Lords Sitting of 5 February 1964

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

BARONESS NORTHCHURCH
Frances Joan Viscountess Davidson, D.B.E., having been created Baroness Northchurch, of Chiswick in the County of Middlesex, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD TANGLEY
Sir Edwin Savory Herbert, K.B.E., having been created Baron Tangley, of Blackheath in the County of Surrey, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Marquess of Lothian (Lord Ker)—Presented his Writ as Marquess of Lothian, and took the Oath accordingly.

EFFECTS OF AUTOMATION ON EMPLOYMENT
2.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is being done to study the effects on employment of the introduction of automation and computers in industry and commerce and what action has been taken and is contemplated as a result of these studies.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM): My Lords, the Ministry of Labour's Manpower Research Unit is
142
studying future manpower requirements in the light of likely developments, including the effect of automation and other technological changes. The Unit is making special studies of the metal manufacturing and using industries and the construction industries, and has recently launched an inquiry into the effect of computers on office employment. The Ministry is also sponsoring certain related projects of academic research. The results of these studies will be taken into account in shaping future employment and training policies; in particular, they will assist the Industrial Training Boards to assess training requirements for their industries. The Ministry of Labour is also studying the effects of automation on human relations in industry.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for his reply, may I ask whether he is satisfied that they are going fast enough in this matter?
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, I would answer my noble friend by saying this. I think that good progress is being made. This Research Unit was set up only in April of last year, and it is assembling a lot of information, some of which, I hope, will be published in the early part of the summer.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, will this Research Unit be expected to work in co-operation with the National Economic Development Commission, which clearly has an interest in this matter?
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: Yes, my Lords; I can assure the noble Lord that this Unit will work in the closest co-operation with N.E.D.C. and the economic development committees which N.E.D.C. are setting up. Of course, this was a separate conception and was started on its own, but the fullest co-operation is obviously necessary.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, will this not entail a radical alteration and speeding up regarding the need for a better educational system? We are going to raise the school-leaving age, apparently, in 1970 and we have neither the teachers

143
nor the schools available. What are the Government really doing to speed this matter up?
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, I do not think the noble Earl will expect me to anticipate the speech I am going to make on industrial training as soon as to-morrow.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount will include educational training at the same time.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether, in the inquiries now being made, the Ministry of Labour are considering the effects of automation in respect of redundancy? Are they, for example, making any special arrangements with regard to retraining; and are they taking into consideration any special arrangements with regard to severance pay for the people who become redundant through no fault of their own?
VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM: My Lords, one of the effects of the work of this Unit will be. I hope, to give a far better knowledge to industry about its likely future labour arrangements and the shape of its labour force, its skills and so on which will be needed in future for a particular industry or firm. To that extent, I think this will fit in very much with what the noble Lord has in mind. The questions of severance payments and redundancy arrangements are obviously more easily dealt with if you know what sort of redundancy you are likely to have and can plan your manpower accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that at a suitable moment after half-past three my noble friend Lord Bessborough will be making a statement on university grants.

PROCEDURE COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Shepherd be proposed to the House as a member of the Committee on Procedure of the House in the place of the late Earl of Lucan.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE (PRIVATE BILLS)
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Champion be proposed to the House as a member of the Standing Orders Committee (Private Bills) in the place of the Lord Shepherd.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE COMMITTEE
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Shepherd be proposed to the House as a member of the Leave of Absence Committee in the place of the late Earl of Lucan.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LUTON ORDER, 1963
3.3 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, there are two Orders before us this afternoon. They are made under the same provision of the Local Government Act, 1958, and are similar in content. The first applies to Luton and the second to Solihull. I think it will probably be for the convenience of your Lordships if we take the two Orders together, in so far as any discussion may proceed upon them. Of course, I will move them formally and ask for their approval separately.
If that is the wish of your Lordships, I would go on to point out that the purpose of these two Orders is to make the boroughs of Luton and Solihull county boroughs with some alterations to

145
their areas. If they are approved by the House, these two towns will be the first county boroughs to be created since 1927, and therefore it is somewhat of a landmark. In 1927 Doncaster was successful in obtaining county borough status by means of a Private Bill. On this occasion, however, the procedure is no longer one of private legislation but of Orders made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under powers contained in the Local Government Act, 1958.
As your Lordships will be aware, that Act set up a local Government Commission for England and gave it the task of reviewing the organisation of local government and of making proposals for such changes as appeared to the Commission to be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. The Commission have divided the country up into various review areas and Luton and Solihull are respectively situated in the East Midlands General Review Area and the West Midlands Special Review Area. It is the Commission's task to investigate the circumstances of local government in these areas, to prepare and publish draft proposals and later to hold statutory conferences with the local authorities to discuss their representations about the draft proposals. The Commission's final report and proposals are later presented to the Minister of Housing and Local Government who is required to publish the report and to hold local inquiries into objections to the Commission's proposals before deciding whether to accept them with or without modification or to reject them. In cases where they are accepted, the Minister must make and lay an Order to give effect to the changes proposed. The two Orders we are considering this afternoon are the first to be made by the Minister under the Act of 1958.
I should now like to say a word about Luton. It is, as your Lordships know, a busy and vital town, renowned at one time for its hat industry and now perhaps better known as a major centre of the motor industry and engineering. Under the Local Government Act a population of 100,000 is deemed to be sufficient for discharging the functions of a county borough council. The Act does not say that all towns above this level of popula
146
tion are to be county boroughs, but it indicates that where the issue turns on population, then 100,000 is to be the figure. Luton, of course, is considerably bigger than that, having a population of 136,000, and as a county borough it would have a very large rateable value per head of population.
When the Commission came to consider Luton's claim for county borough status they had little difficulty in concluding that the size and resources of the town were sufficient. But they first satisfied themselves, as they have to do, that the administrative county of Bedford would be able to function satisfactorily if deprived of its largest town. They also decided to recommend certain boundary changes. When the Commission's report was published no one objected to Luton's becoming a county borough, but Dunstable did object to the proposed alteration of their boundary with Luton. The Commission proposed the transfer of a strip of land 36 acres in extent on the eastern side of Poynters Road on which Luton were building houses. Dunstable, on the other hand, thought that the whole of the Luton area lying west of the motorway M.1 should be transferred to Dunstable. In accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act, the Minister held a local inquiry into the objection, but after considering the Inspector's report decided that this part of Luton, which contains a very big council housing estate, was very much part of the town and should remain in Luton. The boundary amendment proposed by the Commission seemed to be an improvement and was accepted by the Minister. Apart from one minor modification, the Minister decided to accept the Commission's other boundary proposals and, of course, its main recommendation of county borough status.
The sketch map on the back of the Order shows the line which has been adopted. If the Order is approved by the House, Luton will gain about 9,000 people most of whom live in the built-up areas in the rural district which are a continuation of the northern part of the town. The whole of Luton airport, to the south-east, would also be brought within the county borough.
I should now like to turn to Solihull, which lies on the south-east border of Birmingham and is at present in the administrative county of Warwickshire.

