release will be the Indian troops, so that they may mitigate the taxpayer's expense in giving aid to India in their difficult situation?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords, I certainly could not accept any kind of discrimination like that. In general, we hope, as my noble friend told your Lordships the other day, that it will soon be possible to convert the United Nations military effort into one of financial and technical assistance for the Congo.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, arising out of my noble friend's original reply, may I ask him whether he will tell the
316
House what progress has in fact been made in regard to U Thant's Reconciliation Plan? In connection with that, can he tell the House whether the request for the withdrawal of the British Consul in Elisabethville has now been rescinded?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am not quite sure what fields of activity the noble Lord is thinking of. If he means the Federal Constitution, the details have to be considered and worked out by the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments together, and I am not able to say what progress on the details of the Constitution has so far been made. But it is some measure of progress that, partly owing to the very strenuous efforts of the British Consul in Katanga, the situation which developed a few weeks ago has not led to a war, and that Mr. Tshombe, as the Leader of the Opposition said, has now accepted the U Thant plan. That in itself, I think, could be described as a measure of progress.
LORD COLYTON: Has the request for the Consul's withdrawal now been rescinded?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we are in touch with the Central Government in Leopoldville about that. My own last information was that it had not yet been pressed.

BREAKDOWN OF COMMON MARKET NEGOTIATIONS
2.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will answer the Question, of which I have given Private Notice: Whether Her Majesty's Government will to-day make a statement to your Lordships' House on the position which has arisen upon the termination of negotiations in Brussels?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, it would be my intention, for the convenience of the House, to repeat in parallel terms a statement which I understand is to be made somewhat later in another place by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal. I think that would probably be the most convenient course for me to take.

MOTOR VEHICLES (VARIATION OF SPEED LIMIT) REGULATIONS, 1962
2.54 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1962, dated November 5, 1962, a copy of which was laid before your Lordships' House on November 13, 1962, be approved. The First Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1960, set out the present maximum speed limits for different classes of vehicle. Your Lordships will remember that we amended that Schedule in 1961 by increasing the speed limit for buses and motor coaches from 30 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h. We now want to make a number of detailed amendments to the Schedule, and, to avoid asking your Lordships to approve a number of individual amendments, we have redrafted the entire Schedule to incorporate both the 1961 amendment already made and those I am now proposing to your Lordships. A considerable part of the Schedule, of course, remains unchanged, and includes the whole of paragraphs 5 to 14 inclusive.
I think it will help your Lordships if I start by outlining the principal changes which are involved; that is to say, the real substance of the; matter. First, the maximum speed limit for goods vehicles without trailers will go up from 30 to 40 m.p.h.; and in this category are included articulated vehicles. Second, the general speed limit for goods vehicles with trailers will go up from 20 to 30 m.p.h., but in the case of light goods vehicles towing light trailers or caravans the limit will go up from 20 to 40 m.p.h. Third, the limit for cars towing heavy trailers will go up from 20 to 30 m.p.h., while that for cars towing light trailers or caravans will be raised from 30 to 40 m.p.h.
Fourth, the maximum speed for tractors and locomotives (as the law still refers to heavy tractors over 7¼ tons), provided that they conform to certain standards of design in regard to brakes, tyres, springs and wings, will be raised from 20 to 30 m.p.h., and, if they are towing trailers of similar standards, from 12 to 20 m.p.h. Fifth, the limit for motor tractors with two or more trailers and locomotives with
318
more than two trailers will be raised from 5 to 12 m.p.h.
I want your Lordships to cast your minds back to our debates on the passage of what is now the Road Traffic Act, 1962—in fact both passages of that measure through the House. It was more than once made perfectly clear at that time that there was strong feeling in the House that if there was to be full and proper enforcement, and severer penalties in regard to restrictions imposed on road users in the cause of road safety, those restrictions should be reasonable, realistic and up to date—in other words, respectable in the true sense of the word. This resulted in undertakings to review the question of speed limits, both those imposed on roads and those on vehicles. In fact, it has been thought right not to introduce Sections 5 to 9 of the Road Traffic Act until such a review has been carried out, so that people do not incur the heavier penalties involved for offences held to be of a trivial nature. That is a point which the House stressed very strongly.
My Lords, the basic reason why we want to raise the vehicle speed limits to those I have mentioned is because the present ones are out of date. We all know how widely and flagrantly the present limits are disregarded and the extent to which this makes enforcement by the police virtually impossible. It has been said again and again, both here and elsewhere, that people will not respect a law which appears quite unreasonable. Secondly, the present limits do not take account of modern standards of construction of both vehicles and roads. To give your Lordships an illustration, the limit of 30 m.p.h. for vehicles under 3 tons unladen weight was fixed 32 years ago, and has remained the same ever since. We believe that the new speed limits are realistic and that people will respect them more, and that means that they can be effectively enforced.
Of course, I know that many lorries now travel at speeds much higher than would be permitted, even under this new Schedule. But it does not mean automatically that the majority will necessarily travel any faster on the roads than they are doing now. I think it may well mean that many will travel slower than at present, not perhaps as a direct result of these changes, but by the circumstances which these changes will help to

319
bring about. By that, my Lords, I mean the greater respect that a more realistic limit will entail, the greater facility for enforcement and, of course, not least, the new penalties attached to speeding which are waiting to come in when the new review of speed limits generally is completed. To-day's proceedings naturally form a part of that review.
I might remind your Lordships briefly of what the new penalties are. First, it will be within the discretion of the courts to disqualify a driver for any speeding offence. At present this cannot be done for a first or second conviction. Secondly, speeding becomes one of the offences, conviction for any three of which in a 3-year period leads to automatic disqualification for at least 6 months. Third, the maximum fine for any speeding offence will be raised to £50, whereas at present the maxima are £20 for a first offence and £50 subsequently. I know that some people have reservations about the effect that these provisions may have on enforcement, because they have feelings of unease about their application by the courts. But we believe that they will be effective; otherwise, of course, we should not have wanted to bring them in and the proper course, surely, must be to give them a fair and proper chance to work and judge the effect when they do so. In the meantime, to-day's Regulations must be considered on the assumption that they will be properly enforced, and I am certainly going to agree in advance with any noble Lord who draws attention to the importance of that.
I think that some of your Lordships may be worried about the effect of these Regulations on certain types of goods vehicles. I think those types would probably be those which are badly maintained and perhaps defective, large vehicles and those which may be overloaded. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that he has kindly given me notice that he will concern himself with the first, that is badly-maintained vehicles, and I will say no more about them at this stage until I hear what he, and possibly other noble Lords, may have to say about them. Later on I shall also say something about the larger vehicles about which I told your Lordships recently that we were considering proposals.
320
But, my Lords, on the third type—that is, vehicles which may be overloaded—I should like to say something now. If I may use words something like the old song,
"A deep-laden cruiseship is nearing Bombay, going in the opposite direction from old Blighty's shore",
I believe it contains the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who is specially interested in overloading of vehicles and raised the matter not long ago in this House. I said at the time that we were considering measures that might be brought in to secure the prevention of overloading and the noble Lord himself, and the House as well, will, I feel, be glad to hear that we have now taken the matter a stage further. My right honourable friend has set up a departmental committee and given them the specific task of working out a scheme for fixing the maximum load that each and every goods vehicle may be allowed to carry.
Those of your Lordships who have taken an interest in road haulage matters over the years will probably remember the Plating Scheme, which was got ready in 1939 but was never introduced because the war broke out. The scheme was called that, because under it metal plates would have had to be fixed to all goods vehicles stating their maximum permissible laden weights. It is something of that kind which is now in contemplation; but, of course, the problem which this committee have to face is a good deal bigger than it was in 1939. Their task is to work out a practicable and economical means of fixing maximum weights, not only for new vehicles but also for the 1½ million goods vehicles, which are already on the roads, many of which have been modified since they left their manufacturers. They will take into account engine power as well as brakes, springs, and other features of construction. My right honourable friend has invited various interests concerned to give their advice to the committee as well. It is no good my saying that consideration of this scheme will not take some time, because it will, and legislation may be necessary to implement it later on, but I hope at least that what I have said to-day will help your Lordships to recognise our determination to arrive at some course of action to tackle this problem of overloading.
The final point that I want to make to your Lordships is that these new speed

321
limits are only the maximum speeds at which the various classes of vehicle can legally travel. They are not in any sense bound to travel at them at any time, and there would be even less sense in assuming that they would travel at them all of the time; and it would, of course, be quite wrong if they did, except when road and traffic conditions are suitable. As always, and as is true with every vehicle on the road, it is up to the driver to decide his speed in relation to the circumstances. The effect of the amendments is that, when it is safe to do so, the driver can drive rather faster than before while keeping within the law and within the bounds of reason having regard to modern circumstances. I need hardly say that what is now proposed has no effect whatever on road speed limits. Where a 30 m.p.h. limit applies, drivers will have to keep to it, irrespective of their maximum vehicle limit. Similarly, on a motorway, where unless they are drawing a trailer no limit applies, there is no change.
My Lords, I dare say there are a good many points that I could have covered and I could have made a lengthy introduction. But I think I will not do so now, and I will endeavour later on to answer any questions or to satisfy any further points that your Lordships may have. Meanwhile, I commend the new Schedule to your Lordships for the contribution it makes to the efficiency of our traffic, and for the facility it will give for better discipline and better enforcement for its safety. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1962, be approved.—(Lord Chesham.)
3.9 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD had given Notice of his intention to draw attention to the Annual Reports, 1960–61, of the Licensing Authorities appointed under the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and, in particular, the need to increase the number of commercial vehicles tested; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister and to the Government on two counts this afternoon: first, for the Minister's concise explanation of these Regulations, and, secondly, for the Government's agreement to postpone this debate until to-day instead of having it before Christmas, as was originally proposed. Obviously, with the Business then before the House we should not have been able to give these
322
Regulations the serious thought they deserve. My Lords, I think it could be said that through this postponement we are not to have the pleasure of the very pungent comments of our noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who is to-day, I hope, enjoying the sun on the high seas; but I am sure the House will remember the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on November 21, when he drew the attention of the House to the many aspects of road accidents and to the appalling cost that our people have to pay each year.
The Minister is right when he says that these Regulations revoke the entire Schedule of the 1960 Act, and I feel that I should say to him that, while this may be a very tidy method to be adopted by the Government, it places the Opposition in particular, and certain other Members of the House, in some difficulty, because over the years we have adopted a rule, which I think is a very good rule and is one that should be kept, that in this House we should not oppose Second Readings, Third Readings or Regulations when principles are involved, but that when the Schedule to the Act is being discussed then the House should have an opportunity of considering all the classifications of the vehicles involved. But, by the use of these Regulations, we are put into the position that we must accept or reject the complete proposition.
We on this side have carefully considered the position, and we have decided that, whilst we are very disturbed about some aspects of the Government's proposals, we should be wrong to attempt to divide the House. But this was in fact considered in 1958. I was looking at the Report of that debate, in which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, undertook that when Regulations were being brought forward—I freely agree that the discussion then related to Clauses 1 and 2 of the Act dealing with testing, but he undertook this, taking into account the feelings of the House—a White Paper would be issued, and that the House would then have the opportunity of discussing the White Paper and even, if necessary, of carrying it to a vote, so that we could register our opinions without having to break what is, I think, and I am sure is agreed to be, a very good tradition.
Obviously the largest number of vehicles involved in these Regulations

323
is that for commercial vehicles, approximately 1,500,000, who are having their speed limits raised from 30 to 40 m.p.h. We on this side of the House do not wish to retain restriction if it is unnecessary, but we have considerable doubts whether, even if we agree that a small commercial vehicle may travel in safety on the road at 40 m.p.h., we could agree that a 10-ton vehicle or one of those very heavy tankers which are now coming on to the road carrying a wide range of merchandise is equipped mechanically to travel at that speed. The Minister said (and this, I gathered, was his main case) that because the present speed limits are now being disregarded, treated with contempt, and are certainly not being enforced by the police, that is necessarily a ground for raising the limit. We know that in a 30 m.p.h. speed limit area many vehicles travel in excess of that limit, yet quite recently we made that limit a permanent law. The fact that new vehicles are coming on to the road is certainly a valid point, but when can one say that a new vehicle comes into the class of vehicle whose equipment enables it to travel at 40 m.p.h.? I should estimate that, since we considered the speed limits in this House, approximately 60,000 new commercial vehicles have come on to the road. That would mean approximately 900,000 vehicles that were then adjudged fit to travel at 30 m.p.h. My Lords, I wonder whether all the vehicles in that group of 900,000 come within the classification which the Minister has put, as being reasonably safe to travel at these higher speeds.
The noble Lord said that at the moment these speed limits are being broken blatantly. I think it is a fact (and if we, as motorists, were honest we should accept it; and one can speak with some degree of privilege here this afternoon) that there is a marked tendency for all of us, even in a 30 m.p.h. limit area, to drive at 32 or 33 m.p.h. We know that we can do it reasonably because it would be very difficult in fact for the police to be able to prosecute—and certainly we should have the opportunity, in our mirrors, of seeing if a policeman was behind us. I believe that, unless there is very much greater enforcement by the police and the magistrates, these new speed limits will be
324
broken just as much as the present speed limits. Therefore, we have to accept that if a 3-tonner or a 10-tonner is to-day breaking the 30 m.p.h. limit out in the country on a reasonable road, then once that limit has been raised to 40 m.p.h. it will, in fact, be travelling at 45 to 48 miles an hour.
In this connection, I would draw the attention of noble Lords to the Road Research Report for 1961. At page 26 it shows that where some roads were controlled for the holiday periods with a limit of 50 m.p.h. there was a very small reduction in the number of vehicles which voluntarily reduced their speeds. In fact, they reduced their speeds only if there was known to be a patrol in the area. So if the Government are right, if they really believe that the new speed limits they propose will be maintained, there must obviously be far greater enforcement—and. I believe that that can be done only if there is a considerable increase in road patrols. Unless that is done, we shall not get enforcement.
I speak as one who drove lorries in my early days in the Army, and I can say that there is a considerable difference between one vehicle and another according to its size and speed. If you drive a van, you have one road-holding capability; if you drive a 3-tonner or a 10-tonner, the position is quite different: and with a load and an increased speed, there is a considerable difference in road handling, particularly in pulling up. I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us, when he comes to wind up, what would be the difference in the pulling-up distance of one of these heavy tankers which now go through our country roads at between 30 and 40 m.p.h. I think there would be at least a 70 to 80 per cent. increase in distance required, and this would certainly be higher if the roads were wet.
When one considers these speed limits one must also take into account the roads on which they operate. Most of our roads, apart from the A.1 and some of the other main roads, are very winding roads; visibility is often very poor, and the camber leaves a lot to be desired. These heavy vehicles travelling at these speeds will be increasingly hard to control. Therefore I approach this problem with some anxiety. I fully

325
accept that greater speed of delivery of merchandise is comparable to increased output in a factory, but nobody would say that increased output should be obtained if there are to be increased dangers to the operatives. Therefore, while I agree it is right that we should try to increase our delivery services, we must take into account not only the general public but the drivers.
I felt that, as we could not oppose the Regulations this afternoon, I should try to put forward, as I originally wanted, a proviso that if the Government were in favour of these increased speeds then we should increase the standard of maintenance of vehicles. Of course, I should not have been in order to move a proviso to a Regulation. Therefore, in consultation with my friends, I put down the Motion that stands in my name and to which I will now speak. And I hope that if and when the Regulations are approved the Government will see their way to accepting it. I make it quite clear to the noble Lord that I do not move the Motion in the terms of a proviso. This is a straightforward declaration by the House that, having examined the figures, which I will give them, a higher standard in the inspection of commercial vehicles is very necessary.
First, I fully accept that among the big operators—British Road Services and some of the comparable private operators—there are proper facilities for inspection and maintenance of vehicles. But I must draw the attention of the House to certain figures. At the end of 1961 there were 1,438,969 road vehicles on the roads. "C" licence holders operated 1,253,000 and there were 573,000 operators. In other words, among the "C" licence operators there were, on average, two vehicles per operator. I would not believe there is anyone who would say that such operators would have the facilities to provide their own examination and to increase their standard of maintenance. I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, to these figures. I have given the number of commercial vehicles on the roads in 1961. In 1961 his Department examined 110,000 vehicles: less than 8 per cent. of all the commercial vehicles on the road. This was fewer than the number examined by his
326
Department in 1960. In fact, the percentage of commercial vehicles being examined is declining.
Why is this? I understand that the Minister has 320 examiners for the United Kingdom—320 men to examine all commercial vehicles. Their duties do not relate just to commercial vehicles. I understand that they have to examine all the public service vehicles of this country. I believe in 1961 they examined 87,000 public service vehicles. I wonder to what extent, with that number of examiners, the examination was undertaken satisfactorily, and whether they can examine all the various parts in vehicles that can go wrong.
I draw the attention of the House to the Report. I would like first to draw the attention of the House to the position in Yorkshire. In that area the licensing authorities had to deal with 127,000 vehicles. The number examined was a mere 14,000. Of that 14,000 vehicles examined, the use of over 3,000 was prohibited because they were in some way or another defective. But of that prohibited number which had to be repaired within ten days, 907 were so bad that they were prohibited from carrying on with their journeys. I would draw the attention of the House to the Report of the North-Western Traffic Area. They have 204,000 vehicles. Less than 4 per per cent. of those vehicles were examined during 1961: 8,294. Of those vehicles, 3,000 were prohibited and had to be repaired within ten days, and over one-third of those vehicles were for immediate prohibition. They were so bad they had to be taken out of service immediately.
If one goes right through this Report one finds the story is very much the same. May I take the case of South Wales, in which area there are 52,000 vehicles? The number examined was 5,300; prohibited, 2,562. Fifty per cent. of the vehicles examined in that area were prohibited for defects. Immediate prohibition was imposed upon 754. Let us take the Western Area. I am sorry to go into these details but the House should understand the situation. In the Western district there were 90,000 vehicles. Of these 7,881 were examined; 2,818 prohibited; 685 immediately prohibited. This is what the Report says, and its comments are very similar to those of all

327
the different authorities throughout the country:
"Most owners of large fleets keep their vehicles in satisfactory condition without pressure from the Licensing Authority's technical staff, but there has been no noticeable improvement in the maintenance of the vehicles owned by many of the smaller operators whose motto seems to be: 'If it goes, it's all right.' This seems likely to continue so long as the official examination of goods vehicles can, as now. cover not more than about 9 per cent. of the total vehicles. If this could be stepped up to a detailed examination of about 25 per cent. of the vehicles then it might be possible to approach the standard of maintenance achieved with public service vehicles."
Public service vehicles require an annual inspection. Scotland is no better. There they have 105,000 vehicles; examined: 13,000; prohibited: 3,141. One thousand of those vehicles were prohibited immediately; they were so bad that they had to be taken out of service straight away. As I say, you can go through the whole book and find that the conditions are everywhere the same.
May I just bring in the total figures? Of 110,000 inspected last year 31,506 received "prohibited" notices. Of those vehicles 9,000 were so bad they were taken out of service immediately upon the instructions of the examiners. I think that that is a terrible picture. I understand that the defects of these vehicles are similar to those on motor cars and relate to steering and brakes.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will agree with me that, as in the case of motor cars, there is a marked improvement from defects according to the age of the vehicle, with the possible exception of first- and second-year-old vehicles. Vehicles which are six, five or four years old show the same percentage of defects. If we agree to these regulations this afternoon, we should regard an increase in the number of vehicles examined as a matter of urgent priority. This can be done only by an increase in the number of inspectors. I hope that in the not too distant future, certainly by 1965, the Government will be in a position to start carrying out tests on these vehicles. I think that there should be a concerted effort by the Ministry of Transport to improve the standard of maintenance of heavy commercial vehicles carrying heavy loads through our country roads and towns.
I have one or two other points to make, but I believe that it is the wish of the House to hear the important statement on the Common Market and I have agreed, through the usual channels, to break my speech.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think that there is any particular need for the noble Lord's courtesy, because I have not yet had word that it is entirely clear. Therefore, if he continues to make his speech that may be even more convenient than if he sits down.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will give me "the nod", I will meet the wishes of the House.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, may I ask him one question? If he carries his proposal to its logical conclusion of having more and more inspectors, there will be more inspectors than lorry drivers before long.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if we did that, we should have no unemployment in this country to-day. It is remarkable what 320 examiners perform to-day on nearly 200,000 vehicles.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: They have done very well.
LORD SHEPHERD: If there were an increase of another 300 examiners, it would be possible to raise the percentage of examinations to about 25, and that would have a marked effect on the standard of maintenance of these vehicles.
I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that at last something is going to be done about the question of loads on vehicles. The present legislation is obviously very unsatisfactory, but as this matter is being considered by a Departmental Committee, I hope that the House will be content with that. The abuses are obvious to all who use the roads, and legislation makes it possible for these to happen. It is possible to carry 14 tons on a four-wheeled vehicle. What I would regard as an ordinary 3-ton four wheeler cannot carry in safety at 40 m.p.h. a load in excess of 5 or 6 tons, but at present it can carry 14 tons and still be within the law.
My Lords, I have been given a note to say that the Government are now ready,

329
and if it be for the convenience of the House, I will break off so that the House may hear the statement of the noble Viscount.