147
Solihull is largely a residential town, but, like Luton, it owes some of its prosperity to the motor industry. Its growth has been very rapid, for it was still a parish in a rural district as late as 1932. In that year, however, with its population standing at 25,000, it became an urban district, and in 1954 it was successful in its application for a borough charter, when its population was over 70,000. Now, ten years later, it stands on the brink of county borough status with a population just over 100,000 and still growing.
Solihull asked the Commission for county borough status and its claim was not opposed. The Commission decided that its loss to Warwickshire would hardly reduce the county's effectiveness, and, since Solihull is somewhat isolated by its position from the rest of the county, that Warwickshire would be no less convenient to administer. They proposed, therefore, that Solihull should become a county borough, but recommended that its area ought to be substantially reduced by excluding as much land in the green belt as possible. This land was not of course built upon. They also recommended some minor boundary changes between Solihull and Birmingham.
The Minister received three boundary objections, but there was no objection to the creation of Solihull as a county borough. Two objections related to technical questions concerning boundaries running along highways, and in one case the Minister decided in favour of the objectors. The third and principal objection was made by the residents of Solihull Lodge, an estate which lies in the extreme north-west of Solihull, and they opposed the Commission's recommendation that their area should be transferred to Birmingham. In the event, the Minister decided in favour of the residents that the whole of the built-up part of Solihull Lodge should remain in Solihull.
The sketch map on the back of the Order shows the future area proposed for the new county borough. If the Order is approved, it will be seen that Solihull loses a substantial area, most of which stays in Warwickshire as part of the green belt. But a small part in the north-west is transferred, for convenience, to Worcestershire.
148
I propose now to refer briefly to the contents of the two Orders. The most important provisions are in Article 5, which declares the two towns to be county boroughs and goes on to alter their areas and those of the adjoining counties and county districts. The rest of these substantial Orders is taken up with necessary consequential or transitional provisions. Article 6, for example, makes changes in the wards of the boroughs and the electoral divisions of the counties. I understand, however, that Luton and Warwickshire are preparing to carry out a more thoroughgoing review of the electoral arrangements in their areas under the customary provisions of the Local Government Act, 1933. Other Articles make detailed provision for the transfer of services and functions from the county councils to the new county borough councils. For example, there are provisions dealing with the fire service, with children, youth employment, education, town and country planning, and health and welfare. These Articles are all designed to facilitate the transfer and to avoid uncertainty and doubt about the various administrative matters which will arise.
The transfer of some local authority officers is necessary to match the transfer of services and the changes in areas. It is provided for in Article 54. It happens that nearly all the county council officers who will have to be transferred are already working in Luton and Solihull under the direction and control of the borough councils. This is because the two boroughs have been running a number of services under delegated powers. Almost certainly these men and women will continue in their present jobs, but the Article protects their terms and conditions of service on the lines laid down by Parliament in the London Government Act.
One consequence of attaining the status of a county borough will be that Luton will be free, under the law as it stands at present, to set up their own police force. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has indicated in another place the Government's view that there are already too many separate police forces in this country; and in legislation which I hope will shortly come before your Lordships' House the Government are proposing to strengthen the powers available to

149
the Home Secretary to amalgamate police areas. The Luton Town Council told my right honourable friend last year that they intend to exercise their right to establish their own police force, and he told them then—and I think it only right that I should repeat his warning now, as we are asking for the approval of this Order—that he will feel free to reopen the matter if the relevant provisions in the legislation regarding police forces now before Parliament are enacted in their present form.
If these Orders are approved, April 1, 1964, will be the appointed day for the changes in the status and areas of the two towns. This is the beginning of the financial year, and is generally the most convenient time to make changes. The provisions mentioned in Article 2 come into operation at once, however, in order to give the local authorities concerned a chance to make the necessary preparations in advance of the appointed day.
In conclusion, may I say that one of the most satisfactory aspects of these two pieces of reorganisation has been the manifest good will which the authorities concerned—both the counties and the borough councils—have brought to the settlement of the many problems posed by these changes. I am sure your Lordships would wish to extend congratulations to Luton and Solihull on their attaining their desired aim of county borough status, and to wish them well in the future. Now, with your Lordships' permission, I commend both these Orders to the House, but I will move only in the first place that the Luton Order, 1963, be approved.
Moved, That the Luton Order, 1963, be approved.—(Lord Hastings.)
3.16 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I do not think these Orders ought to go through without some interrogation and observation. This business about the police is a little curious. Under the law as it stands in the Act which was introduced by my right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede, the basis of police forces was to be counties and county boroughs with, I think, the exception of one—it may have been Cambridge, but I am not sure, where the police were retained by Cambridge town. Here it is intimated
150
that, although Luton is to be a county borough, the Home Secretary may see to it in due course, under a future Act of Parliament which has not yet been passed, that it does not become a police authority. If that were to be so, I should have thought it would have been more straightforward, if it were lawful, to make such a provision in this Order so that it could be argued out on the Order to make Luton a county borough, rather than pick it up by a side wind in a Parliamentary Bill which is not yet passed.
The other thing I should like to know is how far Her Majesty's Government, especially the Minister of Housing and Local Government, have something like a set policy in this matter of local government changes. Are the Commissions for England, Wales and Scotland, absolutely free, starting from a completely blank sheet, so that they can reach an objective decision on their own responsibility and receive evidence on their own responsibility, or have the Government got a state of mind about this matter? Have they got a state of mind as they had about local government in Greater London, for example, about which it was quite clear that the Government had a state of mind before the Royal Commission was set up? Do the Government indicate to the Commission on Local Government for England, or the others, the kind of conclusion they would like to reach—not by specific direction, but by an intimation of the philosophy that the Government have behind these things?
As the House will know—and I am not going to pronounce upon a matter which is not essentially a partisan issue—there has been over the years a steady combat going on between the counties and the county boroughs, or boroughs that want to be county boroughs, which is a natural thing in the story of British local government. But it is an important matter, because in this case Luton will reduce the rateable value of the County of Bedford, and Solihull will reduce the rateable value of the County of Warwick. These things have important financial consequences for the administrative counties, and I am not pronouncing as a matter of judgment which is right, counties or county boroughs. But, nevertheless, it is an important contest; and either the Minister of Housing and

151
Local Government should be absolutely impartial, leaving the Commission absolutely—not nominally, but really and absolutely—free to recommend what they like, or, if he has a philosophy, a point of view, upon the matter, then he should publish it and take the consequences of the policy for which he is declaring.
My belief is that he has a point of view and that the Department has a point of view, and the Department in this matter is as important as the Minister. I think that the Department and the Minister have a point of view. If they have, and if it is known to the Commission, then to that extent the Commission's objective freedom is possibly somewhat impaired. And if they have a point of view and they bring it to bear, then the Minister should publish it in Parliament; he should announce it in Parliament and let the debate proceed.
I am furthered in my apprehensions in this matter by the recommendations as to Tyneside which will come up in the subsequent debate, but it is relevant to the point I am making. The Tyneside recommendation is for a continuous county for Tyneside, together with a series of amalgamated boroughs which will be most-purpose boroughs, not county boroughs. This has happened on the recommendation of the English Commission and will be before the Minister for approval or otherwise. This scheme for Tyneside bears a remarkable similarity to the London Government Act, 1963—a remarkable similarity, which leads to my feeling that there is a philosophy, a point of view, behind the Minister which is influencing the English Commission on Local Government. I say on that only that he may be right or he may be wrong; but, if he has that view, the Minister should say so publicly in Parliament and open himself to criticism, to support or to condemnation, as the case may be.
I am sorry to have had to hold up the decision of the House, but I think that the points I have raised are important. Moreover, the discussion which I have initiated will, I feel, be a useful preliminary to the debate which is shortly to be opened by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I hope that the Minister speaking for the Ministry of Housing
152
and Local Government will be able to give us specific and clear-cut answers to the points which I have respectfully raised with him.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, my noble friend has asked me to reply to the one point about the police, which is a Home Office matter. The position about the local police force is this. Under present legislation neither the Home Secretary, nor the Government, have power to prevent a county borough with a population of more than 100,000 from having its own police force if it so desires. As the Police Bill, to which the noble Lord referred, is going through the other place at this moment, my right honourable friend suggested to Luton Town Council that they might hold their hand a bit; and he pointed out to them that—whatever he eventually decides to do, after a local inquiry in any part of the country, about amalgamation of police forces—if and when that Bill becomes an Act he will have power of control. And as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has said, it might mean having two bites at the cake. The Luton Town Council were therefore warned by my right honourable friend that that might happen. He did not say that it would happen, since the Police Bill is still before the other place and is not yet an Act. In spite of his warning, Luton have decided to go ahead with their scheme to have their own police force; and the Government, I repeat, at this moment have no power to prevent that.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite would no doubt like an answer to his other question; his main theme that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and the officials of the Ministry, may have some particular philosophy which has been clearly indicated to the Local Government Commission but not to the public at large. I feel that it would be more appropriate if I were to dwell at length on this aspect of the matter in the debate which follows. In point of fact, the speech which I propose to make will give a very clear answer to the noble Lord opposite. Very briefly, however, I can tell him now that the Commission are absolutely free to make up their own mind: they do so with a

153
considerable degree of flexibility, and no kind of indication is given by my right honourable friend as to the way in which the Commission should draw their conclusions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOLIHULL ORDER, 1963
LORD HASTINGS: I beg to move that the Solihull Order, 1963, be approved.
Moved, That the Solihull Order, 1963, be approved.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WORKING OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONS
3.26 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON rose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the working of the Local Government Commissions in reviewing local government areas in England and Wales; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: As your Lordships know, under Part II of the Local Government Act, 1958, a Local Government Commission was set up for the purpose of reorganisation of local government in England outside the Metropolitan area and to make proposals to make it more effective and convenient. A separate Commission was established for Wales. The 1958 Act laid down special review areas for the Commission—namely, the conurbations on Tyneside, in West Yorkshire, in South-East Lancashire, Merseyside and the West Midlands. I might just draw a distinction, which is probably known to your Lordships, between the general and special review areas. In the case of the general review areas the Commission can propose alterations, amalgamations and other changes in counties and county boroughs, including creating new ones and abolishing existing ones. In the case of special review areas the procedure is the same but the Commission can go further. They can make proposals relating to county districts as well as to counties and county boroughs, and they can propose what is known as a continuous county; that is to say, a county in which there
154
are no county boroughs. They can also redistribute the functions between the various authorities. Reports have been submitted to the Minister in final form on the West Midlands general and special review area, the East Midlands general review area and the North-Eastern general review area, which includes Tees-side. I may tell your Lordships that these reports constitute most fascinating reading and I strongly recommend your Lordships to read every word of these interesting and exciting documents. There are some further proposals, as yet only in draft form, in the hands of the Minister, including the report on Tyneside.
As to the procedure, this has already been explained. I understand that in the first place the Commission report to the Minister, who hears any objections and can call a public inquiry for the purpose of hearing these objections. The Minister then makes an order and, finally, the order is laid before Parliament. I must refer again to Tyneside, which is such an important industrial area. Broadly speaking, the draft proposals recommend the division of Tyneside into four Tyneside boroughs under a Tyneside County Council, thus creating a continuous county, which involves the abolition of all county boroughs. At present the area in question is divided for local government purposes between twelve authorities of different size and powers. If one continuous county is created to cover these twelve authorities there is likely to be criticism. For example, take the County of Durham. As your Lordships know, only the best people come from the County of Durham. If these proposals are carried, the County of Durham will have its population cut by 165,000 and its rateable value reduced by £2,635,000. There is also objection from the County Borough of Gateshead and some opposition at the level of rural district councils. It is only fair to say that the Commission have come up against similar opposition in other review areas. In many cases, though not in every case, it is a question of reconciling division with efficient local administration.
The Commission have to consider many factors, such as population increases, improved communications and increased standard of living, in arriving