BREAKDOWN OF COMMON MARKET NEGOTIATIONS
3.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. With your Lordships' permission, I wish to repeat a statement which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal on the Brussels negotiations.
Your Lordships will recall that, at the meeting of Ministers in Brussels on January 17, the French Delegation requested that the negotiations should be suspended. The five other Delegations of the European Economic Community, and the British Delegation, opposed this. It was agreed that the discussion on this question would be continued at the next Ministerial meeting, on January 28, first among the Six Delegations and then in the full Conference of the Seven.
The Six met at about 7.15 p.m. on January 28 and again at noon and in the early afternoon of January 29. The Ministers of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands did all they could, during these meetings, to persuade the French Delegation to agree on a basis for continuing the negotiations. As your Lordships know, their efforts were of no avail. We were, of course, kept fully informed throughout their discussions.
At 4.30 yesterday afternoon, the full Conference of the Seven met to consider the situation. My right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal was accompanied at this meeting by my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary and by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. The Chairman of the Conference, Monsieur Fayat, opened the meeting by reading his statement, of which the following is a translation:
"Following the decision taken by the Seven Governments on the 13th January last, the Six have resumed their discussions on the proposal of the French Delegation to break off the negotiations between the Member States of
330
the European Economic Community and the United Kingdom. The Five other Delegations of the European Economic Community, and the British Delegation, opposed this proposal at the time it was made. In the discussions held by the Six yesterday and to-day, various compromise proposals have been examined. It has finally become apparent that the Belgian, the German, the Italian, the Luxembourg and the Netherlands Delegations agree to accept the following text:
'The European Commission is requested to draw up, during the next three weeks, a report on the present state of the negotiations for accession between Great Britain and the Six States of the European Economic Community; in this report the Commission will set out the results already obtained and the questions still in suspense, and will give its opinion on the latter. This report will be transmitted to each of the Seven Delegations composing the Conference. The work of the Conference will be resumed not later than ten days after the submission of this report.'
"The French Delegation has refused to accept this text because of a different view, which they will explain in the course of this meeting."
After this statement, Ministers representing Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy and Luxembourg then each spoke in turn. With the exception of the French Foreign Minister, each declared that it was his Government's wish to continue the negotiations and his Government's conviction that the outstanding problems could be resolved. Each one expressed deep regret at the situation which had arisen and anxiety as to its consequences. Professor Hallstein, the President of the Commission, also spoke. He said that the European Commission would seek to reduce to the minimum the harmful effects of these developments, both within the European Economic Community and in its relations with other countries.
Monsieur Couve de Murville stated his Government's reasons for having proposed a suspension of the negotiations. He argued that they had made no progress since October; that Britain had not been able to accept the disciplines of the Rome Treaty, notably the common agricultural policy; and that the entry of new members to a club which was not yet complete raised serious questions, notably for the founder Members.
My right honourable friend, the Lord Privy Seal said that, had the Six been able to agree on the draft terms of reference for a report by the European Commission which had been proposed by the five delegations, we should have been

331
able to accept them, since they would have shown that the negotiations were being resumed in good faith. He recalled the reasons for our application to enter into negotiations with the Community. He completely repudiated the arguments advanced by the French Government for the suspension of the negotiations. He said that we would not turn our backs on the Continent because of these events, but would continue to work with all our friends in Europe for its future strength and unity.
The Chairman of the Conference then said that, in the circumstances, he was forced to record the fact, with great regret that the Member States of the European Economic Community were prevented from continuing the negotiations. He was convinced that this regret would be echoed throughout the world. Monsieur Fayat then declared the meeting closed.
My Lords, my right honourable friend goes on in his statement, using his own words:
"In my previous statements to the House after Ministerial Meetings, I have confined myself to giving an account of the events which took place. Perhaps on this occasion I may be permitted a word of comment. What has happened is a bitter blow to all those who believe in European unity; but it is not a mortal one. The events of the past few weeks have shown how many people throughout Europe want us to play a full part in its creation. The Governments of the five Member States of the Community—whose peoples together number some 120 million—are among those who share with us a common view of the Europe we want to see. There is a foundation of friendship and good will for the future."
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we are obliged to the Leader of the House for giving us the comments which have been submitted in another place by the Lord Privy Seal. There can be no doubt at all that the action taken by the French in this instance is a severe blow, not only to the British Government in their aims but also, apparently, from the statement just read out, with quotations
332
from leading representatives of the remaining five Members, a great disappointment to many of them. On the other hand, I think the House must be generally disappointed that the totality of this statement excludes anything very much with regard to how Her Majesty's Government propose to face the situation.
I think this occasion is sufficiently important—and I hope the Leader of the House will agree—for us to say a few things specifically, even if it takes a litle time. The history of this, of course, is outstanding. For only a short period ago—that is, in 1959—the Conservative Government were apparently quite convinced that it would be a great mistake to try then to apply for admission to the European Economic Community, because of, among other things, the outstanding damage which might occur, on the one hand, to the relationships, economic and friendly, that we had with the Commonwealth, and, on the other hand, the great risks that would be involved for the agricultural community. Then later (the actual date I cannot specify) somebody must have persuaded Her Majesty's Government that it was essential (at that time most emphasis had been placed on the economic position of the country) in order to do something effective to rectify the effects that were recurring in our economy that we must make this application.
The House will remember the comments in debates in both Houses of Parliament at that time. What happened in the end was that there was a vote in Parliament favouring the Government's proposal to make application to enter the European Economic Community. But I must recall to your Lordships' memory that, among those who were agreeing on that basis were many who said that entry into the European Economic Community must be such as to accord with the specific pledges which had been given by the Government for the security of the relationships between us and the Commonwealth, to maintain the advantages to them and our friendship with them, and that there must be a proper protection for British agriculture. I mention only those two things. On that basis, even in the very critical, although divided, House in another place, the actual permission for application by Her Majesty's

333
Government to the European Economic Community was given. I think it is absolutely essential that we keep these facts in mind.
Now we are faced with a fairly brief statement by the Government which makes it clear that in the negotiations, which have lasted since almost the first statement made by the Lord Privy Seal in Paris on October 10, 1961, they did not wish to propose any amendment to the Treaty of Rome; for nearly two and a quarter years (and many people think that this great country of ours has been held in suspense for longer periods than was ever necessary) we have never received such concessions as would be likely to satisfy the two main pledges of Her Majesty's Government originally. And now at this stage the negotiations are broken off by the action of France.
I do not wish this afternoon (perhaps in some Foreign Affairs debate I will) to speak at length on what the action of the French has been, although action by France in this sort of way is not new in this particular respect. But later, as the developments went on, the question of the political side of the application for entry became more fixed; and I recall the debate in the Conservative Conference at Llandudno, when the great majority of the delegates were sent away with an increasing confidence of the assured success of the negotiations which were continuing. There were many people in the Conservative Conference, it seemed to me (they were not, of course, representing all the Conference) who felt that they had reservations to make about the political aspects of entering into Europe on the kind of basis that was foreshadowed through the Rome Treaty.
Now here we are and we get the last thing in this statement to-day—I have not yet seen that latter part of the statement made by the noble Leader of the House; it was evidently a part of Mr. Heath's personal statement being made in another place. We see that the political intentions are certainly retained by the Government, but we do not know exactly upon what sort of terms they would wish to develop those political relationships in Europe for the future. But I am bound to say to the Foreign Secretary (and I am glad to see him here) that in the minds of many people,
334
some of whom are in favour of the Common Market and some dead against it, the whole political situation is changed by the movement of President de Gaulle and Dr. Adenauer into a kind of two countries united in Europe, so that they may, if possible, dominate the policy in Europe. This brings a new factor into the various counters to be placed before us, looked at and assessed. This is a new situation compared with the time when the Houses of Parliament gave permission to the Government to enter into negotiations.
The only other thing I want to say—it may take a minute or two—is this. I am disappointed—and I expect that many others in the country are—that this winding-up by the Lord Privy Seal which has been given to us by the Leader of the House does not go far enough for this day. I look at the present breaking off of negotiations in this ruthless manner by France, they themselves having entered into this new agreement with Dr. Adenauer to change the balance of Europe; and I regard it as a challenge to our greatness here—and we are a great country—and it is about time that our Government took a step in the direction which will really appeal to the whole of the United Kingdom, and laid down a policy which can show that we are no more afraid of the future here than when France broke and we faced the world alone. That is the spirit in which we now have to tackle both the economic and the political issues that open up before us because of this contretemps which has occurred. I lay that specifically before the Government, and especially before the Foreign Secretary.
I do not think we shall gain at this time by heavy personal attacks, such as were made apparently earlier today and reported in the evening Press, by one of Her Majesty's Ministers. I am not suggesting that. But I think we should take urgent action in certain directions. I hinted at some of them last week. I think one of the first things we have to do is to reopen our consultations with the Commonwealth, and also that before we get into the real grips of a conference we should have equally effective and useful talks with E.F.T.A. There is much that can be done within the industrial, agricultural and other aspects of commerce and finance in the sphere of those three great organisations to make some

335
immediate change from the terrible uncertainty which, apparently, our financiers and producers have had in this country for the last eighteen months. One could see the reaction on the Stock Exchange yesterday when, because this happened with regard to Europe, there was an immediate rise in the general stock prices, as if at last we were to be released from the insecurity of which Mr. Macmillan spoke only last week and its factor position in the building up of the recent unfortunate unemployment.
It is action now which must be taken. As my right honourable friend said in another place the other day, we have to go even wider than that. I think there is every indication in some of these speeches or notices which President Kennedy has made recently that they are in the middle of considering what other tariff concessions might have to be made to a number of countries. I think that what we want is a really well-considered world food policy, to do something with regard to the surpluses we get in our Western countries and democracies to come to the aid of the undeveloped countries, which can yet make great markets for all the nations concerned in return for what can be done in that direction. As soon as you have an understanding—I believe you can get it with the Commonwealth and E.F.T.A. on this matter—then you can go ahead with further negotiations in two directions: with the United States and perhaps with GATT. Mr. Diefenbaker of Canada has already spoken about his need to approach GATT as early as possible on some of the matters. You cannot get a wide extension of Imperial Preference very easily through GATT. It is a difficult organisation to get preferences through. But now is the time to consider and consult together to enable this country to face another challenge in a different kind of field, in a way, but yet of equal importance to our nationhood, our reputation and the whole economic future of our comrades.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, before I am asked, as I have no doubt I shall be asked, a series of supplementary questions—and, indeed, I welcome them, both from noble Lords on this side and on the other side—perhaps the House will forgive me if I make one or two rather simple comments on what the noble Viscount has
336
said. In the first place, I do not think I have had the opportunity before of congratulating him on the appearance of his name in the recent Honours List, and we are all looking forward very much to welcoming him in his further ennobled capacity very shortly.
Secondly, I think we must all remember that this matter raises very wide issues indeed, and we must be careful not to use this statement as a means of debating the whole sphere. I believe we have a Foreign Affairs debate coming, and I think it is possible that there may be further Government statements, as the week goes on, on different aspects of the matter. It would be a pity if we were to examine now the whole of the world situation in this new light. I quite accept from the noble Viscount that it is the business and responsibility of the Government to give Parliament an indication of where they think we should go from here. I believe my right honourable friend was right to separate his statement from such a debate, and also to make it clear in the very cautious comment he made in his statement that this is not an occasion to express any feelings of resentment that some of us may quite naturally harbour at what has been done. I think we should keep very calm and cool on that front.
I would say this, if it would be to some extent an answer to the criticism made by the noble Viscount. I think it is quite clear that this country must now try to get together upon a reconsideration of its national attitude. I will not go into the details of the history which he recounted from his own point of view, but it was a subject upon which there were differences. There need be no such differences now. There will, of course, be Party differences about matters of national policy, but I think this is an occasion when we can really try to rally public opinion behind a sober policy of national and international action which will redound to the advantage and to the honour of this country. I do not think we could do that too quickly, but I think we should all think out our own position very carefully indeed.
I do not agree that in this matter this country stands alone. That was the only point of difference I had from what the noble Viscount said. It is France who stands alone. I will not say any more

337
than that. The whole of the Five, the whole of the Seven, the United States and the British Commonwealth are on the other side of this particular barricade, and France is isolated. This is not a position we welcome. Moreover, I think we must say, and say quite frankly, that what concerns us in the Government, and what I imagine will concern the House, too, is less the future of this country, which we believe to be assured, than the future prospects of Europe in the Free World. This is the issue which has arisen for decision.
We do not believe in an inward-looking Europe. Apparently there is one man in Europe who does. We believe in an outward-looking Europe. It was to take part in that that we made our application, in good faith, and negotiated in good faith, for a long period of time. It is difficult to see how, if these political objections to our application were discovered, they needed to be discovered after one and a half years of negotiation. But our attitude is unchanged, and I hope we may look forward to threshing out afresh the issues which face this country. Of course, we must continue to consult on the basis of the new events, both with our Commonwealth partners and with our EFTA partners, with GATT, with the Americans and with others who are affected thereby—the Five in particular. These things will be done. I think the first and absolutely solid thing to do and to say is that we must first clarify our own minds about what we want to do and then consult all the other relevant people about our common objectives.
3.58 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I will not attempt to detain your Lordships at all now, but I should like to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for his statement and also for taking all the points which I hoped to make when he got to his feet to answer the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition.
I think this is not an occasion for a debate on this subject. This is the first time on which we have been given the full, authoritative Government statement on what has happened, and we are most of us—nearly all of us, I think, with respect to my noble friend on the Left—very disappointed about what has happened. It seemed to me that the most
338
important point the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made was that it is in a sense France who stands alone. Of all those seven countries who were gathered together in Brussels discussing this matter, all but France were joined together. Your Lordships may have read in The Times newspaper a day or two ago a letter—written with what authority I do not know—from an Anglophile Frenchman, who pointed out that France itself is to a certain extent divided, and that division shows a strong feeling for Britain throughout that great country whom many of us still admire and love in spite of some mistakes which she may make.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I must interrupt, if I may, for half a minute. I seldom feel deeply about political matters, but this is not an internal thing between Parties and, as the noble Lord opposite has said, we are together. This is a turning point in British history, and all I would ask (I have no concern with the Government to-day) is that we should not rush the Government. It was impossible for us to consult with others of the English-speaking world outside Brussels as to what we should do in the event of these negotiations to enter Europe breaking down because everybody knew that we were negotiating and discussing. But now we must surely give the Government a few days in which to think out the future destiny of this country, which stands at this moment on the brink of an entirely new era as to our economic and national future.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether the Government agree that the broad agreement which seemed about to emerge in Brussels recently is one best designed to further the long-term interests of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, Europe and the whole Western World? And will they perhaps seize any new opportunity that presents itself to achieve a solution on those lines?
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while very much regretting this breakdown and the action of President de Gaulle, may I ask the Government whether they will take every action they can to see that no evil effects fall upon NATO, as NATO is the guardian of the Western World and without it we should not be discussing this matter to-day.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the Government two questions? While not differing in any way from the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, may I ask the Government when they are likely to be able to make a statement on the profound economic changes which are consequent upon the breakdown of these negotiations? The second question is: do the Government accept that they now have an opportunity, seizing this moment, of rekindling the fires of enthusiasm, of national unity and national purpose which have been damped down over the past months, or even the past year or two; that this country now has a chance to be united and to conquer all the difficulties, as I am quite sure we can if the Government give the leadership which we hope and expect?
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, as a very junior Member of your Lordships' House may I make one comment, and then ask a question? The first thing I should like to say is how delighted I am that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has echoed the words of an excellent editorial which appeared in today's issue of The Times, to the effect that the country is facing a challenge to-day as it did twenty-three years ago. Then I should like to ask my noble Leader one question: whether Her Majesty's Government would consider approaching the Governments of Italy and Germany to ascertain their reaction to the proposal by the Benelux countries that discussions should continue, although they could not be implemented, in which case France might be placed in a position whereby in due course she might find that she would have to change her attitude?
I also wonder whether my noble Leader could be a little more explicit with regard to what I understand were the technical details as to why France would not agree to a consideration being made and a report being made by the Commission. I should like to end by saying—and I say this in all humility—that I feel it might be wise if we were to limit our criticisms of de Gaulle, because my feeling has been that the more criticism which is levelled towards de Gaulle the more it tends to make the French, who in many cases do not share his views, change their attitude to the extent of their
340
getting more and more behind him—what is known in French as se serrer les coudes.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I say as one Back-bencher how much I agree with my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn. I am sure that the House as a whole thinks that it is right and fair that Her Majesty's Government should consider carefully what they are going to say to Parliament and the nation at this serious juncture in our affairs. I only ask my noble Leader whether he realises that some of us very much hope that that statement, when it is ready, will be made in a considered way by one of Her Majesty's Ministers to Parliament and will not be given in an excited interview at the airport.
4.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think we all share the dislike of excited interviews at airports, particularly those who have been subjected to the pressure to give vent to them on every occasion when we leave or arrive in this country; so I think I can agree with that. I thank noble Lords for the various comments and questions they have put, and I will try to answer some of the points rather shortly. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his intervention on behalf of the Liberal Party, and to my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn for what I thought was a very timely reminder that, if we are right in thinking that this constitutes a very important occasion for reappraisal of ail our policies, we must think them out with great clarity. I fancy that the Opposition, as well as the Government, will wish for time; and I think the ordinary people of the country will want to consider in calm what the implications are.
I was not able to take down at speed Lord Gladwyn's question, but without committing myself to the form of words which he uttered, it certainly is the case that we did believe that the negotiations could have gone forward to a successful conclusion. That was also the view of the Five, and I think that emerges from my right honourable friend's statement.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, if I may just interpolate for a moment, is it not a fact that Parliament has not had really detailed information as to what concessions have been made by this country

341
so that they could be properly examined? The agricultural leaders, for example, would not dream of accepting the settlement so far made on behalf of agriculture.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is not for me to criticise, but I thought that we had too much detail and too little clarity. At all events, it is certainly the view of the Government that the negotiations could have gone forward to a successful conclusion. That was the view of the Five, and that was certainly the expressed view of my right honourable friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised the important question of the future of NATO. Obviously that must concern us and the Americans, and I am sure it will concern the Five. Equally obviously, we must see what we can do to keep the Alliance in effective being. I am not pretending for a moment that the action which has been taken by one member of the Community against ourselves makes it any easier for any of us. But I quite agree with the general objective of which the noble Lord has spoken. In answer to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I cannot give a date for a statement on the economic changes. I was thinking there might be a statement this week on some part of it, but hardly the comprehensive statement he is looking for. I entirely share his view that whichever part of the House we may sit in we clearly must try to lead public opinion to a less unhappy frame of mind than it has been showing recently about many things. I have sometimes feared that cynicism might kill this country one day, and I think we could all play a part in leadership in preventing a decay in the national morale in that sense.
I would not have gone as far as the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, on the question of 1940. I do not think this is a bit like that. I think that is to over-dramatise it. I think our future is bright, our prospects are good. I have never had any fear for this country outside the Common Market or inside the Common Market. I think we need to show what I was saying, to throw off some of the atmosphere of cynicism which has covered public opinion lately. But I really do not feel that we are facing a 1940-like situation. I have much more confidence in the basic soundness of the situation, national and international, than that. I would therefore deprecate, to that
342
extent, drawing these analogies with the more desperate moments of the last war against Hitler.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I must say that I feel that my analogy was not in anyway cynical. But on aspects of the general problem I must say we have been told, again and again, by the Government and supporters of the Common Market that if we did not go in it would be a disaster.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not want to engage in controversy with the noble Viscount, because I certainly did not intend to say, and I do not think I did say, his intervention was cynical. What I was claiming, in answer to my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was that we must get rid of cynicism—all of us. If I were to draw up an eleven in this House for cynicals to play against non-cynicals, the noble Viscount would probably captain the team of non-cynicals. So I do not make any kind of charge against him there. I cannot really say what the reactions of Italy and Germany would be to the Benelux suggestion. We have been in close touch with the Five and of course it is a question for those Governments. I equally cannot give any details of what the French said to the other Five as to why they would not agree to the other Five's statements. This was done in conclave from which we were excluded, and I can give only the information contained in my right honourable friend's statement. I entirely share the view of my noble friend that we should limit our criticisms of personalities in this case, if only because our own dignity and self-respect requires that we should remain extremely calm and restrained: indeed some people might have another and less honourable reason—that General de Gaulle rather likes them.