155
at the most appropriate local government for the area. As to the membership of the Commission, while the members are all people of integrity and efficiency, it is fair to ask whether on-the-spot knowledge is present or lacking. In this connection, it might be helpful if permanent members were given power to co-opt two local representatives from the area which is the subject of the review.
My Lords, these are the only observations that I wish to make. This Commission have now been in operation for some years, and I am desirous of obtaining from Her Majesty's Government some statement as to their work and their general progress. I await with interest the classical disquisition of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, upon this important subject. I beg to move for Papers.
3.32 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has made a statement about the way in which this Report found expression in the Tyneside area and the North generally, and I suggest that the Commission might take serious note of that, because all kinds of rumours spread abroad last week about this matter. One of the first reports was that part of Durham—Jarrow—was going into Northumberland, and in the present disturbed state of Durham County, particularly as a result of its peculiar economic position, it is easily understood that the people would become alarmed about a statement of that kind.
I suggest to the noble Lord, the Minister, that the Commission might take some steps to deal with false reports and also to give accurate information to the people of that community. Will the noble Lord believe me when I tell him that the people of Durham were very much alarmed about this report that Jarrow was to be linked up in Northumberland. I made inquiries about it, and I was told that Jarrow was going to be linked with Shields in some way or other. I tell the noble Lord that in order that he may understand the need to see that
156
accurate, full and careful information is given to the public upon these matters.
One reason I have risen is to say that I think the House will understand that Durham County has been in a very disturbed and a somewhat dolorous condition in recent months, and I am afraid that that state of affairs will continue throughout the mining areas. That makes all the greater the need for accurate and full information to be given to the people at this time. I hope the noble Lord will believe me when I tell him that the people were rather alarmed, not only about the economic position but because it seemed that a very precious heritage of ours that is rooted in Jarrow was to be taken away. While I do not think that everybody will be aware of the fact, scholars will know that a very great work by St. Bede was written in Jarrow. He was buried first, for about a century, in Chester-le-Street. He is now buried in the Durham Cathedral. So, although nearly two thousand years have passed, one can understand that a people who know their history, men and women who as children have had this hammered into them, become concerned when reports like that get about.
There is another point I should like to make. Durham is in a very bad way; it is really heartbreaking to hear of the hundreds of children who have to report at what they call the "dole schools". I say this only because I think that such reports, particularly throughout the mining areas, will become quite common. It is therefore necessary that the Government should not only give accurate and full information upon matters of this kind, but also set up a commission to look into the economic conditions prevailing in this country in order to give accurate information about its living conditions. I know that it is outside the subject we are discussing, but it affects the thoughts and minds of people, and so I ask the Government particularly to give very careful consideration to setting up another commission to deal with and warn people about the economic conditions that prevail in the various parts of this country.

UNIVERSITY GRANTS
3.38 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH): My Lords, perhaps this would be a convenient moment for me to give your Lordships a statement on university grants which is being made by my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council in another place. I will repeat his statement in his own words:
"In the White Paper issued on October 24 the Government accepted the Robbins Committee's proposals for immediate university expansion in the next few years and for the ten years down to 1973–74, and stated that recurrent and capital grants for the university institutions concerned would be adjusted accordingly. The University Grants Committee were asked to discuss with these institutions the best methods for securing the expansion. I am now in a position to make a statement about the adjustment of recurrent grants to universities for the remaining three years of this quinquennium, and the accelerated university building programme for the calendar year 1964. Consultations about the level of building starts for the calendar years 1965, 1966 and 1967 are in progress, and the Government's decisions will be announced in due course.
"The total recurrent grant to existing universities for the remaining three years of this quinquennium will be increased by £3·5 million, £7·2 million and £9·8 million, respectively, making a total of £20·5 million. The total estimated recurrent provision for the three years, including rates and salary supplementation, will thus rise to about £275 million, as follows:

1964–65

£82·1 million

1965–66

£91·8 million

1966–67

£101·5 million

"The new level of recurrent grant, together with the corresponding provision at present borne on Education Department Votes for institutions which are to have university status, is fixed with a view to attainment of the objective recommended by the
158
Robbins Report of about 197,000 full-time students for the first year of the next quinquennium. The grants take account of costs as calculated to the most convenient date (July, 1963) and the cost of the recently agreed increase in the wages of university technicians. In accordance with normal practice, any adjustment in academic salaries following the Report of the National Incomes Commission will be the subject of a special earmarked grant.
"On the capital side, the Government are authorising an increase in the value of building starts in universities in 1964 from £33½ million to £48½ million. This increase will be devoted to an accelerated programme to accommodate the larger numbers coming into the universities up to 1967–68. The House will remember that the money figure for building work started expresses only part of the total cost involved, which must also take account of substantial expenditure on sites, professional fees, and equipment. The total capital commitment in respect of 1964 building starts therefore works out at about £70 million.
"Appropriate provision will be made in the 1964–65 Estimates for the consequent expenditure in the coming financial year. The Vote concerned, at over £130 million, will be more than four times the corresponding provision ten years ago.
"In reaching these decisions, the Government have had in mind Recommendations 170–173 of the Robbins Report. They recognise, as indeed the Report states, that the achievement of the new objectives will mean improvisation and pressure, and the deferment of many desirable plans in the universities during these years. They are, however, sure that they can rely on the universities to co-operate fully in extracting the best possible value for money from these increased allocations."
My Lords, that is the end of the statement.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Government for giving us this early notice of this most important statement, so technical and so detailed.

159
I am going to leave it to my noble friends who have made a study of it to ask the questions.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl some questions, first of all on the question of the recurrent grant to which he referred. He said that the grant did not include the corresponding provision at present borne on Education Department Votes for institutions which are to have university status. Can he tell us what institutions he is referring to? Is he referring to colleges of advanced technology only, or to CATS and the teacher training colleges?—because this will make a great deal of difference to the amount of money involved. We should be glad if he could tell us that.
The second point I should like to ask him about is on the capital Vote. He said that the current capital Vote will go up from £33½ million to £48½ million, and then he gave us the extraordinary information that in fact the total will be £70 million, the difference, which is £21½ million, being accounted for by the costs of sites, fees and equipment. This is an enormous proportion and a rather alarming figure—to think that practically one-third of this great sum of £70 million has to go on professional fees, presumably architects' and quantity surveyors' fees, and on the purchase of sites and so on, rather than on actual buildings. I wonder whether he can tell us a little more about that. There is a third point about which I should like to ask him. When he quoted the figure of £130 million for the total Vote, was he including in that the educational vote, or is this only the University Grants Commission Vote?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, in regard to the first of the noble Lord's questions, when I referred to university type institutions I meant, of course, notably the CATS, which by that time will have been integrated into the U.G.C. system. The target is the figure of 197,000 to which I have already referred. 'That target of 197,000 in the statement does not in fact cover teacher training colleges. But this does not mean that they will not be expanded. The second question of the noble Lord related, I think, to breaking
160
down the figure of £130 million—or perhaps it was the third question?
LORD TAYLOR: That was the third question. My second question was concerned with the figure of £70 million.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am afraid that I may have to correspond with the noble Lord about the actual breakdown. He said, I think, that the £70 million was a high figure—or that if one-third was to be spent on professional fees that would be a high figure. I have not got the answer to that question, but I do not believe that the proportion is much greater than in other years. I know that professional fees and the cost of furniture that has to go into the halls of residence can come to a high figure; but I will certainly look into that for the noble Lord. In regard to the third question, about the £130 million, I cannot give the noble Lord details of that; but the details will be published in the Civil Estimates next month.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl two other questions arising out of those answers. He has given us so far a statement in terms of money. I think we are really concerned with a statement in terms of university places available and of new universities to be started. The noble Earl will recollect that Lord Robbins recommended five new universities to be started straight away. When can we expect a statement in terms of places for students as opposed to the money required?
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, before the noble Earl answers that question, I wonder whether I may add another relating to the institutions carried on the Education Vote, and particularly the teacher training colleges. The noble Earl rather glossed over what the intended expansion of those institutions would be. When may we hope for a statement which will put more clearly what we may expect for these institutions: first, as to the provision of new places that will be made, and, secondly, as to the improvement in their status?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, in answer to both questions, I mentioned the figure of 197,000 places altogether, which was recommended in