MOTOR VEHICLES (VARIATION OF SPEED LIMIT) REGULATIONS, 1962
4.15 p.m.
Debate continued.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is with some difficulty that one resumes making a speech. I propose to be very brief. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, would agree that there are two regulations

343
which govern the question of the loading of vehicles, Regulations 68 and 73. So far as 68 is concerned, that is mainly to protect roads and bridges, and it is the only one under which the police, with the approval of highway authorities, can weigh a vehicle to see whether it contravenes a regulation. Regulation 73 is the one dealing with dangerous loads and it is the one, I think, which gives most of us concern. It is not possible now, as I understand it, unless there is an accident, for a load to be weighed by the police. I wonder whether the Minister would consider strengthening the position of this Regulation to such an extent that the police, if they believed a load to be too heavy and dangerous, could weigh it.
I put only one further point to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. There is some possibility, I understand, of a new regulation to increase the overall size and weight of commerical vehicles in this country. I would ask the Minister whether he would agree that, if and when that regulation is presented, the Government will include in it a clause dealing with the speed limit, so that we can discuss not only the wisdom of increasing the size of the vehicle and the weight of the vehicle but also the relevant speed limit.
In conclusion, may I say that I am very glad the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, is to take part in this debate. He is the Chairman of the Road Haulage Federation. I believe that if the haulage industry will recognise some of the defects in its organisation, particularly those points on which I have spent a good deal of time (I apologise to the House for doing so), they themselves could do a great deal voluntarily to improve the situation, and I am sure the Government would welcome the co-operation of the industry. Equally, they could do a good deal to stop the present abuse, the contravention of the law relating to records and the hours worked by drivers. I see from the Report that there were 13,000 convictions last year for contraventions of these very important speed requirements in our legislation. I hope that the Government, if they receive approval of these Regulations this afternoon, will promise the House very speedy treatment on the question of raising the standard of maintenance
344
of the vehicles and speedy treatment of the weights that are carried by the vehicles. I think we are taking a very big step. I hope there will be no dire consequences from it. I have a lot of faith in the drivers; I think their skill does a lot to prevent accidents. But I do believe that we must look at these two important factors if we are to reduce in any way the appalling loss of life on our roads to-day.
4.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for not being present when he first referred to me. I am grateful to him for referring to me, but I should like to point out to him that I am Chairman of the Road Federation and not the Road Haulage Federation. Nevertheless, my own Federation will naturally do all it can, and has done in the past under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to take all steps possible to promote the safety of all who use the roads.
I rise in support of my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who, in his usual sound, sensible and concise manner, described these Regulations. I am glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, opposite that those noble Lords do not propose to oppose them. These proposals continue the very logical attitude which was adopted six years ago when the speed of goods vehicles was raised from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. My main concern in considering these proposals is that they should not add in any way to road accidents. There was no dramatic or tragic increase in road accidents because of the previous rise. The Road Research Laboratory carried out full investigations and found—I am using their own words:
"no clear indication that the change had had any effect on the number of accidents per vehicle on the road."
It is too easy, when discussing road traffic matters which closely concern safety, to become perhaps a little overheated, to blame one section of the community or another, and perhaps to exaggerate in bringing examples to mind; but perhaps one could be excused for expressing in strong words one's feelings on a subject such as road safety. One can rightly be criticised if one forgets the facts, or if the facts are

345
manufactured, as I have said, out of thin air.
None of your Lordships would wish to approve any measure which might increase the danger to road safety. As I have already said, this Order does not. To my mind, the provisions are nothing but rational and desirable, nothing but a reflection of technical progress; and, as my noble friend Lord Chesham said, they are realistic. The law must keep abreast of progress or it becomes empty of meaning and is transgressed. And it is particularly easy for regulations concerning motor usage to lose touch with reality, so rapid are the technical advances in vehicle manufacture. Braking capabilities, to take only one example—the one which is most relevant to road safety—have increased enormously in a few years.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned that it would be dangerous for some types of vehicle to travel at the higher speeds given in these regulations. But, unless I am under a misapprehension, there is no obligation on drivers of vehicles to drive at the upper limit; and professional lorry drivers, who are a sound race of men, are just as anxious for their own safety as is any other responsible citizen. I am sure that the time has come, as it came in 1957, to amend this particular law and to bring vehicle speed limits into line with common sense. The kind of thing which I have in mind in saying that these new Regulations will add to road safety is, for instance, the improvement they will effect in traffic flow. Overtaking hazards will certainly be reduced, and the dangerous frustration which drivers feel when they find themselves behind a lorry which is not allowed to go at a speed greater than 30 m.p.h., will surely now be reduced. This sort of frustration has caused far too many accidents in the past.
I should now like to turn briefly to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and to refer to the report of the licensing authorities, to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention. I am unable to find any breakdown in the report which shows the reasons for prohibitions, and it is perhaps a fair assumption that only in the face of immediate prohibitions were the faults serious. Even in these cases it does not
346
appear to be possible to say what bearing the faults might have on road safety. A number of them were, no doubt, quite technical breaches of the Regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned, the total number of vehicles examined in the year 1960–61 constituted around 8 per cent. of the total number of goods vehicles on the roads. Although that seems to be a small percentage, we must remember that the inspectors will select for examination only those vehicles which look as if they require attention; they will hardly waste their time on checking vehicles that look reasonably new, and therefore faultless.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, also mentioned that in the September quarter of 1961 there was a total of just under one and a half million goods vehicles registered, yet there were more than that number of new registrations in the years from 1953 to 1961 inclusive. From this, it would probably be fair to say that in 1961 the average age of goods vehicles was well under four years, and therefore old goods vehicles are but a small proportion of the whole. It is interesting to note that in the West Midlands licensing area, as in a number of others, voluntary action has been taken by the road haulage industry, in conjunction with the licensing authorities, to establish vehicle maintenance committees. This action helped to bring about a 17 per cent. decrease in the number of prohibitions, and this in spite of a considerable increase in the number of the vehicles examined.
Before concluding, I should like to return briefly to the safety regulations. I have not so far touched upon that other excellent reason for accepting the proposals before us—namely, their effect on industrial activity. The retention of any unnecessary restrictions resulting in longer journey times for road transport must handicap industry, and to do that now is the last thing that any of us wants. I do not suggest that there will be as rapid an increase in transport productivity as there was after the previous raising of the speed limit in 1957; the average speed maintained by goods vehicles does not rise in proportion to the maximum speed permitted. Nevertheless, there will certainly be an increase, and this is all to the good. When one considers all the benefits which these proposals could bring, I am sure your

347
Lordships will agree that we should give these Regulations our whole-hearted support, and that we should congratulate the Government and my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary for putting them forward.
4.29 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, no one in this House will wish to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, on the statement which he has made, that from time to time it is necessary to examine the situation regarding speed limits in this country. With the improvement in design of motor cars and the improvement of the roads, obviously, from time to time we must consider whether some of the speed limits that have existed, possibly for some years, are now out of date. Nevertheless, I cannot feel that the fact that car design is better, or that roads are safer, is necessarily a reason for raising the speed limit. There are many other factors involved, and one has to take the overall picture of the situation before so serious an action as raising speed limits is taken.
For instance, while it may be easy to justify the raising of the speed limit for a number of categories of traffic, to put them together, as is done in these Regulations, thus suggesting, possibly unwittingly, that it is therefore all right for people to drive faster than they have done in the past, may lead to misunderstanding. I readily accept that it may not be the intention in raising speed limits; yet that may well be the interpretation which is put upon the Regulations by those who do not take full consideration of what they entail.
My Lords, I am not one of those who believe that speed is necessarily dangerous in itself, for there are circumstances in which accidents can be avoided because one is able to drive a little faster. That is certainly true where the driver is a person of skill and experience. Nevertheless, there is no doubt whatever that when an accident takes place speed greatly aggravates the consequences. Therefore, one ought to be very careful indeed about giving any impression that faster driving is tolerable, unless every safeguard has been examined.
For that reason I find it very difficult to accept the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and the noble
348
Earl, Lord Gosford: that because people have been habitually breaking the law and driving too fast, therefore it is necessary to bring the law up to date and allow them to go on driving in that way.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord Bishop—and I apologise for doing so—I certainly had no intention of taking that line of thought at all.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: I am sorry if I misunderstood the point which the noble Earl made.
I would go on to add that I have examined this new Schedule very carefully, and it seems to me that a good many of the adjustments which have been made are normal and reasonable. There is, however, one category which gives me grave cause for concern, and I hope that the Government will give it further consideration; that is, the wholesale uplifting of the speed limit for all classes of commercial vehicles from 30 to 40 m.p.h. It seems to me illogical, first of all, to make no differentiation between the types of commercial vehicle. I readily admit that there are some commercial vehicles—small, light vehicles—for which the 40 m.p.h. speed limit may not necessarily be undesirable, but I cannot accept that the raising of the speed limit for these great heavy vehicles which crowd upon our roads at the present time from 30 to 40 m.p.h. is desirable.
It seems to me that there are a number of reasons why this is dangerous action. First of all, there is the question of fatigue. I am not arguing that it is necessarily more tiring to drive one of these vehicles at 40 rather than 30 m.p.h. Nevertheless, these drivers do have very long periods of driving, and I cannot believe that towards the end of a long period a man's judgment is not in some way impaired, and that the consequences of an error of judgment will not be worse if he is driving faster rather than slower.
On the question of overtaking, the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, advanced the argument, which I fully appreciate, that if lorries are encouraged to go at 40 m.p.h. that will avoid impatience and irritation on the part of those who are sitting behind the slower vehicles and who try to pass, possibly when they should not do so. But there seems to me

349
to be a contrary argument which is equally valid; that is, that if a lorry is going at 40 m.p.h., to pass it a car has to go at at least 50 m.p.h.. It may be on a narrow road, and we all know that passing on roads which are not absolutely clear and wide can be an extremely dangerous operation. If an accident takes place, because the speeds are accelerated, the consequences are even worse.
My Lords, my main reason for feeling anxious about this matter is the sheer fact of having these huge juggernauts on the road driving at this speed. I can speak from a good deal of personal experience, because in the county in which I live, and across which I spend much of my time driving, there are the roads going to the great industrial centres Of the North, and to Manchester, Liverpool and Birkenhead docks. Many of our roads are comparatively narrow, and I have had experience of driving on these roads in company with such great vehicles. I should be the first to recognise the skill and the courtesy of the drivers of lorries; they have much to teach the ordinary driver in matters of courtesy; of giving signals when it is safe to pass, and so on. But I have also had experience of driving in a mist or at night, when one suddenly meets a stream of these huge lorries looming out of the dark. It is a very frightening, serious experience from the point of view of speed. I feel that there is every reason to restrict the speed of these great lorries to 30 m.p.h.
The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, quoted figures for his statement that when the last uplifting of the speed limit took place there were no evil consequences. I know that statistics can be made to prove almost anything and that it is most dangerous to argue from them. I can only say to the House, in contradistinction to what the noble Earl has said, that in the eight months following the last raising of the speed limit the figures in regard to persons involved in accidents rose from 6,922 to 7,500, a rise of almost 600; and that between 1958 and 1961 there has been a rise of nearly 4,500 personal injury accidents involving heavy goods vehicles.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the right reverend Prelate allow me to interrupt? In fairness to the noble Earl, I must point out that he did not quote any figures. I wish he had done so
350
because we should then have known the source of his statement that there had not been an increase in accidents. In fact there was, and the figures prove it, as the right reverend Prelate has just read out.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I merely read out an extract from the Road Research Laboratory Report, which gave no figures but said that there was no indication that there had been an increase. May I ask the right reverend Prelate whether he can give the percentage of increase of goods traffic on the roads which goes with those figures?
LORD ELTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to give a reference to the Road Research Laboratory Report from which he has just quoted?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: May I give it later?
LORD ELTON: Thank you.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, I am sorry if I appeared to misrepresent the noble Earl in any way. I am afraid I cannot give the percentage. That is why I stressed that I fully appreciated that figures by themselves were dangerous things to use, though I felt that they indicated a rather different nuance of approach from that which the noble Earl had given us.
My Lords, I do not think I need do more than simply remind your Lord ships of something of which we are all so deeply conscious: the deplorable state of the roads as regards accidents, and, therefore, the need to take the greatest care before doing anything that would give any suggestion that we were letting up on the restrictions which ought to be observed on the roads. I therefore very much hope that the Minister will be prepared to have another look at this question, and possibly to reconsider certain aspects of the Schedule to the Regulations.
4.41 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Government, if I may, on making it possible—as apparently one can in your Lordships' House—to have a discussion on these Regulations in conjunction with a Motion such as has been put on the Order Paper by my noble friend, Lord Shepherd. In dealing with new Regulations such as

351
these, which carry the implication made by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that they are likely to be observed, one ought to look at them in relation to how existing rules and regulations, Road Traffic Acts and the rest are observed. It is generally accepted among lorry drivers and many car drivers, whether rightly or wrongly, that chief constables, who are the authorising authorities for prosecutions, do not authorise prosecutions unless the person was exceeding the speed limit by more than 5 m.p.h. Those of us who sit in petty sessional courts notice that from the speeds quoted by police constables when they have been following vehicles the drivers of which have been prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit. Therefore, let us face the fact that what is the legal limit, or at least the limit below which prosecutions will not take place, is almost 45 m.p.h. and not 40 m.p.h.
The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, said that there was no requirement on the part of the driver to drive to the maximum. I agree there is not, except that his employer requires that he should. Every operator carrying on a long-distance operation prepares a schedule for his driver. It is the correct thing to do from the point of view of a successful operator, for he knows that the driver will be at a particular point at a particular time. He knows where he can get in touch with him, even to the cafés which are in use by the driver. The schedule of operation which the driver has to maintain is worked out at the maximum speed limit, which at the moment is 30 m.p.h. and will be 40 m.p.h. Of course, those of us associated with the transport industry know that much of the exceeding of speed limits is in order that the driver can get a little extra time at the café at which he is going to call.
I intend to be perhaps a little critical, but I want to make it quite clear, as did my noble friend, Lord Shepherd, that I am not being critical of the best type of operator. There are operators within the road haulage industry, the larger firms and, of course, British Road Services, who are operating their vehicles safely and whose standard of maintenance is exceedingly high. In fact, they run workshops and employ mechanics of a standard which enables their fleet to
352
be first-class in roadworthiness. They, in fact, prepare their schedules in order that the driver does not exceed speed limits. They enforce the maintenance of the log book so that the driver does not work excessive hours, and they maintain a good standard of maintenance.
But let us face the facts. In spite of what the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, said in regard to the prohibitions, and especially in regard to the immediate prohibition being the only one that is serious, that really is not so. The fact is that over a very wide field of road-haulage operations every phase of the Road Traffic Acts is flouted daily on every type of licence. Whether it is an A, B or C licence, the conditions of the licence are being flouted. One has only to look at the report of the traffic inspectors to see that that is so.
The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, made reference to the fact that these were only a proportion, and that, obviously, inspectors did not inspect vehicles which appeared to be maintained to a good standard. I can understand that. After all, I have been associated also with the working of the Factories Acts, and what does a factories inspector do? There are all too few factory inspectors within the Ministry of Labour, and the inspector knows the employer who complies with, and is very often in advance of, legislation so far as the working of the Factories Acts is concerned. So he concentrates his efforts on what in the industry are termed "rat shops", and the better class of employer is never visited. That is true so far as Ministry of Transport inspectors are concerned. They are so few on the ground, they have so much to do, that as sensible men they confine themselves to cases where they think there is the greatest possibility of evasion of the law. That means that there is a wide range of vehicles, belonging to the good operators to whom I have referred, which are never investigated. That does not in any way alter the fact that there ought to be more inspectors and more inspections of vehicles.
The standard of maintenance of vehicles is shockingly low. It is not unfair to say that, over a vast field of road haulage operations, maintenance is done on a shoestring. What is the problem? The vehicles of many of the

353
small operators are obtained on hire purchase; there is pressure from the finance companies, who finance their purchase, for the maintenance of the hire purchase payments. Within the field of transport, unfortunately, there are also middlemen who are taking the profit out of the rates for a job. They get a transport job of one form or another, but they themselves have no vehicles; therefore, when they have obtained a contract they turn round the corner, trying to find an odd man with a vehicle or two, in order to carry out the work. They cut the rates, but the man operating on cut rates has pressure to maintain his hire purchase payments when he is in difficulty. Sometimes on contract work the operator has to wait some time for his money, and the banks are not easy when the Government say that they should not be easy. Therefore, when there is financial pressure the first thing that goes with many of these operators is the standard of maintenance. It is not unfair to say, as one inspector does in the report, that some operators look upon a vehicle as roadworthy if the engine will start and the vehicle will move.
The other point is hours of work. Again over a wide field of operation within the road-haulage industry there is flagrant abuse of the log book. Log books are falsified every day of the week, and, unfortunately—I have to admit it—there is almost an unholy conspiracy between the employer and the employee. Maintaining the statutory hours under the Road Traffic Act means, of course, a limitation on wages. Therefore, in order to get enhanced wages the lorry driver works in league with the employer so that the log books are falsified.
The right reverend Prelate made reference to whether there is a difference between the fatigue arising from driving at 30 m.p.h., and driving at 40 m.p.h. Let us say this quite frankly: that if one is driving a heavy lorry for excessive periods of time, the reaction of the driver is not as quick at the end of the day as it is at the beginning; and the longer the hours the greater is the likely frequency of accidents and also the severity of accidents. Therefore, enforcement of the existing Road Traffic Act is one of the most vital factors in road safety in this country. There is the other point, too, of overloading. It
354
is stated within the industry that, outside the large-scale road-haulage contractors, nine vehicles out of ten are overloaded at some stage or other; and, of course, that overloading and unsafe loading is very great indeed.
Now I want to turn to another and most important field where lorries are affected by these Regulations. I refer to the vehicles operating in association with civil engineering. Here I should say that I am not a civil engineer. Nine-tenths of the lorries engaged are operated under piece-work arrangements. Therefore there is an inducement to the lorry driver to speed. After all, the more journeys he makes the greater tonnage he carries and the greater his pay packet at the end of the day. Not only is there a violation of working hours but there is an encouragement of the violation of speed limits, and there is also an encouragement of and the winking at the overloading of vehicles. One may say that the standard of maintenance of road-haulage vehicles over a wide field is poor, or not of a high standard; and we all know that, so far as those engaged in civil engineering are concerned, because of their difficulties in going on to sites, backing in and out, and so on, mudguards, number plates, rear lights and the rest "go for a Burton". As a result, the standard of such a lorry, on the basis of its appearance and effectiveness, is very low indeed. I doubt very much whether there is one noble Lord in the House at the moment who, when he has come up behind them, has not cursed sand-and-gravel lorries or rubble lorries for being deficient of mudguards, as a result of which one's windscreen and everything else suffer badly.
Therefore, my Lords, we ought to look at these Regulations not only on the basis of the better type of firm who will observe them and who will do their best to see that their employees observe them to the letter, but also on the basis that, in this road-haulage industry, there is a "free for all" over a very wide field, which creates the possibility of danger as well; and that those whose standard of maintenance, hours of work and loading are bad are given rights under these Regulations equal to those given to the good operators. Therefore there is an obligation upon the Government to see that these Regulations are

355
given only to an industry which really starts out with the intention of carrying them out.
If we are going to have these Regulations and the general Regulations under the Road Traffic Act honourably observed, then there are only two ways of dealing with the industry: either large-scale monopolisation or nationalisation. The present "free for all", with large numbers of independent operators, just means chaos within the industry, which in turn means that we cannot get regulation of or safety for the people who work in it. Therefore, my Lords, I should like to suggest, in the interests of the road-haulage industry itself, and in the interests of the best operators within that industry, that the Government ought to set up an inquiry into the operation of the industry—and not only into the operation of the industry as an industry, but also into the cost of that industry to the nation.
We hear a lot about the £150 million deficit so far as the railways are concerned. Perhaps I ought here to declare, not an interest, but a bias, as an ex-railwayman. I certainly have a greater affection for the railways than for road haulage; and I would agree that instead of using road services there ought to be a greater use of the railways than there is at the moment. On the question of the cost to the nation, the subsidy to the road haulage industry is more than ten times the £150 million to the railways, when one looks at it on the basis of the provision of the permanent way, the cost of accident services, fire and police, special loads and so on—and especially if one looks at the cost over the recent weeks. This winter the county councils and county boroughs have spent millions of pounds of the taxpayers' and of the local ratepayers' money in order to keep the roads free from snow as best they could for road haulage. The road haulage industry has contributed nothing. It has cost British Railways many hundreds of thousands of pounds, but that cost of snow-clearing to the railways has not been a cost on the taxpayer directly: it has been a cost to British Railways, and will be included within a deficiency. Although it may be outside the scope of this debate, I wonder whether the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, will tell us what is
356
the cost to the road transport industry of snow-clearing during the recent bad weather.
My Lords, I would conclude by urging that the Government should look at the question of the operation of the industry. I agree that, in terms of the best operators, who maintain their vehicles well, who maintain a high standard of driver and who give every facility for that driver to conform to the law, it is just foolish to keep them to speeds that were in operation 30 to 40 years ago. Given observation of the law, then these Regulations are good; but in an industry where there is flagrant flouting of the law those who flout it ought to be controlled much more than they are. One method of doing that is by making an increase in the inspectorate of the Ministry of Transport, who have an unsavoury job to do.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question about something he said, which rather confused me? I think he said that the tendency in the civil engineering industry was to overload lorries. When I was in the civil engineering industry we used to buy sand and gravel and aggregate by the cubic yard, and the cubic yard was measured by the cubic capacity of the lorry. The tendency was for the lorry never to be full enough, not to be overloaded. Perhaps the noble Lord could explain that point.
LORD LINDGREN: There are two things. Work is often awkward in the civil engineering industry, particularly on works paid for by the Ministry of Transport, and particularly road-making. Contracts for tipping lorries, for instance, are let to persons who do not possess a tipper at all. A third party comes in, tenders for the contract, gets the contract and then starts to look around for people who have a tipper that can be used. He then sub-lets to these people. They get a cut rate because the middleman has taken a rake-off, and they are in business. Moreover, the drivers are on piecework of tonnage and number of loads a day. If, by piling up to a peak on top of a lorry, they can get on an extra ton—and they can—then there is an agreement or a tendency for both the driver and the contractor to do it. In some cases on the civil engineering side the contractor or sub-contractor is the lorry-owner as well, but sometimes, of course,

357
it is an employee. There is an overloading of lorries, so far as sand and ballast are concerned. There is a great deal of difference between a wet weight and a dry weight. If you get wet sand on a lorry, it can add a considerable amount to the tonnage and to the weight on the springs.
5.0 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester I wish to say a few words of regret and protest at the proposal in these variations of orders to raise the speed limit on goods vehicles—undifferentiated, lumped together—from 30 to 40 m.p.h, But after nearly 30 years of arguing with successive Ministers of Transport on this sort of subject, I realise that it is a mere waste of breath to plead with the Minister when he is in his present mood. I say "his present mood", because it seems to be one of the mysteries of abnormal psychology that, no sooner has an honourable or right honourable Member become Minister of Transport than he develops a most virulent attack of schizophrenia.
In one half, the "Jekyll" half, of his split personality he is acutely conscious of his primary duty of saving life; and then, like Mr. Hore-Belisha, he will declare that it is speed that kills; or, like Mr. Marples, he will clap a speed limit on particularly dangerous stretches of roads over Bank Holiday weekends. But when the other half, what I would call the "Hyde" half, of his personality takes over he can think of nothing but traffic jams and five-mile car queues, and of his over-mastering duty to keep traffic moving faster. I am sure we all have some sympathy with "Mr. Hyde" in that mood.
I myself certainly cannot forget that I have had the privilege of driving cars since before the First World War. Like many others of your Lordships, I have had the privilege of driving cars on British roads when the motorist had the road more or less to himself. And one does sympathise with the tribulations and frustrations of the contemporary car owner in his millions, and therefore to some extent with the "Hyde" moods of the Minister of Transport. Nevertheless, with an annual casualty list of 300,000, it cannot be right for the Minister to take steps which I believe can be shown to be more than likely, to be almost certain,
358
to increase the totals of deaths and injuries.
In his "Jekyll" mood the Minister of course knows very well, because it has been reported by the Road Research Laboratory, that it is only the best 10 per cent. of cars which are capable of stopping within the distance given in the Highway Code. And whereas the best 10 per cent., travelling at 40 m.p.h. can stop in 120 feet there are many cars—one might almost say most cars—and drivers who require twice that distance to stop: while even the best 10 per cent. require twice that distance on a wet surface.
In his "Jekyll" mood the Minister will be constantly conscious that the Highway Code states that vehicles other than private cars may need twice the distance to pull up on dry roads. But in his "Hyde" mood the Minister is all too ready to forget these considerations and to make the plausible but sophistical and, I think, threadbare plea which we have often heard in this House (but not, I am glad to say, this evening), that it is not speed that matters but speed in the wrong place and at the wrong time. Of course, taken literally and strictly, that is perfectly true—indeed it is a platitude. What you have said is that when speed is not wrong it is right. But it is the latent implications and the inferences which are constantly drawn from that platitude that are entirely false. When you say speed is dangerous only at the wrong place and at the wrong time you should add that a driver can almost never be certain that what he is assuming to be the right place and the right time will not, suddenly and disastrously, prove to be very much the wrong place and the wrong time. A lorry is proceeding at 40 m.p.h. in apparently safe conditions. Suddenly a child 30 yards ahead falls off his bicycle, or a car emerges from a turning, or some idiot cuts in and overtakes an oncoming car. If that happens, the lorry driver will need to stop in a very much shorter distance than 80 yards if he is to avoid infanticide or a head-on crash. Of course the Minister knows this. His experts are presumably feeding him with truisms of this kind every day.
He knows that Mr. Newby, of the Road Research Laboratory, addressing the

359
Traffic Engineering Group of the Institute of Civil Engineers stated—and here I come into conflict with the mysterious attribution to the Road Research Laboratory by the noble Earl, Lord Gosford—that if the speed limit were raised then accidents would be almost certain to increase, and had increased in all the cases studied. The Minister will know—what the right reverend Prelate reminded the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, of just now—that in the eight months immediately following the raising in 1957 of the speed limit on heavy vehicles from 20 to 30 m.p.h., the accidents to such vehicles involving personal injuries rose from 6,922 to 7,500 and have been rising annually ever since—from 12,917 in 1958 to 16,396 in 1961. It is said that statistics can prove anything, but here the noble Earl and I have both quoted from the same source, the Road Research Laboratory, and presumably one or the other of us is wrong. I hope and think that it is not me.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to interrupt him? As I said to the right reverend Prelate, I am sure that those figures would be much more realistic if they were given as percentages of the number of vehicles on the road. The fact that the actual number of accidents increases does not mean that the accident rate is increasing.
LORD ELTON: I think there are figures that cover that point.
LORD STONHAM: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will permit me to say that if he will refer to page 3 of the document he is looking at he will see that from 1945 to 1953, where the 30 m.p.h. speed limit was imposed on various sites, there was a reduction of 10 per cent., and in the same eight years when the speed limit was removed there was an increase of 45 per cent. in accidents. This is a comparable period.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, the Minister no doubt also knows—and I think that this is relevant to what we have just been talking about—that in the Ministry of Transport returns for 1961, we find that a goods vehicle is involved in every fifth accident which involves death or serious injury; and that last September, in a Press release by the
360
Ministry, it was announced that the largest proportion of increase in casualties, 11 per cent., had occurred among drivers and passengers of goods vehicles, the vehicles themselves having increased over the same period by only 1 per cent.
The Minister knows well enough all the facts about the unsatisfactory maintenance of many of these vehicles whose speed is to be increased, of which we have been reminded by both the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren. But when what is uppermost in the mind of the Minister is the need to keep traffic on the move, all such considerations, one cannot help feeling, will be ignored. I cannot help picturing experts summoned to the Ministerial sanctum pausing before they knock on the door, wondering whether it is going to be Jekyll or Hyde who answers. For if it is Hyde, the kind of facts and arguments which would have been welcome enough to Jekyll, will be given extremely short shrift. It is said that there was a particularly dictatorial head of an Oxford college, in the days when it was still possible for the head of an Oxford college to be dictatorial, who was presiding over his governing body during a long and heated debate. At the end of the debate, everyone present voted for the Motion except the head of the college, who alone voted against it. He then said, "Well, gentlemen, we seem to have reached a deadlock". I cannot think that under such circumstances the Minister of Transport would be so defeatist.
I only wish that it were possible to delete this particular clause from the Orders, but obviously, under the circumstances, that is not possible. Deletion would be welcome to many of those who are most intimately concerned with driving on the roads. I do not think that anything has been said this evening of the fact that the Transport and General Workers' Union are against this variation, as are the Union of Road Transport Workers and, needless to say, the Cyclists' Touring Union and the Pedestrians' Association for Road Safety. All these bodies would welcome rejection of the Order, if only that were possible; and so, I cannot help thinking, when he reverts from Hyde to Jekyll, would the Minister himself.
5.14 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Shepherd in that, with the willing co-operation of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, we have had a somewhat wider debate than might otherwise have been the case and I think we have found that extremely useful. There is a tremendous temptation to quote statistics in debates of this kind. It is almost inevitable. I am going to try to get mine "off my chest" quickly, particularly because the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has dealt with some of the points on which otherwise I would have touched.
To compare like with like—and I think this really answers the point at issue at the present time—in the year 1961 there was an increase of nearly 50 per cent. in passenger car accidents on no-limit roads, as compared with accidents on roads where there was a speed limit, whereas the increase in goods vehicle accidents on no-limit roads was less than 30 per cent. I submit that that is wholly due to two reasons. The first is the better standard of driving and care by road vehicle operators and, secondly, the fact that there was a limit imposed on goods vehicles. I think that these are reasonable assumptions. My objection, and I think the objection of every noble Lord who has so far spoken, except the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, is to an increase in the speed limits under conditions where it has been shown beyond any dispute whatever that we are not yet ready for such an increase on any count. I regard this step as deplorable, irresponsible and likely to lead to disastrous results in the shape of increased road casualties and deaths.
There is no question whatsoever that when speed limits are raised or removed, there is an increase in the accident rate. The Road Research Laboratory has done a great deal of work on this and there is no reasonable shadow of doubt. The Road Research Laboratory says, in this document from which I am reading:
"The proportion of vehicles travelling faster than the limit was always considerably less after it came into operation than before. Conversely, where the speed limit had been raised from 30 to 40 m.p.h. on some main roads in the London area, the proportion of vehicles exceeding 40 m.p.h. rose from 9 to 14 per cent."
The only argument which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, put forward for
362
this Order which we are considering to-day was this: "The basic reason for raising the speed limits on goods vehicles is that the present ones are out-of-date. The police cannot enforce them because people will not respect a law they regard as unreasonable." If that argument is valid in this case, then it would be just as sound to suggest reducing the penalties for burglary, because, judging from my considerable correspondence from burglars, I assure your Lordships that they regard the present law as very unreasonable and they certainly do not respect it.
Here we have a situation where 85,000 people are seriously injured or killed on the roads every year, a great many unfortunately through goods vehicles, and we are told that the time is ripe, because of mechanical advances, to make progress, as the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, said, by saying to drivers of goods vehicles that they can now drive at 40 miles per hour. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, all experience shows that people regard that as incitement to go further and, of course, they will go faster than 40 m.p.h.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth—he is very sorry, and I am very sorry, that he is not here to-day to take part in this debate—pointed out in a recent letter to The Times:
"In 1961, 41,700 drivers of commercial vehicles were convicted of speed-limit offences, and of these only 131 suffered any suspension of licence, a penalty generally accepted as the most effective deterrent to the committing of this offence."
This is under present conditions—1961. Now we are increasing the speed limits. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, suggested that it would be easier for the police to detect offenders with a speed limit of 40 m.p.h. than if it were 30 m.p.h. I suggest that such submissions are quite untenable.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth in the same letter asked:
"How can Parliament will the increase in vehicle speeds and withhold the wherewithal to see that the limits they impose are effectively policed and enforced?"
That is one of the major points made by my noble friend Lord Shepherd. Lord Lucas of Chilworth went on in the letter:
"I am not opposed to the raising of the present limits so long as the safeguards I

363
have set out are accepted. If they are not, and the road traffic law is in the future to be treated with the contempt it has been in the past, any increase in vehicle speeds will put all road users at greater risk, the greatest falling upon the drivers of these vehicles themselves, who last year suffered an increase of 11 per cent. in their killed and seriously injured."
The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, asked for a quotation of the percentages, and he wanted them currently. According to the most recent figure available, there has been an increase in percentage of 11 per cent.
We have had the good fortune to-day to be able to consider the Ministry of Transport's own Blue Book on this subject. My noble friend Lord Shepherd quoted some of the most important figures, and I am not going to repeat them. But I want to deal with a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, when he said, "Of course, the traffic examiners are not going to stop the new vehicles and look at them; they just stop and examine those which look somewhat rickety." I do not know whether the noble Earl has read the Report, but every traffic area refers to road checks as the most important means of deciding on defective vehicles—and with a road check they stop even the flashing new vehicles, as well as the old shambling ones. The Northern area reported road checks on 1,420 vehicles, with 627 prohibitions; that is to say, 44 per cent. of the vehicles stopped had to be prohibited. In some cases of prohibition the vehicle must be put right within ten days; but in about one-quarter of the prohibitions in every area the vehicles had to be taken off the road. In other words, they were a menace.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: May I ask the noble Lord whether, by any chance, he has any statistics which would give the ages of the vehicles concerned?
LORD SHEPHERD: What has that to do with it?
LORD STONHAM: The point is that those vehicles are licensed and are being used on the roads; and I know of no regulation which orders an old vehicle off the road. If the noble Earl is suggesting that the Government should bring in a regulation to that effect, then I should no doubt support him. But I am dealing with conditions as they are and as they
364
are revealed in the Government's book. I have calculated that, taking the proportion of prohibitions out of the 8 per cent. of the vehicles checked, 400,000 goods vehicles using the road today are unfit to use the roads. In other words they are a menace in their present condition to anyone using the roads. I should have thought that the most important people to be considered in this matter are not the owners of commercial goods vehicles, who perhaps are going to make a bigger profit out of them, because they go faster and turn round more quickly, but the 50 million or so people who are using the roads. And it is their safety which is the most important factor.
We have had no word from the Government about how these speeds will affect the question of safety. We are told that a good driver who can drive faster will be able to avoid accidents. There is nothing in the speed limit regulations to stop you from accelerating to pass a vehicle if it is going to avoid an accident. I do not know whether or not I am a good driver. I have been driving a car now for 42 years—going back in time with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to when we were almost lonely knights of the road—and I have never yet had an accident or a claim of substance on an insurance company; and I like on occasions to drive cars fast. But some of the present-day behaviour of these road vehicles is utterly intolerable. Last Tuesday I left your Lordships' House in my car, and going round Parliament Square was a heavy lorry "breathing down my neck". Your Lordships know that they keep snorting their accelerator, and you look up. I turned down Victoria Embankment, and he was there still on my tail. I looked at my speedometer, and I was doing 30 m.p.h. down the Embankment. I then pulled over and let him draw level, and I kept parallel with him as he went along. I gave it up when we were both doing 45 m.p.h,. and he went on to do 50 m.p.h. on the Victoria Embankment. There were several policemen about, but nobody stopped him. Every noble Lord in the House knows that this is going on all over the country all the time.
There was an article in the Observer on September 16 last by Gordon Wilkins, who said:
"Nothing I have ever written for the Observer has drawn such a response from

365
readers as my protest against the proposal to raise the speed limit for heavy lorries to 40 m.p.h. The great majority of letters have endorsed my view that our road system is not adequate for these higher speeds.
"The letters reflect the fear of people who travel the roads in small cars. 'My young son and I were chased at 50 m.p.h. by an unloaded brick lorry', writes a man from Cardiff. 'The driver appeared incensed when I tried to get away and was attempting to cruise about one yard behind me'.
"A mother writes from Northwood: 'What can the ordinary motorist do to make his views and fears felt? I shall soon be taking my two children by road from Northwood to Harrogate. It is not the distance or the other cars I shall be afraid of—it is the heavy ruthless lorries. A friend of mine was literally forced on the verge two years ago on this very journey. Her car was a write-off.'
"A doctor from Peterborough writes: Please go on stressing the dangers of these huge vehicles, subject to no tests, getting away with speeds and lighting deficiencies which would soon attract police attention if cars were concerned.'"
My Lords, I have had many letters from people all over the country, and here is one from Port Talbot:
"The traffic conditions on the A.48 in this area are absolutely criminal. I have been pressing the Ministry of Transport for the last three years to do something about it, and nothing has been done. Now, to make matters even worse, heavy traffic, including huge oil tankers from Llandarcy, are to be speeded up to 40 m.p.h. On the eastern side of this road, through Baglan, the footpath is only one and a half to two feet wide, and old people like myself living here are terrorised beyond measure, and many are unable to face it. Many of the vehicles are overloaded, and frequently heavy goods are hurled from speeding traffic on to the footpaths endangering the lives of pedestrians. Many fatal accidents have occurred, and this portion of the road is so notorious that it is now known as 'The murder mile'."
The writer of that letter sent me a sample of the kind of stuff which flies off the lorries, as big as a man's head, to the infinite danger of people walking along the road. These are people who are moving about the country on their lawful, peaceful occasions; these are their feelings, and we all know that they are true.
I should be prepared, if a case were made by the Government, to agree that in certain conditions speed limits could be raised; but not when 400,000 of those vehicles are not fit to be on the road at any one time. This is not my opinion. This is in the Government's own document. I have never before read comments by civil servants so stringent
366
about their own Department as the comments in this book on the state of traffic. Just let me briefly read one or two of them. The Yorkshire Area reports:
"The tendency to regard offences against the Act and the Regulations as a normal hazard of the haulage industry appears to receive some measure of encouragement from the attitude of many lay magistrates who impose inadequate penalties."
This is a civil servant writing. The North-Western Area reports:
"Thirty-seven per cent. of all vehicles inspected were issued with Prohibition Notices. … These figures suggest that there is room for considerable improvement in the condition of goods vehicles, and the desirability of inspecting a greater proportion of them."
The West Midland Area reported a 60 per cent. increase in convictions in a year and a 30 per cent. increase in warning letters. It says:
"Perhaps those concerned will now read the writing on the wall as well as the letters."
But the Government refuse to read their own writing—because this is Government writing about which we are speaking. The East Midland Area also says:
"Even taking into account the higher speed of operation on motorways, this would appear to be a deplorable state of affairs."
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, could the noble Lord repeat that? Where is it from, and what did he say?
LORD STONHAM: The East Midland Area had a road check on the M.1. Out of 154 vehicles involved 56 were prohibited, and the report adds:
"Even taking into account the higher speed of operation of motorways, this would appear to be a deplorable state of affairs."
I agree with that statement. But the noble Lord wants to speed up those vehicles.
LORD CHESHAM: No.
LORD STONHAM: Well, to make it possible for them legally to be speeded up. The noble Lord declares that we want to raise the speed limit but that people do not have to travel faster. He might be asked the question: "Why raise the speed limit if they do not want to travel faster?"
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I must interrupt at this moment. The noble Lord must not use a quotation relating to a