161
the Robbins Report. I am afraid I cannot give the noble Baroness any further details about teacher training or the various subjects. For the moment, there is nothing I can say about new universities, if I may so describe them. As your Lordships know, the Government have announced that there is to be a new university in Scotland, and the U.G.C. are considering the question of its location. The other recommendations of the Robbins Committee on new universities are as stated in the White Paper, Cmnd. 2165. They are being considered by the U.G.C. and the Government in the formulation of the ten-year programme of university expansion. I am afraid that is as far as I can go for the present.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl another question on the teacher training colleges. It is most important that the expansion should take place. I was rather worried when the noble Earl said that the universities now had so much on their plate that they might have to put aside some of their own developments. Is it possible that the noble Earl is thinking that the teacher training college expansion may be planned without the transfer to universities taking place? I should like some assurance that although it takes a little time to get a decision on this matter the figures which we have had to-day and the statement which has accompanied them do not mean that the Government have closed their mind to adopting the proposal in the Robbins Report.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am quite certain that the Government have very fully in mind the need for the expansion of the teacher training colleges, and, as I have already said, because I did not refer to them in the statement, certainly does not mean that they will not be expanded. I was also asked whether it is perhaps a good thing that this achievement will mean improvisation and pressure, and perhaps a deferment of other desirable plans. The alternative there is that young people who are fully qualified to go to university will be unable to find places unless this expansion takes place, and it is the Government's view, with which I am sure noble Lords will agree, that every effort
162
should be made to provide university places for these young people.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Earl has not really answered the question. What is wanted is an assurance that these training colleges will be provided by the universities. There is, as the noble Lord knows, some conflict between the local authorities and the voluntary bodies which are at present administering the training colleges as to the possibility of their being administered by the universities. Many of us want to see them administered by the universities. What we should like is an assurance that, in spite of difficulties and even possible delays, they will be administered by the universities.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am afraid I must make this point clear. Teacher training colleges at present are the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The future status of the teacher training colleges is due to be considered when
"those most closely concerned have had an opportunity to express views on them in the light of the Report"—
that is the Robbins Report. That is a quotation straight out of the White Paper, to which I have already referred.
LORD SILKIN: At the moment the Minister of Education is responsible for these training colleges. Are the discussions really taking place?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: That is a question which should be put to my right honourable friend the Minister of Education. I answer for the Lord President.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one further question? I have seen something in the newspapers to the effect that. pending the long-awaited decision of the Government—whose Prime Minister seems to be incapable of making up his mind about the future Ministerial responsibility for education—the Lord President of the Council has been given a running writ to deal with higher education, including these very institutions to which my noble friend refers.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Not the teacher training colleges.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I thought that was the case.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: No; only the colleges of advanced technology.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Thank you. I appreciate that the noble Earl is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Science, but as the Minister for Science is also the Lord President of the Council I presume he would have briefed the noble Earl adequately so that he could have answered questions—which, with respect, he has not done this afternoon, except once.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not think there is anything further I can say, except that the various bodies which are to be consulted in regard to the teacher training colleges have not all replied to the letter which was sent to them.

WORKING OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONS
3.55 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, I must apologise in advance if I am unable to stay until the end of this debate, as I shortly have another engagement. I will try to follow the example of previous speakers who have made their speeches commendably short; I hope I shall not keep your Lordships long. I am a little surprised to see that I am the only Back-Bencher on this side of the House on the list of speakers, for I had hoped that there would have been more speakers in this debate.
I intend to deal solely with the Report of the Local Government Commission of Wales. This Commission produced their draft recommendations in May, 1961, and immediately came under very heavy fire from all quarters. Inquiries were held and the Commission retired for another period of agonising reappraisal. They came out of retreat again only last year with their final recommendations, and although this is not really the occasion for a discussion of the details of these proposals I could go on for quite a long time. At any rate, I should like to make one or two remarks about them.
164
In the draft proposals the thirteen existing counties in Wales were reduced to five enormous super-counties. In the final proposals they now envisage seven new counties; two or three of the existing counties will remain substantially unchanged and the remainder will be rehashed—I think that is the only word for it—into aggregations of counties and bits of counties. I cannot see that these proposals are any improvement on the previous ones. In fact, I could say that the last state is worse than the first.
The opposition to these proposals has been almost universal among local authorities in Wales. In fact, the clerk of one county council went so far as to describe them as "diabolical". I must refer to a speech which I made in your Lordships' House some eighteen months ago when we debated the Report on Government action in Wales. I should like to repeat briefly some of the points I made then. One was that local government, to be truly efficient, must preserve its local character, especially down at district council level. I myself have the honour to serve on a district council, and every member of that council has the most intimate knowledge not only of his own area but of the whole of the council's area, which is fairly large. That intimate local knowledge is one of the mainstays of local government at the lower levels, and it remains true at the county level, too. I feel sure that any moves aimed at increasing the size of administrative counties can be only to the detriment of efficient local government in those areas. Increased size will involve increased travelling for the members, all of whom serve of their own free will; and they are not paid, although they are, of course, entitled to claim travelling expenses. So there is a very great strain on the time and the good will of councillors if they have to spend half their time travelling, when they could be doing something very much more useful and productive.
These local authorities have a great local pride in their own areas and a great loyalty to them. The larger a local government body becomes, the more impersonal it becomes; and the greater the distance at which the government is carried out, the greater the danger of the authority's losing touch with the conditions in the outlying areas