367
road on which there is no limit for commercial vehicles, in support of his argument against raising the speed limit a certain amount on other roads. That is the only point I wanted to make.
LORD STONHAM: That is quite fair, but I did say it was on the M.1, with no speed limit. I quoted it in full. The point is that I was referring to the prohibitions. In other words, more than one-third of the vehicles involved in that road check were regarded as not fit to be on the road.
LORD CHORLEY: When they get off the M.1 they are just the same vehicles.
LORD CHESHAM: But they slow down.
LORD STONHAM: But they are a bit over-heated, and not quite the same vehicles. They are more liable to accidents because they have come under strain. This is the point I want to put to the noble Lord. One-third of those vehicles which were tested were unfit to be on the road, and there is no suggestion whatever—and the noble Lord made none—that there are going to be more examiners, more enforcement officers, or any steps taken to ensure that these vehicles are more roadworthy before we increase the speed limit. I should have thought that, in the interests of safety, the first essential before we increase the speed limit is to see that sufficient steps are taken to make quite certain that the vehicles are more roadworthy and able to act properly in an emergency.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, quoted the figures of the distance needed to pull up, and that distance must be doubled in wet weather. With only one-tenth of the vehicles on the road able to brake in accordance with the requirements of the Highway Code—these are the conditions under which we are considering an increase in the speed limit.
I was giving some of these Civil Service comments. The South-Eastern Area reported that the steadily rising incidence of cases involving serious and flagrant breaches of the law indicates that there is a great deal of room for improvement in the haulage industry generally. This is not a politician making a statement; it is a civil servant making a statement to his own Department. That
368
is why I am suggesting that it is not so much the road hauliers who want to read the writing on the wall as the Ministry of Transport who want to read their own writing, and then perhaps we should get better results.
I am concerned with the question of enforcement. With the present 30 m.p.h. limit many of these vehicles, as we know, travel at 50 and 60 m.p.h. I quoted one which I followed last week, on the Victoria Embankment doing 50 m.p.h. It was a heavy, old, chemical lorry, a tanker, probably containing dangerous or corrosive fluids. There are many such going about the country which can be involved in serious accidents. I would ask how this Order is going to be enforced? If you read the Order, it lists 29 different classes of vehicles each with its own speed limit. There are five different speed limits, ranging from 5 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h. I would say that it is impossible, with the best will in the world, for the police to be familiar with all the types of vehicles to which the different maximum speed regulations apply; they just cannot do it. There are no discs or indications on those vehicles as to what maximum speed limit should be applicable to them. They were abolished some time ago.
I know the noble Lord has told us that his right honourable friend, who is considering the question of overloading, has now set up a departmental committee to work out a scheme to fix maximum permitted loads. That is another good thing, and I suppose that in two or three years' time we shall get the report from the committee and something will perhaps be done about that. Meanwhile, we are having this increase of speed limits with no indication on the vehicles as to what the permitted speed limit is, and no indication as to how it should be loaded, or if it is overloaded.
My noble friend Lord Shepherd has pointed out the very limited circumstances in which the police can get a van examined. We have heard nothing about the damage to road surfaces. We see on the television the potholes on the M.1, although we are spending another £1½ million on it. There is the extra damage to road surfaces caused by these extra speeds. A four-ton lorry of unladen weight taking on six tons, making an overall ten tons, can travel all over the country for just less than

369
£1 a week vehicle licence. This book says that the average mileage done by a four-ton vehicle is 20,000 miles a year. There are 245,000 lorries of over three tons, so they are travelling, according to the book, 5,000 million miles a year, and they pay only £17 million a year between them in road licences: less than a penny a mile for the use of the roads all over the country in payment for the damage that they do. They are going to do far mare damage if they travel at faster speeds. And remember, my Lords, we are considering the possibility of bigger lorries. The 10-ton lorry does to the road surface sixty times more damage that a 1-ton lorry, and the faster they travel the more damage they do.
I would ask the noble Lord, therefore, if he will ask his right honourable friend to consider the possibility of having graded speed limits according to the size and weight of vehicles and to the loads they are carrying. It is surely indefensible to have, as we have in this Order, the same speed limit for a Minibus as for an 8-wheeler with 24 tons all-up weight. That is what this Order allows: 40 m.p.h. for a Minibus and 40 m.p.h. for an 8-wheeler which can have 24 tons all-up weight. When it is travelling at 40 m.p.h. how quickly can it stop? And if it cannot stop there is going to be a serious accident. With the overloading and very poor standards of maintenance which are so prevalent, it is impossible for many lorries travelling at high speeds to stop in a reasonable space.
I think, therefore, that before the Government increase the speed limits we should have sufficient examiners to make sure that the vehicles are roadworthy, because, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd said, if we can have examination of 25 per cent. of vehicles that would be enough to ensure that the other road users would see that their vehicles were kept in order. We must by Statute limit loads well within the compass of the vehicle. At the present time an operator can buy a 4-wheel lorry built to carry 7 tons; he can add a third axle and run it at an all-up weight of 20 tons though the chassis, brakes, steering and tyres are designed to cope with only 11 tons.
I feel that the Government should withdraw this Order. I know that we
370
are not voting against the Order as such, but we are also considering the Motion moved by my noble friend. I think the facts are so much against it that the Government should withdraw the Order because these proposed speed limits are not realistic in prevailing mechanical and traffic conditions. I know that the noble Lord regards them as justification for the higher speed limits, but in my view they provide the very reason why, under present conditions, we should not have the higher limits. I think that, before we increase the limits, immediate steps should be taken to enforce the present speed limit; that we should restore the use of discs on vehicles to indicate their permitted speed; that we should step up police action and prosecutions for infringement. We should also increase the number of examiners to double or treble the road checks, and get the faulty lorries off the road and end the exploitation of drivers through their working excessive hours.
My noble friend Lord Lindgren mentioned that, and also the fact that chaps had to be in league with their employers to work overtime so that they got a decent wage. I should have thought the answer to that would be to give the men a decent basic wage so that they do not have to do excessive overtime and break the law to live. I think that we should limit the weight and loads and not increase the speed limit for the heavy lorries, but reduce it to 20 m.p.h. I think we should increase the cost of vehicle licences for heavy lorries so that they pay more for the damage they do. This is a very serious matter which is concerning a great many people in this country. and I do hope that the Government will withdraw this Order and not take the disastrous step they propose.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, would he consider following the example of the United States? I think I am right in saying that most of the accidents these days are connected with lorries. Perhaps I am wrong; if so, I am sure he will correct me—the noble Lord says that I am. I thought that most of the accidents there were connected with lorries, and in the United States one finds lamps placed all over the rear of lorries, and that is very conducive to avoiding accidents. I thought that if we could consider putting

371
rear lamps all the way round the square on the back of the vehicle it would militate against so many accidents happening.
5.45 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I will certainly bear the noble Earl's suggestion in mind. He will understand it if I do not go further into that suggestion to-day when we are debating speed limits of commercial vehicles. We have not had a particularly long debate but a debate which has been extremely thick in suggestion and point, and I must frankly ask your Lordships' indulgence and forgiveness if it takes me a little time to wind up on behalf of the Government. It is a little difficult to know where to start, and I think I should start by getting rid of the worst part of it, the somewhat unworthy thought which crossed my mind when I saw the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, together with the names of other noble Lords opposite; that there might be some matter of political or ideological reason.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that my noble friend Lord Lindgren and I are the only two Members of your Lordships' House to have any political inclinations?
LORD CHESHAM: I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that the thought crossed my mind, unworthy as it may have been—I will repeat myself in case I did not make it clear—that the views of the noble Lords might have been to some extent coloured by their political feelings on the matter of road transport. Indeed, at the end of his interesting speech the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, indicated that. His political enthusiasm took him interestingly but, if I may say so, unsuitably outside the range of the debate -because I do not believe that anyone could really pretend that the cost of snow clearance has any bearing on speed limits for commercial vehicles.
LORD LINDGREN: Snow slows up the speed of the vehicle.
LORD CHESHAM: It occurred to me, too—again an unworthy thought—that both the noble Lords I mentioned have a very considerable personal vested interest, may I call it, in the railways. That I think is well known. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, shakes his head,
372
but, if I am not mistaken, I believe that he is the leader of a national organisation which has nailed to its mast the motto "Save the railways". If I am wrong I shall be delighted to withdraw that statement.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am Chairman of the National Council of Inland Transport, which has no kind of Party affiliation whatsoever. The noble Lord used the term "personal vested interest", which is normally taken to apply to some kind of financial interest. I assure your Lordships that I have no kind of direct or indirect financial interest to declare in transport.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I accept that most readily, and I never intended to imply that there was any financial interest. That is not what I said. I said "personal" vested interest, and if there is any suggestion of finance in that I withdraw it at once. They have an interest in railways.
LORD LINDGREN: A bias.
LORD ELTON: May I interrupt for a moment to ask the noble Lord if he would explain why having an interest in railways which is not a financial interest should in any way invalidate opinions about road safety?
LORD CHESHAM: If I may just continue with the thesis I am developing, that will become clear to my noble friend, among others. I think it is true to say that people who have feelings like that on the railways may be expected to be a little prejudiced. I said that that unworthy thought had crossed my mind. If the noble Lord, Lord Elton, had allowed me to continue, I should have gone on to say that I had dismissed those unworthy thoughts from my mind; that I had treated what had fallen from the noble Lords concerned as being appropriate to the occasion, and that I intended to deal with, at any rate, some of the points they made at their face value within the context of the debate.
Haying said that, with some difficulty, I will proceed, if I may, to consider some of the points which were raised by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chester, in an interesting speech. I do that because (he will forgive my saying so; I do not know what his circumstances are to-night) I know that

373
right reverend Prelates sometimes have to catch trains. The first point with which I want to deal is one which I consider he misunderstood a little, if I may say so, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I had not thought, and I had not intended to argue, that the basic reason for this change of speed limit was that, because everybody gets away with exceeding the present limit, therefore it must be changed. If I gave that impression then I did not make ray point sufficiently clearly. I pointed to the fact that it is widely and flagrantly abused—as indeed it is—as evidence of the mental attitude in this connection of people who regard the present limit as no longer respectable in its true sense. That is what I meant and that is the spirit in which we have approached this problem. I say that in the hope that I have made myself clear the second time.
I must, of necessity, with so many points, dart from one to another somewhat briefly. I want to turn very quickly to the question of fatigue, which the right reverend Prelate raised, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren. This is obviously a matter to which attention and careful regard must be paid: it obviously cannot be ignored. But so far there is no evidence that any problem arises from it. Taking the accident figures for 1960 and 1961—and fatal and serious accidents at that—in 1960 there were 19,781 vehicles involved, and out of that number it was stated that the number of drivers ill, fatigued or physically defective was 62, which is under 1 per cent. I will spare your Lordships the figure for the following year; it was even less.
As I understand it, research which has been done abroad, and to a certain exent here, does not indicate that the eleventh hour of driving which is permitted under the present regulations is necessarily any more dangerous than the first. But I do assure the noble Lords concerned that this matter is being carefully watched, and various studies are being undertaken in an attempt to see whether there is any necessity to change the hours on safety grounds—and I am talking at the present time, of course, only on safety grounds. It is rather difficult to assess, and medical approaches have not been very conclusive up till now. But your
374
Lordships may like to know that the Applied Psychology Research Unit of the Medical Research Council is doing work at this present time in co-operation with the Road Research Laboratory, and accident statistics are also being broken down, so far as possible, to discover what can be found. But so far there is no indication that working proper hours is likely to lead at either speed limit to danger of fatigue.
Then I come to the vexed question of overtaking. The right reverend Prelate made a perfectly good point, that it takes longer, both in time and distance, for a car travelling at a given speed to overtake a lorry that is moving faster. Of course that is true, but this is a point which has been very carefully considered, and our conclusion is that that undesirable effect is more than offset by the fact that less overtaking is required in a more uniformly moving stream of traffic. We have considered that point very carefully, as I say, and our conclusion definitely came out that the point mentioned by the right reverend Prelate was outweighed by the advantage. I was a little struck by the right reverend Prelate's calling in aid the very large lorries looming out of the dark in a fog at high speed. I thought, if I may say so, that, like some of Lord Stonham's more lurid prayers in aid, it was a little overdone. Is it really true that large lorries drive at 30 or 40 m.p.h. in fog in the dark? I doubt it; and, quite frankly, I do not believe that in conditions of darkness and fog a majority of lorry drivers are going to approach either speed limit, 30 or 40 m.p.h.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, if I may intervene, I did not say that they were, and I should not like to give the impression that I thought they were. I was merely saying that I find these vast lorries on the road, in the dark and in the mist very alarming, and if they are going to be given permission to go faster they will be even more of a menace and danger than they are at the moment.
LORD CHESHAM: That no doubt would be so. I was trying to apply /the right reverend Prelate's analogy to the case in point. I was making a rather poor job of connecting the two, I must admit. I agree with him, although I frankly do not think it is of great support to the case in point.

375
I should like now to turn to this question of accident figures, and I want, I hope without getting muddled or indulging in controversy, to try to sort out the slight tangle that seems to have occurred about what quotation came from where. First of all, I should like (and I think this is most important, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, pointed out) to look at what is going on now. He quoted from a letter which was written by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to The Times, pointing out that the number of goods drivers killed and seriously injured increased last year by 11 per cent. That figure is correct for the nine months ended September 30, 1962. For the sake of the record, and to keep it straight, it is only fair to add that now that the figures are available for October and November that figure for the 11 months goes down to 8 per cent.
LORD STONHAM: It is still an increase.
LORD CHESHAM: It is still an increase, but it is fair for the sake of the record. The noble Lord said 11 per cent. Taking in two more months the figure is 8 per cent.; so there has been a decrease to an extent in two months.
I have no evidence for saying this, and I am going to apologise to your Lordships for voicing a purely personal opinion, but I will take personal responsibility for it; it does not represent the view of my right honourable friend or of the Department. I think that there is a strong possibility that the increase in casualties—because, as I am about to indicate, the accident rate of goods vehicles remains good—is due to excessive speeds. That is why I said, and why I still say—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, completely—that enforcement is the answer to this problem. I am happy to say that the police recruiting situation is better than it was. There has been an increase of 5,000 policemen in the country in the last two years, and the traffic side must have had its benefit from that. But it must go on and, as I said (I do not want to go into this point in detail again), I think that this measure is going to result in better discipline and better enforcement, and that is probably as big a reason as any other
376
why I am in favour of it. I think that is vital.
Every instance of things happening on roads that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, quoted from the harrowing letters that he read out was, as I was careful to note, an offence under the law at present. I wrote down on my notes brief details of what he read out, and opposite I wrote in large letters "Enforcement". That is the answer to every single problem that he mentioned. Many of them, as I recall, are slightly outside the scope of these actual Regulations, but are to do with the road safety of commercial vehicles-such things as lumps of stuff being flung off them. But that is the situation.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord just one point on that? I fully accept that he is entitled to his opinion that, when they come into force, these regulations may make enforcement easier. Can the noble Lord give a real undertaking that, if within a reasonable period of these Regulations being passed it is clear that they are in fact being broken and are not being enforced by the police, he will have no hesitation in coming to this House with a Regulation bringing the speed limit back to what it now is?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to wait until a later stage in my remarks. I take note of what he has said, but I am coming back to that. I just wanted to try to deal with this point about accident figures, because in the House generally I think there has been a small measure of misapprehension regarding an extract read by my noble friend Lord Gosford which has remained unidentified. I should like to put the Record straight on that. The quotation comes from a report entitled The Effect of the Increase in Speed Limits for Heavy Commercial Vehicles. It is dated February 1958 and is issued by the Road Research Laboratory. I should like to read a slightly longer extract, including that which we have already had, because, if I may say so, it will be a little better in context. It reads:
"An analysis has been made of the casualties to drivers of heavy goods vehicles between 1953 and 1958 in relation to the numbers of vehicles on the road, with particular reference to the effect of increasing the speed limit for such vehicles to 30 m.p.h.

377
on May I, 1957. For various reasons including fuel rationing in 1956–57 attention is confined to casualties occurring in the months of May to October of each year.
"In built-up areas in 1957 and 1958 the casualty rate per vehicle licence was higher than in the earlier years, except for 1955. However the casualty rates for drivers of light goods vehicles and for drivers of motor vehicles during the period 1953 to 1958 showed trends rather similar to that shown by the rate for drivers of heavy goods vehicles. There is no clear indication that the change in the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles had any effect on the casualty rate per vehicle. On the other hand, there were sharp rises from 1957 onwards in the number of heavy vehicles on the road and in their mileage, and these were responsible for increases of 10 per cent. or more in casualties to their drivers above the expected annual increase."
For the sake of the Record, and so that the shorter extract we had cannot be juggled about with, I have, I am afraid, taken rather a long time to make that point; but I think it is important. Apart from what I have ventured to state purely as my personal opinion, I think the increase in the rate has probably been due to increased traffic.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful for the fact that the noble Lord has traced this cutting and enlarged upon it, although I think Lord Gosford would agree that it is quite unrecognisable as what he read out. But what has just been put before us does indicate that the accidents were either the same or that they were more numerous when the speed limit was raised from 20 to 30 m.p.h.; and that is exactly what we are saying.
LORD CHESHAM: I am not altogether following the noble Lord's conclusion, which appears to be in the opposite sense to that to which the Road Research Laboratory came and which I have just read out. That is in fact what I did say, but perhaps it would be easier for the noble Lord to see it in Hansard to-morrow. I am sure that he will look extremely carefully a t it.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this: is it not a fact that in the case of accidents involving heavy road vehicles which travel faster, the casualties occur among the people they hit rather than among the drivers of the heavy vehicles themselves?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I was talking about casualties to the drivers
378
or occupants of the vehicles. The question of whom they may hit is another matter. It is not one to be ignored, but it is not what I was talking about at the time.
I want now to come on to a point which has perplexed a number of noble Lords, the right reverend Prelate and also the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who referred to the matter when he said that different vehicles handle in different ways, some harder, some easier. The right reverend Prelate thought that it was illogical not to differentiate between vehicles. This is a point which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. I do not pretend that this 40 m.p.h. limit is a perfect solution in a perfect world. It can be argued that it is somewhat high for some vehicles, but it is equally strongly argued that it is certainly too low for some others, particularly the lighter type of van.
The point—a very telling one, I think—is this. Before 1957 there were differential speed limits of 20 and 30 m.p.h., as your Lordships know, between vehicles over and under 3 tons unladen weight. The effect of that was that the vehicle manufacturers spent a great deal of time and effort in building down their vehicles so as to get just under the unladen weight limit. The operators—I will be quite frank—pared down the unladen weights of vehicles that were over the safe weight limit by fitting lighter tyres, and anything else they could think of, to reduce the unladen weight in order to qualify for the higher speed. They then sought to put on the vehicles the same loads they should have put on the heavier ones in order to run them at the higher speeds. That is what happened.
LORD LINDGREN: If I had said that, the noble Lord would have accused me of bias in favour of railways. Now he is admitting the same point that I made.
LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord may have made it among a sea of others. But I do not think I should have accused him of bias, particularly as I was about to make the point myself. The point has been put to us very strongly by the vehicle manufacturers that if we went back to a similar system of differential speed limits the same evil would happen again. In

379
addition, the time and effort of the manufacturers, who are doing a great job in the export market at the moment, would be diverted to chiselling away at their designs and specifications so as to get round the law. The dangers of overloaded vehicles would be increased. I think that that is the greatest evil. It is for that reason we have rejected any proposal far differential limits within the general class of goods vehicle.
My Lords, if we are to have a uniform limit, 40 m.p.h. is the best compromise. It may be that it is too high for some and too low for others, but if and when a satisfactory plating scheme comes along—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his support and his welcome to such a scheme (although I thought the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was a little less pleased about it; he seemed a little cynical as to whether it would make any difference in a matter of years)—and every goods vehicle has its maximum permissible all-up weight marked on it, it should be possible to introduce differential speed limits according to laden weights without running the risk of incurring those undesirable evils, which I have just been describing, of building too light a vehicle for too large a load.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord's argument is quite sound in relation to, say, 1-ton, 30 cwt. or 2-ton vehicles: but it would not stand up in relation to the heavy 10-tonners and tank vehicles about which the right reverend Prelate was concerned. There you could have this differential between the very heavy vehicles and the lighter ones.
LORD CHESHAM: I have heard much expression in this House of concern about the dangers and evils of overloading, dangers and evils about which I have expressed my agreement and announced action to be taken. And, taking all in all—which is what I consider we must do—we feel that what we are proposing avoids the greater evils.
The noble Lord mentioned large vehicles, and I think I had better now make some mention of our future thoughts on the subject of still larger vehicles. I mentioned this matter the other day in reply to a question by the
380
noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and I have a little more that I can now add. The preliminary survey to increase the maximum weights and dimensions for normal motor vehicles in this country is now in the process of going out for consultation in the normal way with interested organisations. Your Lordships might like to know roughly what is in mind about this. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd suggested that as and when regulations were made to alter permitted weights and dimensions of vehicles there should be a qualification included as to their speed. I think that I must put that point straight at once. It is not possible to do it in exactly that way. The reason is that speed limits are imposed under Section 24 of the 1960 Act, which calls for Affirmative Resolution. The dimensions and weights come under Section 64, and are subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. Therefore to include a speed limit in dimension and weights regulations would be inappropriate. If it were thought desirable to control the speed of the larger vehicles it could be done by the laying of separate but simultaneous regulations to do so, and, if that was not done and any Member thought it should be done, by praying against the Section 64 regulation in order to get an assurance that action would be taken under Section 24.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord will remember the words I used at the beginning of my speech as to the difficulty on the part of the Opposition in opposing regulations in the Division Lobby. I would draw his attention—I will not press him on this—to the debate on the Road Traffic Bill (I think in 1958), when there was a discussion on the whole problem of regulations, whether subject to the Negative or Affirmative Resolution form. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, then said that White Papers on these regulations would be brought forward so that the House could at least have the opportunity of voting, on a White Paper. I would suggest to the noble Lord that if we are going to have these new regulations he should bring them forward in a White Paper so that the House can consider, debate, and, if necessary, vote upon it. I think that that is the least the Government can do for us in this matter.
LORD CHESHAM: I am grateful not to be pressed on this matter at the

381
moment, and I assure the noble Lord that I will certainly consider what he has said in the light of what I have just said. I do not think I can say more or fairer than that.
As to the proposals, I will indicate very briefly what they are and also how they compare with limits in Continental Europe. First, as to width. At present we have a limit of 7 feet 6 inches, although some heavy vehicles have authorised widths of 8 feet. Buses, since 1961, have had a permitted width of 8 feet 2½ inches. We have in mind that all vehicles should be permitted to be 8 feet 2½ inches. That width is current throughout the Continent, and there are no proposals of which I am aware for any increase.
So far as length is concerned, my Lords, with rigid vehicles our present general limit is 30 feet, but buses and coaches have been allowed 36 feet since 1961. We have in mind that all types of rigid vehicles should also be allowed up to 36 feet. That is rather less than in some Continental countries, where rigid vehicles go to 39 feet 4 inches, which is the limit recommended by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport. For articulated vehicles the present limit is 35 feet, and we propose increasing it to 42 feet, that figure having been selected on the equivalent manoæuvrability of an articulated vehicle compared with a 36 feet rigid one. That is considerably less than the European Ministers of Transport figure, which is 49 feet 2 inches, and which West Germany has already adopted.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is there not in Europe some limitation on the roads which the larger vehicles can use, and can the noble Lord say whether his right honourable friend will be contemplating, at the same time that these measurements are increased, some limitation on the roads where these larger vehicles can be used?
LORD CHESHAM: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to finish my remarks on this subject, because I want to go on to the maximum weight on a 2-wheeled axle, on which the present limit is 9 tons. We are proposing to raise that to 10 tons provided that it has twin tyres. On the Continent 10 tons is general, and France goes to 13 tons.
382
My Lords, our present limit for multi-axled rigid vehicles is 24 tons, which we plan to raise to 28 tons, subject to the vital and highly important question of axle spacing. This is the only instance in which we are in any way ahead of the Continent, who have their limit at 26 tons. For multi-axled articulated vehicles we plan to go up from 24 to 32 tons, again subject to the all-important question of axle spacing. That is already common on the Continent. France goes up to 35 tons, and the Commission of the European Economic Community propose 36 tons. We already permit our heaviest vehicles with a trailer to reach 32 tons, which is the same maximum weight as we now propose for an articulated vehicle. We do not propose to increase the limit for the vehicle and trailer.
My Lords, on the particular point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I would say that we believe that the figures I have just mentioned—which will probably need some study in Hansard—are the largest that can be allowed to circulate generally on the roads of this country. We are studying, from the point of view of the largest vehicles which would come from the Continent or might be engaged in international traffic with the Continent, definite specified routes on which they might be allowed in this country. It will probably take some time to work that matter out, and as and when the scheme comes to fruition the largest vehicles will be allowed to use only selected roads suitable for them. In this connection, there is one point that I might make. That is that not every operator chooses the biggest vehicle available. Operators choose what suits them best, and the mere fact that in due course proposals will be more formally made to increase vehicles does not mean that they will all be that size. I think—though it is an estimation—that about three-quarters of the present vehicles are smaller than the existing permitted maximum sizes, and Appendix F of the Commissioners' report makes quite interesting reading in that connection.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me a specific and technical question about braking distance. I should have mentioned this matter before, and I am sorry that I did not do so. He asked me what was the increased stopping distance between speeds of 30 m.p.h. and

383
40 m.p.h. If you assume an average lorry, and a braking efficiency of 50 per cent., at 30 m.p.h. it would pull up in 60 feet; at 40 m.p.h. it would pull up in 105 feet. But I think I should be justified in mentioning at this time that I have some further simple figures on braking efficiencies. They are made from a summary of some thousand tests carried out in 1960, showing the average brake performance of various vehicles. The average works out to 58 per cent. for 4-wheeled vehicles, 54 per cent. for articulated vehicles, 52 per cent. for 6-wheeled vehicles and 50 per cent. for 8-wheelers. Quite a number can, and do, go up as high as 66 to 70 per cent., so I think that that should provide a certain amount of interest to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, raised an interesting point—he has disappeared for the moment—about operators forcing drivers into circumstances where they had to exceed the speed limit to get their job done. That, I think, was the gist of his remarks.
LORD STONHAM: No.
LORD CHESHAM: I took it to be so, my Lords, that he meant that they had a very tight schedule which did not give them time to stop for a cup of tea.
LORD STONHAM: My noble friend said that 90 per cent. of the drivers in civil engineering—he also mentioned gravel lorries—worked on piece work with their loads. Therefore, there is an incentive for the men to do the job very quickly, perhaps unsafely quickly, in order to earn more money. It is as simple as that.
LORD CHESHAM: It is just a question of enforcement again, my Lords. So the noble Lord and I are again at one on this matter. I need not go into the detail I had intended, of the legal position of operators causing their drivers to operate over the limit. All I need say is that in the particular instance that he chose, of gravel and sand lorries, the Regulation is one of the easiest to enforce, because they must be calibrated lorries and they are the one class of lorry in which overloading can rapidly be measured.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord proceeds, I think he is
384
rather misrepresenting the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, who, I think, said no more than that employers were keeping their drivers up to the maximum speed limit by their schedules, and that if the speed limit increased the employers would keep them up to the increased speed limit. The noble Lord went on to say that if drivers wanted a little longer in their cafes they, the drivers, would be tempted for that reason to exceed speed limits. But the noble Lord was not accusing the employers of being a party to this.
LORD CHESHAM: I am glad of that, my Lords, because of course if that is so—if he had reason to believe that the drivers are being ridden unreasonably hard without being forced to exceed the speed limit (if they were forced there are penalties prescribed by the law for the person forcing them to do so)—it is a matter of working conditions which I should have thought would have been taken up and negotiated with the unions concerned. That is not something with which we are concerned to-day.
I want now to come to one of the most important things of the lot, which has certainly engaged the attention of the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd, Lord Lindgren, Lord Stonham and, to a lesser extent, other noble Lords. That is the question of maintenance and testing. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, started off by using extracts from the Annual Report of the Licensing Authorities to urge his case, and that was backed up by other noble Lords. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, slightly overstated the case, but that is by the way. Without going into it—and I am certainly going to make no attempt to go into chapter and verse of the detail of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, quoted—I am in full agreement with the noble Lords that the present situation is unsatisfactory, and we are giving, it very serious consideration on that account. It is not perhaps quite as bad a case as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made out when he quoted the round figure of 110,000 vehicles examined out of 1,400,000 on the road although that is quite correct as a figure and is the figure of the examinations that were carried out by the Ministry under Section 183. He was quite right in saying that a large number of public

385
service vehicles were examined in addition to those. That figure does not include them, and they are, in fact, the subject of a separate report.
I would just say here that the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, said he had no doubt that some of the defects found were technical ones. But although some of them may have been minor they all related to maintenance and condition, and in some way had a bearing on the road safety of the vehicle. I think I must say that in all justification. What the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, did not take into account is the number of goods vehicles up to and including 30 cwt. unladen weight which are subject to the annual test under the periodic scheme, which is under Section 65. I know that that test is not as thorough as the one to which goods vehicles are normally subjected under Section 183, but it does cover the most important of the safety requirements—brakes, lights and steering.
In 1962, 190,000 light commercial vehicles up to 30 cwt. were tested under the periodic scheme. It would not be any good my trying to give your Lordships comparable figures for 1960–61, because the scheme only started in that period and was confined then to 10-year-old vehicles, whereas now, of course, it is six. I seem to remember being charged by one noble Lord opposite in particular with doing something to bring the age down further, but more of that anon. The numbers that are subject to that test will grow as the age limit is brought down, but it will still leave the problem of the over-30 cwts. which are not in the scheme. I quite agree it would be ideal, and we should favour it, if we could ensure that all the older vehicles were examined every year by our examiners; but if we did that we should have to double or treble the staff of 320 which the noble Lord mentioned, which figure is quite correct. I do not believe it could be done on financial grounds, and it would be even more difficult by way of finding the necessary men to fill the posts. That is the snag. We could, I suppose, increase to some extent the amount of time that the existing staff spend inspecting goods vehicles at the expense of what they spend on inspecting the public service vehicles, but I think your Lordships would agree, that that would be retrograde. I think it is thanks to the very
386
thorough examination that the passenger vehicles get that their mechanical condition is of a very high order, and if we were to relax on that I think that in the long run their very good safety record would suffer.
The alternative to increasing the staff is to include vehicles over 30 cwt. in the Section 65 tests, and we intend to do our best to find a solution, or to seek a solution and find it, on these lines. One of the difficulties is that only a limited number of the ordinary garages which operate the existing scheme can cope with the heavier vehicles. Of course, the problem could be dealt with by setting up Government testing stations, like the one at Hendon, all over the country, but that would involve an enormous amount of capital expenditure falling on public funds. Some local authorities undertake some vehicle testing, and it would perhaps be possible to get some of them to extend their facilities to take in heavier ones; but that, again, is going only a certain way to meet the problem.
LORD SHEPHERD: But would the noble Lord not agree that the cost of the inspection of private cars does not fall upon the public purse? Why, therefore, could we not have a small levy on a commercial vehicle, in the same way as we do on a motor car, in order to get these inspections carried out?
LORD CHESHAM: We probably could, my Lords, but I was talking about the capital cost of providing the stations suitable for inspecting the heavy vehicles all over the country, not the cost of operating the scheme.
LORD SHEPHERD: But the capital cost can be recovered over a period from the receipts from these inspections.
LORD CHESHAM: Perhaps, again, the noble Lord will allow me to finish. I was pointing out the difficulties of working a scheme; I was not saying it was impossible on that account. I hope he realises that. But it would be quite hopeless, and dishonest to the House, if I were to put forward a scheme saying that that is what we are working on without pointing out the difficulties which have to be overcome in bringing it in; I should be misleading the House.
There is another possibility, and that is to make use of the existing facilities,

387
which are mainly privately owned—mostly by road haulage organisations—for maintaining the vehicles on the road. We are studying all these possibilities. The solution may not be a clear-cut one, and it may involve different arrangements for different categories of heavy vehicles over 30 cwts. Studies are in a rather early stage at the moment, and I hope that your Lordships will understand if I am reluctant to indicate with any further degree of precision the direction in which our thoughts are leading. We have to take account not only of the technical problem of getting them properly checked, but also of the administrative, legal and financial problems as well. We shall need time for this, my Lords; not only to work out the scheme, but to enter into the necessary consultations and to work out detailed proposals.
Having said that, I should like to go on to say that I accept the purport of the Motion to follow this debate, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and I am certainly in full agreement that this is a problem which must be solved. We are determined to find a solution to it. In fact, when the noble Lord comes to move his Motion I hope he will not mind my accepting it with a couple of remarks, which I must just make at the time; and I hope he will realise that we are as much in earnest about the necessity of maintaining these vehicles properly as he is, and as are other noble Lords who have supported his case. With those words, and with what I have said about tackling the problems of overloading and maintenance, I hope your Lordships can see your way clear to approving these Regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TESTING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
6.40 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his replies that have been given to all the other speakers in the debate. I do not propose to speak on my Motion but will move it formally.
388
But may I make one point?—and it concerns these 320 examiners. They are obviously grossly over-worked. They have their public service vehicles, they have goods vehicles to examine; they have to supervise the inspection of motor cars, and I believe it is true that they are also involved in enforcement over a wide range of matters in the haulage industry. The number is obviously not enough. I believe that it should be doubled. I think that if the country knew the state of the figures and facts it would demand it. I hope the Government will feel it is the desire of this House that something De done urgently. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the Annual Reports, 1960–61, of the licensing authorities appointed under the Road Traffic Act 1960, and, in particular, the need to increase the number of commercial vehicles tested.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it is unnecessary to say very much more, except that I accept the purport of what the noble Lord has said. I said a moment ago that all possibilities were being examined of increasing the efficiency of the testing machine, as it were, and that does not rule out the fact that it may at some stage be possible to increase the number or vary the duties of the vehicle examiners. This is a matter that shall also have attention. In accepting the noble Lord's Motion I must ask him to accept the qualification that as I undertake to lay before the House Papers at some stage I have already mentioned why it may take some considerable time before any Papers can be laid in the sense he wishes. If he will accept that, then I am happy to accept his Motion.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord will not preclude me from asking at a later stage: where are the Papers?
LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord is not precluded from doing that in the slightest degree, and if I were able to tell him anything about progress, I would do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC SERVICES IN WINTRY WEATHER
6.43 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether in view of the tendency for abnormal weather in this country to become annually more normal they will inquire of the appropriate authorities in Sweden, Switzerland and Canada how they manage to prevent their transport and other public services from grinding to a standstill as soon as the weather in the winter becomes wintry. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be thought that Her Majesty's Government have enough to contend with at the moment without listening to my grumbling about the weather, but I thought it might be useful for a very short while to look at the experiences of the last horrible month and see what lessons are to be learned and what we can do to prevent a repetition of the miseries in the future. Because we shall have a repetition. We shall be taken by surprise again; we shall again have nothing in preparation and shall again be grumbling that the weather is abnormal. One of the horrors of the war was the "bomb bore" who regaled us with stories of the blitz. One of the horrors of the last month has been the "freeze bore" who regaled us with his stories of the great freeze. I will regale your Lordships with no such horror. The worst thing that happened to me was that a power cut was made while I was shaving with an electric razor.
Bluntly, we have all hated the last month with the possible exception of the manufacturers of candles and oil heaters, the plumbers and those lawyers who rather ghoulishly talk about the weather as being "good probate weather". The most ominous of the reports we have read have been those of a water shortage, because we know perfectly well what happens in this country directly we have a water shortage. It is immediately followed by a flood. The country is knee-deep in cold and dirty water. We see pictures of stout Sapper sergeants rowing housewives at Wallingford round the back streets in punts. I shall be told that this is abnormal, and I maintain that it is normal. If, for various technical reasons, the Press should be short-handed at the moment, they need not worry. They can
390
use the same pictures as last year; and they will do for next year as well. (I am not an expert on climatic conditions in Mesopatamia in the 4th millennium B.C., but I am prepared to bet that what really caused Noah to get out plans for the Ark and start building was listening to Mrs. Noah grumbling that the well had run dry.)
This will then be followed by a heat-wave. We shall be told that it is abnormal. We have no means of coping with that either. I shall be putting down Motions about the lack of air conditioning. This will be followed by drought and we shall be told that that is abnormal. And I shall receive from the Isle of Wight County Council firm instructions not to water my garden. The Isle of Wight County Council is an admirable body of men and women, very patient indeed, in view of the fact that half the House of Commons and nearly all the House of Lords live in the island. But I cannot make them understand that I do not want to water my lawn when it is raining. That, I think, is what has worried most people in the last few weeks. People cannot understand why in this day and age, in this year of grace 1963, when all the scientists combine to contrive means to blow us all to perdition, they cannot produce some means of stopping the cooker going off when you are halfway through boiling an egg.
Bear in mind, to begin with, that things do go wrong abroad. We are not the only people making mistakes. In weather such as we have had recently they have gone wrong, often catastrophically. I had a letter only yesterday from our noble friend, Lord Amory, the High Commissioner in Canada, commenting on the risk of points being frozen, which has been talked about here. He ends by saying:
"I have been able to write at such length because I am waiting for a train which has not arrived on time because the points were frozen."
Everything does not go right abroad. They do grind to a standstill in exceptional weather like this. Everything does not always go wrong here. I should willingly pay tribute to the railway men, the busmen and the milkmen who struggled on and carried out their work in appalling conditions, and to some local authorities, too. Their good work only shows up the slackness and bad preparation of far too many other local authorities. I am certain