165
and with the wishes of the inhabitants of those areas. I should like to put forward a plea, for the retention so far as possible, of the existing local government areas, in order that we can preserve truly local government in the best sense of the word. It may be thought, from the very fact that this Local Government Commission has been set up, that some local authorities are failing in their duty to the inhabitants of their areas, but I have yet to learn that that has been proved by anyone. I believe that every county council and district council in Wales can justly be proud of its record in the administration of its area. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government will be able to give some indication of when the inquiries into the Report of this Commission are to be held, because I can assure him that everybody in Wales, certainly in mid-Wales, who is concerned in local government there has plenty of ammunition and is ready and waiting, for the chance to use it.
4.5 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for initiating this debate. I think it may be interesting if I recall the statement made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Kilmuir (as he then was), when Lord Chancellor, in introducing what is now the Local Government Act, 1958. I quote his words [OFFICIAL REPORT, VOI. 209, cols. 632–633]:
"I would also invite your Lordships' attention to the safeguards which the Bill provides to ensure that these reviews, whether by Commissions or by county councils, cannot result in hasty or arbitrary changes smuggled through without Parliamentary discussion or proper scrutiny. I have tried to epitomise this because it is a point of importance. There are, first of all, the questions of the independence and stature of the Commission, subject only to guidance as to the general considerations which the Commissioners must take into account. This guidance will be given in regulations approved by Parliament under Clause 36; secondly, their consultation with local authorities; and thirdly, the requirement to put out provisional conclusions and hear comment before making their final proposals. Then there is the further requirement that the Minister, in turn, must make the final conclusions and reports known, and must hear objections, probably by way of public inquiry. Finally, there is the Parliamentary control of any action which the Minister may take."
166
I venture to suggest to your Lordships that it is against the background of that statement that we ought to consider this problem this afternoon.
I do not for one moment suggest that the procedure which the Local Government Commission for England follow is unfair in any way, or that the authorities concerned have not been given a proper chance to put forward their views and any proposals which they may have for the reorganisation of their respective areas. It is inevitable that reorganisation will produce recommendations which are positively disliked by at least some of those who are adversely affected by the loss of status or territory equally, there is bound to be disappointment among those with hopes of promotion or of enlargement of area when they are not conceded. This, however, is in the nature of things, and unless local government is to remain for ever fixed in its present structure, and imprisoned within the existing boundaries, some change must be accepted, however distasteful this may be to some.
The two Statutory Orders which your Lordships have just considered are no doubt welcomed by both Luton and Solihull. We may perhaps congratulate them on their promotion to county borough status. But it is interesting to notice that the Municipal Year Book for 1964, printed long before it was known this debate was to take place, states:
"On April 1, 1964, Luton is likely to become a county borough with full powers".
And, so far as Solihull is concerned, the Year Book states:
"The Minister of Housing and Local Government has announced his intention to constitute Solihull a county borough".
I hope it is not to be inferred from those statements that it is thought that Parliament is simply a rubber stamp for decisions which have been reached by Ministers. I am fully aware of the fact that your Lordships cannot amend Statutory Rules and Orders nor is it our policy to reject an Order. I would therefore suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, might have asked for something more, and I would put it that your Lordships are entitled to something more, than Parliament is getting at the present time, both in another place and

167
in your Lordships' House, in regard to these Orders.
The two Orders to which I have referred are the first which have come before your Lordships arising out of the work of the Commission. Of course, we have had legislation. We have had the iniquitous reforms of the London Government Bill, which has of course effected such a change in Greater London, and the details of which are in your Lordships' minds through the recent debates. But I understand the position to be that the Local Government Commissions have recommended—and their recommendations have been accepted by the Minister of Housing and Local Government—first, that the boroughs of Luton and Solihull be created county boroughs; and, secondly, that the county borough of Burton become a non-county borough. The Minister has also accepted proposals for the inclusion of, inter alia, certain non-county boroughs in the five reorganised county boroughs in the Black Country area of the West Midlands conurbation, but I understand the Minister is unable to proceed with any action until some legal proceedings have been concluded. The non-county boroughs concerned are Bilston, Rowley Regis, Tipton and Wednesbury, in Staffordshire, and Oldbury, in Worcestershire.
The following proposals of the Local Government Commissions have not been approved or otherwise by the Minister: that the borough of Cheltenham be created a county borough; the creation of Torbay county borough, including the non-county borough of Torquay; the creation of a Tees-side county borough of Middlesbrough and the non-county boroughs of Redcar, Stockton-on-Tees and Thornaby-on-Tees; the creation of a Tyneside continuous county, with four boroughs, in which would be included the county boroughs of Gateshead, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, South Shields and Tynemouth, and the non-county boroughs of Jarrow, Wallsend and Whitley Bay; the amalgamation of the county borough of West Hartlepool and the non-county borough of Hartlepool; the county boroughs of Merthyr Tydfil and Worcester to become non-county boroughs.
But, as I have said, I understand that there are also draft proposals that the county boroughs of Barnsley, Great Yar
168
mouth and Wakefield become non-county boroughs; for the creation of a new county borough to include the county borough of Dewsbury and the non-county boroughs of Batley, Ossett and Spenborough; and for the extension of the county borough of Grimsby to include the greater part of the non-county borough of Cleethorpes. The summary which I have just ventured to give to your Lordships does not include proposed alterations in boundaries not affecting the status of other municipalities, or proposals in county reviews affecting the status of non-county boroughs.
My Lords, I understand, too, that there are proposals for administrative councils, three in number: Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely; Huntingdonshire and Peterborough—both of which proposals have been accepted by the Minister—and bringing together the parts of Kesteven and Holland in Lincolnshire, to form one county—which is a draft proposal of the Commission. I am told—and this is germane to this debate—that there is considerable dissatisfaction in the Isle of Ely at the prospect of being joined with Cambridgeshire. The Minister of Housing and Local Government has accepted the Commission's recommendation that Burton-on-Trent should become a non-county borough. Burton, I believe, is most unhappy about this. At the moment, no effective, active steps seem to have been taken to implement this decision. I am also informed (and this may interest the noble Lord, Lord Brecon) that there is considerable dissatisfaction in Wales in regard to the proposed rearrangement of the counties in Wales.
My Lords, it seems to me that, with these changes in local government structure to which I have referred—and undoubtedly there are more to come—there ought to be something more than the submission to Parliament of a Statutory Rule and Order giving effect to what has been decided by the Minister following the work of the Commission. I would suggest for serious consideration that we ought to have a White Paper, or at least an Explanatory Memorandum, setting forth what has happened in regard to objections, and so on, in the case of each one of these Statutory Rules and Orders, in regard to the changes which have taken place.