391
that Her Majesty's Government did their best too. As I have no right to reply to this debate under an Unstarred Question, I would thank Her Majesty's Government in advance, on the off-chance that I may get a satisfactory reply.
It will, of course, cost far too much to copy what is done in those countries which have very heavy and severe winters. I am not suggesting that we should have a full insurance policy against this sort of weather happening every year. It is silly in one moment to complain about the extreme burden of Government expenditure and in the same breath propose other means of spending Government money. We are familiar with the cry, "Government spending must be cut to the bone—but not to my bone". And in another place we are used to Members calling for a greater reduction of Government expenditure, "but not in my constituency." One must be reasonable about this, and the cost of full insurance will be intolerable. But I maintain we could do more to insure against a reasonable risk.
Consider the actual cost of the last 30 days: road clearance running at £2 million a week; three days cost B.E.A. £100,000. What of the other airlines? The charges on the National Health Services are up 20 per cent. since Christmas. The fruit and vegetable trade tell us they have lost £10,000,000. Heaven knows what the other farmers have lost. Add to that the cost for all transport delays. Insurance claims for floods, frost and accidents have cost about £15,000,000. There are the repairs to postal and other utilities; and there is the loss through building and other industries being at a standstill. Sport and entertainment have heavy losses; and, my Lords, there is a loss of £75,000 per week on the takings for Bingo. The difference between all that—and I am told that it amounts at the present time to between £130 million and £150 million: that is what we have lost in the last month—and a basically sound insurance policy cannot be all that much.
I see that the Minister of Transport is asking for a report from his road engineers so that he may profit by their experience. Good. I hope he will listen to them, because we have sought advice before and not taken it. London Transport had consultations recently with the Swedish Underground about snow
392
clearance. I do not think that much came of it. A joint committee of Swiss and German Railways conferred with our railways in 1957. I do not think that much came of it.
May I offer my noble friend Lord Derwent, who is to reply, a few other observations which he may like to pass on to his right honourable friend? In Canada, the snowploughs keep the roads open at a speed of 30 to 40 m.p.h. The first snowplough that I saw on a main road here, obviously constructed by a joint committee headed by Mr. Heath Robinson and Mr. Bud Flanagan, was going backwards at about 3 m.p.h., shovelling snow all over the driver. Half the ploughs have not been able to get through, or have been unable to remove snow from the road when they got there. In New York, over 11,000 of their dustcarts have snowploughs attached. We in this country have no machines for spreading salt on pavements. In Westminster, I believe they converted milkmen's trolleys for this purpose. If one walks through my Borough of St. Marylebone, one sees that our paving stones have been pushed up. They all have to be relaid and repaired, at great cost—and I give you one guess as to who is going to be asked to make a contribution to the cost.
Very few local authorities in this country know that the I.C.I. have perfected means of storing salt in bulk in the open. My right honourable friend is now perfecting an electronic device for reporting to his engineers when main roads become dangerous through ice. I hope that that will be copied widely. I hope also that he will inquire more carefully into the problem of the under-heating of roads. I know that it is expensive—£2 per square yard—but surely on any count it would be worth it, certainly at key points.
What about railways? We nearly had a coal disaster because of the great freeze-up. In Canada, coal trucks are thawed out in steam-heated sheds. In Czechoslovakia, all coal trucks are heated from below. In Canada, points, which freeze up so frequently in this country and cause so much damage, even in short spells of frost, are thawed out with steam heat. In Switzerland, they are permanently heated by electricity. I realise, of course, that in this country we have a real problem with the density of our railway

393
system; but I believe that much more could be done. I am told that it would cost £20 million to heat the 100,000 vital points on our railway system. I should have thought that it was worth it. And is it really true that there is no means of communication between the guard and the engine driver on express trains? That seems to me to be absolutely crazy.
About airports; half the Canadian airports—115 of them—are kept permanently clear, and the other half, the smaller airports, are converted for use of skis. What are we doing in this country about perfecting a means of heating and clearing runways? I know that any means of fog dispersal—FIDO, as it was called during the war—is very expensive. But have we made any progress at all towards some satisfactory means of clearing fog and snow from our main airports?
Would my noble friend be good enough to consult with the Ministry of Health about hospitals and about auxiliary power and lighting?—because I think the public are confused about this. There was a letter in The Times, which had to be slightly amended and which caused considerable confusion. I should have thought that all hospitals having theatres, incubators and iron lungs should have a compulsory form of alternative power. It seems to me to be ridiculous that in Luton four ice-cream vans had to be called in aid to provide power for the operating theatre and that in Surrey there was a hold-up for 3½ hours because of the blackout. What really is the situation? I am sure that the public are worried about this.
And when my noble friend has finished chatting with the Minister of Health, perhaps he will buttonhole his right honourable friend the Minister of Housing. Outside plumbing in this country has become a bad joke. In Sweden, the bathroom and pipes are always in the middle of flats, and they do not have this trouble at all. In Denmark, flats and factories are centrally heated by surplus hot water from power stations, and in Canada, the plumbing comes in from basement installations four feet under ground. I am told by a Swedish architect, who wrote to me when he saw this question on the Order Paper, that he recently visited a 10-year-old comprehensive school at Crookston, Glasgow, built on the top of a hill. He reckoned that the
394
cost of putting in double windows would have been paid for in three years by the fuel saved.
We owe a debt of thanks to my honourable friend Sir Gerald Nabarro for introducing his Bill for making the insulation of industrial premises compulsory, but what has happened to his proposal for the compulsory insulation of domestic premises? Bad insulation is costly, but I am told that the cost of efficient insulation amounts to only 1 per cent. of the cost of a house. A Swiss paper has sent me an article emphasising the importance they attach in Switzerland to double glazing and extractor fans. I wonder why we do not revise the model bylaws for new thermal installation rules. I would also, with all respect, draw attention to this article sent me, which began:
"It is, of course, understood that all British architects are mad."
I am not adding my voice to that comment. I merely suggest that the building improvement, which has been impressive in recent years on the subject of pipes, heating and insulation, needs to be accelerated.
Lastly, there is the all-important question of fuel. I do not know how much the insufferable Mr. Doyle contributed to our miseries in the last month. It always enrages me, in an unofficial strike when the ringleaders say that they do not want to inconvenience the public. It is, of course, the inconvenience to the public that provides them with their best weapon. Does your Lordships' House believe that we should have a power go-slow in a heat-wave?
I suspect that something else is wrong. In the United States the fuel companies have emergency supplies permanently available. In France, they are able to pipe power across in peak periods. I suspect that the Central Electricity Generating Board have seriously underestimated the growth of normal demand in this country, a growth to which they themselves have contributed by their advertising and high-pressure salesmanship. Only 7 per cent. spare electricity capacity was available in the last month, and up to 14 per cent, would be needed to cope satisfactorily with the long freeze. The cost of that, spread over a period, would have amounted to 3d. in the pound on our electricity bills. It would appear to me, therefore, that there is a need for better

395
planning, pooling and conserving of our fuel resources. That is one of the most important lessons that have come out of this last month. Whether the Gas Council's war with the Coal Board helped, I do not know. Something clearly was wrong.
We have had a long day, and I shall not take up any more of your Lordships' time. I would re-emphasise the main points. I am not suggesting that everything is bad in this country, and that everything went wrong. On the whole, we pulled ourselves together remarkably well (I hope I am speaking correctly in the past tense) and made the best of a bad job; but we could have done a great deal better with a little more planning, a little more forethought and a little more belief that the winter was not abnormal but much too normal. But I am not suggesting that all was well elsewhere.
The Mayor of Sudbury writes to me saying that in Ontario the average snow, fall was 93 inches. The temperature was 22 degrees below zero. That is Fahrenheit; in view of what happened yesterday I am not going to translate it into Centigrade. It was 45 degrees last year. Yet he tells me, there was and is no dislocation in Sudbury and no unemployment. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to call the Mayor of Sudbury in aid—because he has offered his services.
I do not argue that we should take out a full insurance policy—as they do in Switzerland, Sweden and Canada—for a hard winter which may well never occur. That would be unrealistic and ridiculous. But I do suggest that we should take a little more care and plan a little more carefully. We should have a reasonable insurance policy and should be able to avoid a certain amount of trouble. And trouble will arise again. Not for a whole month, perhaps; it may be for only a short time. But we shall be plunged into a comparatively shorter misery. Our national figure is St. George. I suspect that it ought to be Ethelred the Unready.
My Lords, I do not ask my noble friend for detailed answers to any of these questions. I merely ask him if he will give me an undertaking to consider these matters and prepare for next year, or later on this year, when it will inevitably happen again: because I believe that we have a tremendous amount to
396
learn out of the miseries we have gone through in this last month, and we should be foolish not to try and learn it. There is one thing I should like to ask my noble friend, in conclusion—perhaps I should know the answer, but I do not: can he tell me where I can buy a good pair of spats?
7.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I cannot possibly follow the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his witty speech, for which he is well-known, but we all owe him a debt of gratitude for raising this matter to-day. The last thing I want to do is to throw stones at Her Majesty's Government who are subsisting through a difficult time at the moment. But I am confident that your Lordships desire to have this matter ventilated, because the people of this country have been through a good deal of misery during this last month. One is proud of the brains which have been manifested in the organising powers of this country, but there is no question that we have failed in this last month and that we are the laughing stock of the world. One has only to look at the cartoons coming from Canada, one of which I saw this afternoon, to realise that.
There are certain things that I should like to put to the Government. First of all, the hospitals, which have already been mentioned, ought not to be handicapped again in the same way as they have been. Something ought to be done about this. Then, local authorities should be warned that they will not receive housing grants unless they put their pipes, not outside, but in places where they will not freeze up. Thirdly, there is the question of heating on the railways. I live in the Scottish Riviera, where we have had a modest time compared to people in the South: I had to come down here to get really cold. But there is no doubt that our railways are very lacking in heating facilities. Quite frequently a man comes along and says: "You have to realise that this is cold weather." Of course it is cold weather; but this trouble does not occur in Canada. As the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, said, we cannot have a full insurance policy against these things; but we can do a great deal better than we have done.
There is the question of coal shortage. The National Coal Board put on a very

397
good show, and they emphasise central heating with coal. But they neglect to make sure that the necessary article to carry this out is available at a moment's notice. You cannot get coal for love or money. It is monstrous that the public should be put to this inconvenience in 1963, quite apart from the cost involved. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, gave some figures. Whether they are correct or not I cannot say; but there is no doubt that it has cost a lot of money. This is a country of development, and there must be a sufficient reserve power to meet the demands made upon it. The people deserve this, and they should have it. Ours is not a temperate climate, but a climate of extremes; and it must be remembered that they are short extremes and, therefore, you cannot have a full insurance policy.
Finally, on the question of the roads, these are not properly kept open. The proper way to keep roads open is never to let the snow gather; and there should be an emergency shift of men ready to go and deal with the snow as soon as it falls. If we did what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, advocates, get in touch with the Northern countries and adopt their policy, we should be a great deal better off than we are now. The fact is that this country is not geared to meet emergencies owing to the fact that this is not a temperate climate but, as I say, a climate of extremes. We must travel more and keep up to date. Things change from year to year. I live, as I say, in the Scottish Riviera, and I have managed to keep warm. I have had put in (and I would advocate it to your Lordships) perspex for the large windows and polythene for the small ones. This double window glazing for windows facing North is not above the average man's ability to carry out for himself. I have kept perfectly warm, and others could do the same. I would advocate to the Government that, before they issue instructions to the local authorities for housing schemes, double glazing should be put in effect.
7.7 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like to inform the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that he has the full support of the Opposition in regard to this important matter he has raised. But before tackling certain points, I should
398
like to take up his gloomy forecast of the continuation of abnormal weather into normality. I think we should look to our meteorological history. It is, after all, a mere 7,000 to 8,000 years since the ice age when this country was, in fact, actively joined to Europe, and it is perhaps a natural adjustment in present political circumstances that the ice that joined us to Europe should return.
We are, we understand, in an interglacial period. It may well be that there has been a minor bit of glaciation this year. But Simpson, who made a great study of the climate of the pleistocene age, forecast that in another 30,000 years' time there would be no snow on the earth at all. This would offer even more uncomfortable prospects, because the sea would be several hundred feet higher, and we should not be able to ski; and this would happen, curiously enough, at a time of lower solar radiation. It is when we get increased solar radiation that, so far from it getting warmer, it soon gets colder, because there is increased evaporation, the cloud cover increases and we then move into a glacial spell. What is so mysterious to me, and, I think, to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is that one never really has to bother about the cold in the arctic. Perhaps I may refer to that, because I did occasionally find of some value my experience as a rather incompetent arctic explorer of the past.
I should like to take up a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, who said it was important to remove snow right away. In this country we do not really understand snow. We think of it, roughly, as something for Christmas cards, and a nuisance, as slush in the towns. Snow is a very flexible material which changes its nature at different stages. When it first falls it is so soft that if you have enough of it it is practically impossible to get through it on skis; and, obviously, if there is a wind, wherever there is an obstruction, which may be in the nature of railways and roads, you immediately get a snow drift. This is the moment when it must be swept, and when, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, made clear, certain local authorities really "went to town". I believe that the engineers of the Hampshire County Council were up for several days on end, and swept, so far as I know, practically every road, except the unadopted road in which I happen

399
to live—but that is another matter. They really worked hard at it.
As soon as the wind comes the snow begins to drift hard. At this stage it may be difficult to sweep, but your Lordships will be encouraged to know that this is the moment at which one is able to build an igloo. You should equip your car with a saw or a large knife, because the igloo is built out of blocks of snow. If you are able to move, instead of suffocating in your car, you can go out and, in the space of an hour, build a very comfortable igloo in which the temperature will be reasonably warm and in which you can remain for a long while. Then comes the later stage, when with more wind and some thaw the snow ceases to be snow and becomes ice. This is the time when it really is too late to do anything very much about it. You can only wait for the thaw, unless you have some very powerful scrapers indeed.
I think we ought not to concentrate our concern on the public services only. It is, of course, the private services which are inadequate. The problem of the coal supply has not been a lack of coal in the coalfields; it has been the size of the stocks held by the coal merchants. I do not know the answer to this. It is no good blaming Lord Robens of Woldingham about it. Nobody is proposing to nationalise private coal distribution. We all get taken by surprise. This is a matter of our outlook. We become extremely helpless individuals when we are confronted by snow. We saw the pathetic picture of men, searching Dartmoor for an escaped prisoner, slithering over the snow, going into it up to their knees and thighs. If they had been provided with two moderately long pieces of wood of a flat nature, even if they had never worn skis in their lives, they would have been able to travel. I would recommend that the Government have a suitable supply of short skis. They are much easier to use than long skis, especially for old men, and they would introduce some mobility.
I will not go so far as to advocate that we establish a stock of sledges and dog teams. The tragedy of present-day exploration is that dog teams have almost entirely disappeared, and the most flexible
400
way of getting around has given way to Snocats and Weasels and various different pieces of machinery which are very suitable until such time as they break down—when you find that you are unable to eat them. It may well be that we could, none the less, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has suggested, prepare just a little more. I would suggest to the Government that, although this particular kind of weather spell may not recur for another ten or fifteen years, it will come again some time; and it would be reasonable if the Government (who do not generally shrink from issuing guidance on many subjects) were to introduce guidance of some kind to make sure that local authorities—and I think it is local authoritites who are particularly concerned—were ready to act quickly.
Some of the problems we cannot solve. The problem of electricity breakdown when thaw and frost occur at the same time is something you cannot cope with anywhere in the world. The Arctic is a place over which you can always travel provided the temperatures are low enough; but the moment they rise to somewhere near freezing point you are in trouble. In summer, you cannot travel there. Even Nansen spent two months sitting on an ice flow surrounded by patches of water, unable to move. It was the effect of fog and freezing which caused the major power cut. None the less, I think it is worth studying.
Incidentally, water is always a problem in cold countries. Water is the most difficult thing for an Arctic explorer; it is one thing he is apt to be short of. Here again, I think we might be given some advice. If you have to provide your own source of water from a frozen supply it is easier to use ice than snow. If you try to melt snow in a pan you almost invariably burn the pan. This might also be included in the hints to householders. I do not think I need go into the question of frostbite, of which I do not think we have had many examples.
Considering what has happened in previous years, I should also like to add that I think it is rather satisfactory how much better the public services have coped as compared with 1947. This is particularly true of the railways. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, made clear, we owe a great debt to people who have gone on

401
working in these conditions. I am very sorry that the Bingo industry lost £75,000. I can only presume that somebody saved £75,000 and this may not have been a wholly bad thing. But it is true that they were not equipped at London Airport. I am told that there were two machines for clearing the runways, and one of them fell over at the crucial moment. I was diverted to Manchester as a result. I think there are further steps that can be taken. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will heed the weighty and serious arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has put forward.
7.17 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, although the very sensational news from Europe has somewhat overshadowed the headlines of the Press in recent days, the importance of the Question which my noble friend Lord Mancroft has put down is still very much with us, particularly as the weather forecast to-night predicts that temperatures will return to the twenties. Sussex had four inches of snow this morning, and there may well be much more by to-morrow morning. Therefore this problem is certainly still with us, especially as it is now only the nether and of January, and in 1947 the really big Arctic spell started only in the middle of January.
My own decision to take part in this debate was prompted primarily by the fact that during this spell I have been travelling regularly from my home in Surrey to London by rail, as have, no doubt, many of your Lordships. It has been taking between two and three hours on certain occasions. May I at once pay a very sincere tribute to the railwaymen during this time, especially to the train drivers and the signalmen and to those who keep the permanent way and the points clear. One reads certain rather scurrilous letters in the national and local Press blaming the railwaymen and the railway drivers. It may well be that the heads of British Railways require some criticism, and I would urge the Government to try to persuade the public relations staff of British Railways occasionally to use a little more tact.
The other day I was travelling to work from Ashtead in Surrey to Waterloo, and the train ground to a halt at Raynes Park. It stopped there some time and
402
somebody got out of the train, asked a porter what was wrong and received an extremely insulting answer. I am not suggesting that it was the porter's fault that anything was wrong, but no notice was displayed along the line as to what the trouble was, and this was at a time when there was relatively little snow on the ground: in fact, it was during the recent thaw. I feel that a. great deal of public criticism, some of it ill-informed, could be allayed by a little more cooperation from the public relations staff of the railways. I should say, in fairness, that at Waterloo, and indeed at the main line termini and at many of the wayside stations, information has been given very readily; but in some circumstances public relations has fallen down, and this has added to the discomfort of the general public.
It has been mentioned that in Canada and other countries the fact that it freezes almost constantly means that the railway lines can be kept more or less up to schedule, and one of the troubles in this country is that one gets a freeze for a few days, then a thaw and then another freeze, and it is admittedly very difficult, in those circumstances, to keep the points clear. But I wonder whether my noble friend would consult his scientific experts to see whether any kind of compound can be thought about which would enable points to be kept clear in our vagaries between freeze and thaw, which are, after all, not unusual. I daresay there are many scientific difficulties about this, but I wonder whether it has really been considered sufficiently.
The terms of the Motion mention countries such as Canada, Sweden and Switzerland, but I suggest that we in the South can also take quite a lead from Scotland. I have lived in Scotland on and off for some years, and although I rarely visit that country nowadays I nevertheless get the local Perthshire paper and see pictures of how transport manages in that part of the country. It has often been said that Scotland gets much more snow than here, although this year I do not think that has been strictly true. Nevertheless, roads such as the Devil's Elbow and the A.9 at Drumochter Pass and elsewhere are kept open through long stretches of the winter and with much more severe snowfalls which often include drifting.

403
I agree that one of the difficulties in the South is the shortage of manpower. I wrote to the engineering department of the Leatherhead Urban District Council and asked their views on this matter of snow clearance, and I think I should say, in fairness, that this council have done a very good job, no matter how much criticism may be directed towards them, and I think that local councils generally have done an exceptionally good job during this bitter weather. Of course, some have fallen down in certain respects. Some of the tractors and snow-ploughs which have been used have been woefully out of date, but I do not think that is by default of the councils; it is often the direct grant from the Exchequer to local authorities that has put them in this position. Surrey County Council have even had to import salt from Yugoslavia to put on their roads. I feel that the Government must look into this question of seeing that the local authorities get sufficient money to keep the roads open.
It is all very well for people to write to the newspapers and say: "Why wasn't my road cleared?" Certainly in our area the local authorities have done their level best to keep not only main roads clear but many of the side roads, but they have been handicapped not only by shortage of men—which is a problem which any Government must find very difficult to solve—but also by being without equipment, which is something I feel the Government can look into very carefully.
I now touch briefly on the subject of hospitals, and I should like to ask my noble friend whether he would consult with his right honourable friend to see that hospitals so far as possible are warned in time of a power cut, because, as I said just now, the winter is still very much with us and we may well have to expect more power cuts. It seems a lamentable situation that hospitals should have to hire generators from ice-cream firms and American Army bases. Lives are often at stake here and it is false economy not to provide for these contingencies. I do not think that this Motion has been put down necessarily to criticise the Government but it has been very well timed, and I hope the Government will take cognisance of the fact that the measures which have been
404
suggested must be taken, otherwise we shall have a picture of false economy causing more and more hardship.
7.29 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, one thing is clear from what noble Lords have said: none of them wants to throw stones at Her Majesty's Government, only, apparently, at me. I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion on this Question of my noble friend Lord Mancroft. I hope during the course of my reply virtually to answer all their questions except some of my noble friend's own hypothetical questions which he will not want answered to-night. I will be as quick as I can, but I am afraid I have to cover a great deal of ground, because from what noble Lords have said to me outside the Chamber they are each particularly interested in a different aspect of the question. May I, before I start, say how grateful I was for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who, apart from Arctic exploration, raised certain interesting points which we will indeed study?
As regards the speech of my noble friend, Lord Mancroft, I agree with the theme behind it, which was his request to investigate what, if anything, had gone wrong, but I must join issue with him over the terms of the Question. I am sorry to labour the point, but unless we get it right some of the things I am going to say will really rather make nonsense. The noble Lord's Question rests on three premises: first, that the severe winter that we have been having, this abnormal winter, is becoming more and more normal. When it comes to a question of costs, it is important, I think, to show my noble friend that in fact these abnormal winters are becoming more and more abnormal. I will not go back too far in the investigations I have made, but perhaps I may go back to 1765, which I think is more or less modern; it is 198 years, roughly 200 years ago.
The method I have used for proving my point is this: I have taken the weather in the London area, because the figures show that when London has had an abnormally severe winter so has the rest of the country in that year, and if most of the country has had an abnormal winter so has London. The

405
London figures were easier to get at; that is why I have taken them. To decide what we call an abnormal winter we take the months December to February, which are the cold months—December, January, February—and we call a winter abnormal when the average temperatures during those three months are less than 37 degrees. We find in this period of 198 years that there have been 29 of these winters only, and 6 fell in the period 1765 to 1800 (rather less than fifty years), 11 in the period 1801 to 1850, 7 in the period 1851 to 1900, but only 5 in the 62 years of this century, unless, of course, February happens to be a very cold month, in which case I regret to say this year will be the sixth this century. But on the whole these very cold winters seem to come less often in the latter part of the period.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Did he give the impression that if we have a warm February this will not count as an abnormal winter?
LORD DERWENT: No. I am saying that in calculating these abnormal years I have taken the three-months period. It may well be that if it is a warm February the average will go up for the three months. What appears to happen is that we occasionally have an isolated very cold winter over the whole of that period. Whether this is an isolated year or not, I shall not be able to tell you till next year. But on tae whole these cold periods come in small groups. They do not seem to come very often. They usually come in clusters at intervals of about 60 years. The last such cluster was in the 1940's. Then we get other periods of virtually mild winters, except perhaps for the odd week. What I want to say to your Lordships is that the troubles are caused by prolonged winters, not very cold weather for very short periods. This is one of those years, but they are not normal years.
Having made that point I would say that the second premise of my noble friend's argument—it is an implied one, and I think the implication is clear—is that transport and other public services in the United Kingdom grind to a standstill at the onset of winter weather. I really think this is somewhat of an exaggeration. Even in the exceedingly severe weather we have experienced since Christ-
406
mas, although services have been interrupted and delayed, with much inconvenience and considerable hardship in certain cases, except for very short periods nothing came to a standstill. What I should like to examine is what in fact has happened, what we have done in the country generally (I am not speaking about the Government) and what we may be able to do.
May I take first the highway system?—because probably that has been the hardest hit. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport some time ago asked his divisional road engineers to report on how the local highway authorities have been getting on, what they did in their particular areas to cope with the problem, whether they were successful, what they, the divisional road engineers, would recommend and so on. That information, of course, has already started to come in, and when this cold weather is over it will be collated. We have not waited until the end of the period to have a look at this.
With regard to motorways, they have been accepted as a direct responsibility of the Ministry, and they have been kept open throughout. There has been no occasion when they have been closed, though for short periods the total width of the road has had to be reduced. As regards the trunk roads, for which the local authorities are agents for the Ministry, they, on the whole, have been blocked for only very short periods. In the West country, which is in many ways the worst hit area, complete blockage of trunk roads, which occurred in one or two places, was of short duration and single-line traffic was restored almost at once. The total width of the roads was not—I quite appreciate that.
During this period we are talking about some 30,000 men and 10,000 appliances have been engaged in snow clearance on the highways. The highways authorities' resources were supplemented by 700 appliances owned by the Ministry of Transport. I think that answers one of the questions of my noble friend, Lord Auckland. Machines and men were borrowed and hired from contractors, private firms, the Army and the Royal Air Force. I will not do it at this late hour, unless your Lordships want it, but I could give very detailed examples of the appliances that were used, and where

407
and when; but I think that perhaps this evening we need not go into that.
Now I turn to the railways. They certainly did not grind to a standstill. There have been, I agree, delays and cancellations, but train services can often be run when no other form of transport can run and that has been happening in one or two cases during that bad time. There is one thing I want to say about the railways in these conditions. We have a problem in the United Kingdom which is not met anywhere else in the world. Our railways have the highest density of traffic of any country in the world. If you have, shall we say, a line down the Danube which runs half a dozen trains a day each way, and one gets blocked, there is probably a certain amount of time to clear that and it may not affect the other trains greatly. But in our higher density, if one train gets stopped the pile-up of other trains being stopped accumulates very rapidly indeed. It is a point we ought to remember when we are criticising railways for not running the services they should in this bad weather.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? Is not one of the greatest disadvantages on the Southern Region the fact that the electricity is conveyed by the conductor rail which almost invariably gets covered with ice?
LORD DERWENT: I do not think I am going to go into that technical problem this evening. That is a matter for the Southern Region, and I know that it is being examined. What stage they have reached I am not sure at the moment.
I think your Lordships would like to know what is happening about points heating, because that is one of the great problems of all railways, even in the countries that my noble friend has mentioned, such as Sweden and Canada. What are we doing? A greater number of mechanical aids in that direction are being used this winter than ever before in British Railways. The most vital problem of all is this fact of the snowing-up and freezing-up of switch points. I am giving a few figures here, because I want to make quite clear that the railways are most active in regard to this
408
matter. As the result of intensive experiments by British Railways, 719 points heaters were installed and working at the beginning of the winter, and during the winter another 698 have been, and are being, completed. Of those that were ready at the beginning of the year, nine were electrically heated and the rest were gas-operated. Six hundred of the existing points heaters have been installed in the North-Eastern Region, where experiments have been concentrated in three areas—York, Darlington and Newcastle. This is the largest scheme of its kind in the world. We are not lagging behind other countries in this way. As regards keeping in touch with what goes on abroad, the method used at the moment is a Dutch technique and is carried on in conjunction with James Mills, Limited, of Stockport. They have developed this method of heating points.
Turning to the question of how much we are going to spend in any given year, I must repeat that this is an abnormal year. If we are going to have all the points heated within one year or two years it means that something else has to go by the board: for there is not enough money to do the whole thing at once. In view of what we have installed in the winter, I think it is right that the cost of these improvements should be spread over a number of years. It has been estimated that these heating units cost about £200 each, so that if we were to equip all 100,000 or so switch points, that would cost nearly £20 million. At the moment, therefore, we are doing it at junctions only. We are keeping very closely in touch with the railways of France, Switzerland, Holland, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Sweden all of whom have a problem. But it is a slightly different problem from ours. Certain parts of France know that every year they are going to get a certain quantity of snow at a particular time and they have to contend with it. We can take a little gamble by getting our railways system modernised more gradually.
May I just mention one matter which has not been mentioned to-day in your Lordships' House but has been mentioned in the Press? I refer to the question of the ports. No major port has been affected in any way by being snowed up, although one or two of the small ports have been affected by ice and so on. But, of course, the turn-round of shipping

409
has been delayed, and I must say that, from all I have heard, the work done by the dockers in this frightfully difficult weather for them has been really quite remarkable.
The third premise in my noble friend's Question is that people in Sweden, Switzerland and Canada are conspicuously more successful than we are. It is difficult to know if this is true. As a matter of fact, having produced this assumption in his Question my noble friend then proceeds to blow it up himself. I do know this, however: that a friend of mine has been travelling around by train in Switzerland and he says that nearly all the trains during his visit were half an hour or three-quarters of an hour late, and a number of them had no heating because it had given out. He says that he also saw a number of men crouched by the points lighting straw to heat them. This is in a country that always has snow, and in this exceptional year they, too, have suffered almost as much as we have. I will not go on to deal with Canada. There are a variety of things that I could read to your Lordships showing that their troubles are extremely severe.
There is one other matter that I think your Lordships should consider—namely, that methods and appliances which work well in other countries do not always work well here. There are two features of our climate which make things difficult. Its high degree of humidity creates all kinds of difficulties. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned, in our winters, and particularly our severe winters, we have a lot of fluctuations about freezing point. That presents all kinds of exceptional difficulties which, in countries like Sweden, do not arise.
There is one point raised by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, on the subject of communications between guard and driver, that I think he would probably like to have cleared up. A telephone link between driver and guard is already installed in many multiple unit trains—which I suppose my noble friend will know refers to small diesels with sections which are put together. To provide that system generally on locomotive-hauled trains would mean costly wiring and connectors in every passenger and freight vehicle liable at any time to be used as part of a train. This would he extremely
410
expensive; and although it would dispense with the need for such connecting wires, the terminal apparatus of a radiotelephone system would be far more complex and expensive and less reliable than a conventional system. There are few occasions when telephone communication, whether by radio or wire, between the driver and guard on a railway train would be advantageous, and it is not particularly relevant to cold weather conditions. The railways do not therefore consider that the expense would be justified, either now or, so far as they can see, in the future.
May I say one word more about snow ploughs, and so on? My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is in constant touch with countries in Europe and across the Atlantic as regards equipment, and he will continue to keep in touch. As a matter of fact, some of the plough heads used here were imported from Switzerland and Germany. The general arrangements for snow clearing and for the prevention of snow on highways rest with the local authorities, and the work is done by them. The question then arises whether a local authority is going to set up, even with Government help, machinery, plant and the whole set-up to deal with abnormal years. The ratepayer is going to have something to say about this because not only is it most expensive, but the capital so employed is, most of the time, locked up and useless. It is only in occasional years when it is used and really it is a great waste of money. I think I have answered all the questions on transport, unless noble Lords have anything to remind me of.
May I say a word about hospitals, which I know was another question raised by my noble friend Lord Auckland? A recent survey indicated that all hospitals at which operating theatres exist have emergency lighting provision, and all hospitals which undertake major operations have emergency lighting and power at least for their operating theatres and other important departments. There are no operating theatres in about 10 per cent. of hospitals, and most of these have not the emergency alternative. The cost of providing all hospitals with the full standby cover—that is, for the whole hospital as well as the operating theatre—is most difficult to estimate precisely, but it would be a large sum and it is considered that

411
improvements in this regard should be taken slowly, because the essential ones are already in operation.
During this particular cold weather (there is always room for improvement; we are not suggesting otherwise) our major airports were out of action only on very few occasions. The greater part of these were due to blizzards which made flying dangerous, and not to inability to clear runways. There was also, of course, some disruption of services due to the aircraft themselves being iced up or snowed up. For instance, Heath Row was closed during a blizzard—nothing to do with ice—for eight hours on December 30, followed by two hours for snow clearance, which could not be done during the blizzard. On January 20 it took 6½ hours to deal with freezing rain falling on the runway. So far as I know, those are the only occasions of closure of Heath Row. Gatwick, with only a single runway, had slightly more delays; Stansted had no actual closure at all; Prestwick was never closed, and so on. So, my Lords, in fact nearly all the stopping of flying was due to the inability of aircraft to take off in the bad flying conditions, and not to the runways.
My Lords, I should like to say a word or two about fog. The inability of aircraft to operate in conditions of poor visibility in fog is not a problem peculiar to the United Kingdom, as we all know. Research and development is going on very fast, and during the December fog a Ministry aircraft, fitted with the blind landing system developed by the Royal Aircraft Establishment, landed and took off several times at Heath Row in conditions of "nil" visibility. We believe that this country leads the world in automatic blind landing, and it is because of the progress in this field that Mr. Thorneycroft in 1961 stopped development work on FIDO. The December fog, which we all remember, closed Heath Row to all traffic for four days. It is interesting to note that Gatwick, which is a diversionary airport to Heath Row, was not closed at all during that period.
One noble Lord raised the question of water—I am sorry to be so long, but it is your Lordships fault for raising so many different subjects. First of all, in regard to freezing of mains, some has occurred, although it has been very rare. The
412
protection lies in the depth at which mains are buried. At least 3 feet of cover continues to be insisted upon by the Ministry of Housing. We are under great pressure—though we have not given way at the moment—to have a less cover than 3 feet, but that is the regulation. In regard to filters, some types of filter used in water purification, which involve a slow percolation of water in open filter beds, are vulnerable to freezing, although this does not happen very often. There is no remedy which would not involve enormous expenditure. As I say, this causes very little trouble, and we are not likely to take any steps over this.
In regard to domestic water trouble, there is continuing pressure by Her Majesty's Government—this is not really a Government matter—to secure maximum protection against freezing in the design stage; that is to say, the location of plumbing away from the outer walls. There are various Ministry of Housing recommendations to the water undertakers and those who make the building by-laws. We continue to stress this, and I would suggest that your Lordships might like at some time to look at the Ministry of Housing Circular No. 57/56, which urges local authorities and water undertakers to insist that their by-laws should be altered in order to bring this about. There is virtually nothing we can do with the old houses—I do not mean those which are ready to be pulled down, but those which have their plumbing outside. If we tried to put this all inside the expense would be fantastic, unless the owners themselves desired to do it. Local authorities will have to wait until those houses are ready to be pulled down. A most valuable defence against waste of water is that any occupier of property should protect his own property by lagging, and should know where he can turn off the water supply if there is a burst on his premises.
Perhaps I may say a word or two about soil and waste pipes, which in many houses are to be found outside. They can, of course, be placed either externally or internally. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government are engaged in the preparation of building regulations to supersede building by-laws in England and Wales, apart from the County of London. The draft which has been sent out for comment provides that soil and

413
waste pipes should be placed internally in all buildings. From the comments which have been received, including those of medical officers of health, it seems to be a moot point whether they should be placed inside. The Building Regulations Advisory Committee are at present considering what advice they should give to the Minister. This matter is not an easy one to decide.
As regards power generally, apart from the difficulties arising from unprecedented demands upon gas and electricity, the main troubles were due to the effects of a freak combination of high density air pollution, high humidity, and, freezing conditions on exposed electricity transmission equipment. If we had only had a little rain after the fog things would have been much easier. I am told that these conditions are extremely rare, in combination, anywhere in the world. Research is going on co see what we can do about this, but so far no one quite knows the answer.
My Lords, in regard to coal, the industry has suffered from frozen washeries, frozen coal in wagons and consequent shortage of wagons. But throughout the difficult period—though I take the point made by my noble friend that the matter needs looking into—they did maintain all the supplies to industry, including the power stations and gasworks. Domestic coal has been the difficulty, and the problem has been one of delivery more than anything else—not so much in the North, as in London where demand has been three or four times greater than was expected. The railways have been extremely helpful to the Coal Board in this matter. There are plentiful supplies of coal at the pithead, and it is entirely a question of movement. This concerns mainly the house coal market, and not coal supplies for industry. Remedial measures are in operation and are working well, and we hope that such measures will continue to work well if we get another bad spell.
As regards gas, the trouble stemmed primarily from the demand, which in some cases was as much as 50 per cent. above normal—a quite fantastic demand. I am not saying that it should not have been expected, but I think they did surprisingly well, considering all things. The situation is now normal all over the country. The emergency movement of coal to low-stocked gas installations by road, rail and sea worked well, and on the
414
whole they got what they wanted. It was simply a question of the enormous amount of gas that was needed.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, has the noble Lord any information on fractures of gas mains caused by frost, which in many cases have caused not only loss of power but loss of life, owing to gas seeping into houses?
LORD DERWENT: No, my Lords, I regret to say that I have no more information on that point, beyond what the noble Lord himself has, which we have read; but there will be a report on that in due course. We have not yet received it from the Gas Board: they have to look at it first.
On electricity, the highest maximum demand met so far has been over 29,500 megawatts, on January 22, and that was the day when the highest potential maximum demand was estimated at some 32,000. There has been under-estimation in the electricity industry, and I will tell your Lordships why. The generating plant takes from five to seven years to build, and the industry has to estimate the demand it must plan to meet at least five years in advance. That, I think we all know, was just one of the difficulties. This is often before industrialists or builders have thought of the projects whose demand will eventually have to be met in five to seven years' time. So in preparing its programmes the industry plans to meet the demand in average cold winter weather with a plant margin of 14 per cent., and this covers also what they estimate may happen in a particular bad year in the period ahead. The plant programmes, on which capacity available this winter was based, were determined in 1956–57 when demand was expected to grow at 6 per cent. per annum. So they said in 1956–57: "This is what we expect in 1962–63. We have a 14 per cent. margin"—or they thought they had at that period—"and we think the demand is going to grow by 6 per cent. per annum."
Since 1956–57, the rate at which the load is expected to grow has been raised progressively, because they realised that 6 per cent. would not be enough, and last year the rate adopted was 7·9 per cent. However, the capacity needed to meet this rate of growth in demand cannot be fully commissioned until 1967, when the 14 per cent. margin will, if the present calculations are right, be there. It is not an

415
easy calculation for the Electricity Board to make, and, as it turned out in this very bad year, they have underestimated; but the estimate was made in 1956–57.
Before 1967 they must obviously take some more interim measures, and the Generating Board plans to install 700 megawatts of gas turbines in 1964–65. These are small generators of 50 to 70 megawatts capacity, powered by aero engines. They can be built much more quickly than conventional plants; they have a low capital cost, but except as a temporary measure are not advisable, because they have a high running cost. Next winter the 14 per cent. margin is likely to be even more strained than this winter, should something go wrong; but in 1964–65, with the first batch of these gas turbines in operation, the position should be better than it is now. Next year is rather a crucial year, I know.
As regards the cuts we have had, there have been widespread electricity cuts both by the Generating Board and in parts of the distribution system. There have been 22 deliberate cuts on the Generating Board system, all between January 3 and 27, and these have been attributable to two main causes: the work to rule in the first three weeks of January—this mainly affected power stations in the London area—and severe icing, to which I have already referred, over dirty insulators which, owing to lack of rain, were still covered with grime from the smog in the beginning of November. Those are the two main causes of the cuts. There are certain other things, into which I will not go, which the Generating Board are planing to do.
416
I think the question of spreading cost over a period of years is important. The unrestricted demand was reduced in three ways over this time: first of all, by the Generating Board's cuts and reductions in voltage and frequency; secondly, by other breakdowns and low voltage on the Area Boards' systems; and, thirdly, by exhortations to consumers to economise. Only the reductions in the cuts by the Generating Board are known. To have eliminated these cuts would have required an extra 2,500 megawatts of generating capacity, together with the associated transmission and distribution capacity, the cost of which might have been in the region of £270 million. My Lords, these and extra things which we are going to do must be spread over years.
May I just say one thing? I know that Mr. Doyle was mentioned, and I do not want to say too much about that regrettable affair, which did have a very adverse effect. I should, however, like to take the opportunity of paying tribute to the devoted service of the great majority of workers in the industry both at this time and throughout the cold spell.
My Lords, I do not think I have much else to say, except that, on the question of learning from foreign experience, the supply industry of this country has very close and regular contacts with its counterparts overseas, covering all aspects of electricity. I hope I have answered all your Lordships' questions, although at rather a great rate. If any of your Lordships has any particular points which I have not referred to, and to which you would like an answer, I hope you will let me know.