169
If a Memorandum or White Paper can show that all parties have reached agreement, that will be all right, and your Lordships will at least have the knowledge that you are giving effect to at any rate the wishes of the representatives of the people concerned.
I am in no way challenging the good faith or work of the Local Government Commission; nor do I in any way reflect upon the good faith of the Minister. But, after all, we have been told ad nauseam that Parliament is supreme; that these Orders are of no effect until Parliament has had the opportunity of considering them and reaching a decision. Therefore, I suggest that we ought to be given more than a speech by a Minister telling us about something which we have to accept there and then. We ought to have before us the result of detailed consideration by the Local Government Commission of each one of these problems, setting forth, as I have said, the objections, why they have been overruled and so forth. Then, at least, we shall reach a decision, one way or the other, with a full knowledge of all the circumstances of the case.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I may be out of order in saying this, but I understand that when an Order comes before Parliament it can be only approved or disapproved; it cannot be amended.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, having been brought up in local Government for many years, I suppose I have been brought up to be as suspicious of Whitehall as any of my colleagues; but I feel bound to say—and my memory goes back to 1949—that there seems to be invariably the same course of events. A Commission is set up with general approval. Its terms of reference are put before Parliament and no one objects. Nevertheless, when these Commissions make any recommendation of any substance there is nearly always violent execration of their recommendations. Perhaps, that may be inevitable—I do not know—but I feel that when these Commissions are set up, if we do not in Parliament have more regard to the terms of what these Commissions are supposed to do, I am afraid we may find that the eminent ladies and gentlemen who sit on these Commissions will not in future find it worth their while to
170
spend all the labour and time that they do. No doubt many of the recommendations they are making are of a very contentious character; but at the same time I feel that somebody ought to express some sympathy with what these Commissions try to do. If in future they are to make nothing but minor alterations, Parliament should say so at the beginning, and not after they have completed their work.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, may I ask a question? In the case of my own county there are four minor alterations to the boundaries; in each case we are to get a bit more. I should like to know whether each of these alterations will be the subject of a special Order or whether they will all be amalgamated in one Order.
4.23 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I know we are all most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for giving us the opportunity of spending a few minutes on the work of the Local Government Commissions in England and Wales. It is, of course, rather difficult to debate the whole subject while the work is still going on, and naturally, therefore, noble Lords have tended to dwell on individual case histories which have caused some controversies. Obviously, in the nature of things I cannot be expected to answer in detail all these points which have been dealt with so fully in the procedure followed out by the Commission and all connected with it, but I think as a debate it will serve a most useful purpose if I may go back to the beginning, further back than the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in his references to the background.
The present round of local government reorganisation started with the Government White Paper on Area and Status of Local Authorities in England and Wales, published in 1956. That set out the Government's conclusions on the need for reorganisation of local government and was largely based on the agreed views of the local authority associations. Since the present system of local government was established in the late nineteenth century, there have been very far-reaching changes in the size and distribution of population, in the extent of industry, in the scope and cost of local government services, in the speed of communication

171
and in the relationship between central and local government. The present system has, in spite of this, stood up to the severest tests over many years. It responded well to the extraordinary demands of war-time conditions and has on the whole shown itself capable of adaptation to changing circumstances. Moreover, it is firmly established, and the local loyalties, to which the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, referred, and civic pride which have grown up with it are a source of strength. In the Government's view there is no case for overthrowing the existing form of local government—
A NOBLE LORD: Except in London.
LORD HASTINGS: —but modernisation is needed, and that is what the Government have embarked upon.
The main problems to be considered are the future organisation of the conurbations. This really is perhaps the most important task of all. But there are also the questions of county borough status and area, an examination of county areas, and a review of the county districts. As the House will know, the Local Government Act, 1958, established two Local Government Commissions, one for England and one for Wales, to review most of these local government problems. Greater London, has, of course, been the subject of separate consideration and legislation. On the other hand, the review of county district government has, for the most part, been left to the county councils.
In the general review areas and in Wales—that is, for all areas outside the conurbations—the Commissions are empowered to propose changes in the areas of counties and county boroughs, to propose the creation of new county boroughs and the conversion of existing county boroughs to be non-county boroughs, if necessary. As regards the review of county districts, the county councils must begin their task as soon as the pattern of county and county borough government has been settled as a result of the Commission's work. In the conurbations, which are termed special review areas, the Local Government Commission for England is required to carry out a comprehensive review of local government, examining not only counties and county boroughs,
172
but also county districts. Where the Commission conclude that the right course is to propose the creation of a continuous urban county in these areas they may go on to recommend what the distribution of functions should be between the county and the second-tier authorities.
An example of a special review area is Tyneside, mentioned by Lord Meston and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. Here the Commission have proposed the establishment of a Tyneside county council with four boroughs, and they have recommended a distribution of functions which would give the county council the necessary powers where the integration of services is necessary or where planning and organisation on a large scale are of special importance. The borough councils would provide all purely local services, including education, health and welfare services. They would share responsibility with the county council for town and country planning, sewerage, highways, housing and civil defence. The county council would be solely responsible, however, for traffic management, police, fire, ambulances and airports.
As the Commission see it, Tyneside is an integrated area with a high degree of urban unity which requires, for some purposes at least, a unity of local government. They recognise the wider community of the North-East, but think that Tyneside is a clearly distinguishable part. In their view, its internal links are stronger and more significant than those which link the areas on either bank of the river with their county hinterland.
Durham County Council believe this to be a mistaken view and emphasise the dividing character of the River Tyne. They think that the right solution would be for the proposed boroughs North and South of the Tyne to be in Durham and Northumberland respectively. Gateshead—and South Shields and Tyne-mouth too—think that a Tyneside county council is unnecessary and that the area could well be administered by four county boroughs. Newcastle are seeking a single county borough for the whole of Tyneside. I think the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made reference in his speech to Kenton Bankfoot, which is situated in Castle Ward rural district just outside the present Newcastle

173
boundary. As the noble Lord gave me notice of this point I have made a note of it. The Commission, in their draft proposals, recommended that it should be included in the proposed borough of Newcastle. There was a good deal of opposition, on the grounds that the community was a rural community, with an independent life of its own. The Commission subsequently changed their view about Kenton Bankfoot and thought the development here would remain isolated from Newcastle and should be left in Northumberland. No one has objected to this final recommendation. That clearly demonstrates the value of the procedure: first, the draft proposal; then representations, and a final proposal, followed by the public inquiry. The Tyneside proposals are now before the Minister and he is arranging a local inquiry into objections to start towards the end of March. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the issues more than I have done already. The inquiry, of course, will offer full scope for considering not only objections to the proposed organisation of Tyneside, but also objections about detailed matters.
This seems to me an appropriate moment to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Lawson (whom it is always a pleasure to hear), said about the importance of information being available and of making sure that the public know what is going on. I entirely agree with that; but, of course, these reports are published and are available to the public. I am not suggesting that many people are likely to buy them, but they are available, and naturally all the people who are actively interested in these proposals do acquire them. The whole procedure I have outlined ensures that there is plenty of opportunity for the public to be informed of what is going on.
As for Jarrow, there should be no doubt as to what is proposed. It is proposed that Jarrow should be joined with South Shields, on the one side, and Hebburn, on the other, as one of the four new boroughs. It would be one of the two on the South side of the Tyne, the other being Gateshead with Felling.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is quite
174
sure that the full explanation is given in such a way that it reaches the public through the newspapers?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, when the final proposals are reached, Press notices are issued. Of course, the reports themselves are available to the Press, and I assume that they would get hold of them quickly and summarise their contents. I cannot believe that this is not done. We issue Press notices for the use of the Press, broadcasting and television, so that there is no excuse why the public should not be informed generally, and, in particular, why the local interests on the spot should not be informed. As I say, in the case of Jarrow there should be no doubt at all about what are the final proposals. I think that it should also be known that Jarrow itself does not object to the final proposals.
In regard to Durham County Council, my noble friend behind me has pointed out that it is impossible to produce reports which will not be contentious, and the noble Lord, Lord Burden, said the same thing. But the procedure is designed to give the maximum scope for threshing the whole matter out over a long period, as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Burden, said; and he quoted what my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir said when these Commissions were set up. The safeguards are very extensive and the opportunities for discussion and debate, for objection and inquiry, are long-drawn out and thorough indeed.
Naturally, some local authorities are still going to be disappointed. In the case of Durham, population and rateable value might be lost. But we must compare the final results with the existing and the proposed conditions for other counties and then it will be seen that Durham would not come off so badly as might be supposed. But really the time to discuss this in greater detail is when an Order, which would be based on the Commission's final proposals and the results of the public inquiry, comes before your Lordships' House.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I put this point to the noble Lord? I have no quarrel with what he is saying, but he has referred to the fact that the inquiries will be long-drawn-out and

175
thorough. I would draw his attention to the fact that this is a very expensive matter for the local authorities concerned. It may well be that Jarrow has not objected simply because it is not in a position to incur the considerable expense involved. I understand that this inquiry may well last four or five weeks, and maybe longer, and the noble Lord has enough experience to know that this imposes a heavy burden. I wonder whether the Minister really appreciates this, and whether something could be done, by way of assistance to local authorities or otherwise, to reduce the expense to the local authorities concerned, so that this does not act as a deterrent to their putting forward their point of view.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Lord has put forward an interesting point. Actually, when I said "long-drawn-out", I did not mean to refer to the inquiries, but to the whole procedure over two or three years.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I happen to know that the inquiry itself will be long-drawn-out.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I should like to go into this and see what the conditions are and what, if anything, could be done about it. I appreciate the point that the noble Lord has made.
I was dealing with the special review areas and gave the example of Tyneside, because it was mentioned in several speeches. But when dealing with this question of conurbations, we have to bear in mind that local conditions are far from identical, and it is not surprising, therefore, if different solutions are found to be appropriate for different areas. The Local Government Commission have recognised this. For instance, in the West Midlands they have made proposals for a pattern of five county boroughs in the Black Country in place of the existing nineteen authorities—counties, county boroughs and county districts—at present responsible for its administration. That is a different solution from the overall county proposed for Tyneside. In the particular economic, social and geographical circumstances of the Black Country, the Commission thought that this solution had practical advantages and their proposals were accepted by my right
176
honourable friend, after a full inquiry into the objections.
I think that is really the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who spoke about Luton and asked whether the Government had any particular preference for one or another approach. The answer is, No. The Commission come to their own conclusions, put forward their proposals and the Minister decides accordingly.
Turning now to the general review areas, the broad objective here remains the same as in the conurbations: to make local government more effective and more convenient; to improve and modernise it, so that it is better fitted to serve local communities and the country as a whole in the next few decades. Again, there is no uniform solution. Different parts of the country have different requirements. In areas such as Luton and Solihull, we believe that the single-tier, all-purpose authority provides the best means of blending effectiveness with convenience. It is a matter of judgment which system is most suited to the needs of particular areas.
I should now like to say something about the progress made by the Commissions. The Local Government Commission for England have now presented reports to the Minister for six review areas, and the report on the West Yorkshire Special Review Area should be published next month. This represents rather more than half their task, and with the publication of a further two reports—for York and the North Midlands, and for Lincolnshire and East Anglia—the Commission will be on the last lap by the beginning of 1965. They will be left with the examination of local government in the North-West and the South-East. The problems of local government in the North-West are complicated, involving, as they do, the two special review areas of Merseyside and South-East Lancashire in addition to the North-Western General Review Area, covering Cumberland and Westmorland and the remainder of Lancashire and Cheshire. The Commission have been engaged in studying these areas for some while now, but they still have a good deal of work ahead.
Finally, there is the South-East of England, an area which covers twelve counties stretching from Dorset to Essex.

177
This area has been left to the last so that the Commission may investigate the Home Counties after the reorganisation of local government in Greater London has taken place. Bearing in mind the complex problems of the North-West and the South-East, it is quite likely that the Commission's last report will not be ready for another two or three years.
The Local Government Commission for Wales have concluded their investigations and presented their final report. Their proposals, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Swansea, envisage a reduction in the number of counties from 13 to 7, the conversion of a county borough to be a non-county borough and extensions in varying degree to Cardiff, Newport and Swansea. There has been a considerable volume of objection to these proposals, and I am sure the House will not expect me to comment on these proposals, which are now officially before the Minister. I understand, however, that a local inquiry into objections to the extension of Cardiff is to begin at the end of this month. Beyond that I cannot give my noble friend any detailed information.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred to the composition of the Commission and seemed to think that it is formed entirely or largely of civil servants. The Local Government Commission for England have only one former civil servant—the chairman. The full-time deputy chairman was formerly a practising barrister. The other two full-time members are former local authority chief officers. The remaining members are part-time: one is an economist, a professor; and the other a lady and former chairman of a county council. It will be seen that the Commissioners are eminent and distinguished men and women who, between them, have a wide experience of administration and local government.
While it is true that the Commission may begin one of their reviews with no particular local knowledge, they rapidly steep themselves in local facts and history during the course of their investigations. Local authorities and other public bodies are asked for representations. The Commission send out questionnaires, as well. They interview local authorities. These interviews take place in London, in the first place, and then they visit the
178
areas of the authorities to see for themselves at first hand. Local authorities are encouraged to speak freely, and if the Commission are left in ignorance on some matter, it is not for want of asking. Later, of course, the Commission publish draft proposals and meet local authorities and other public bodies at conferences acid at a local centre. That is the second stage. Quite apart from the local authorities, however, the Commission also get a great deal of information and suggestions from other organisations. One has only to look, for instance, at the relevant appendices in the Tyneside report to see what a large number of bodies made suggestions or put forward representations: for example, the Gateshead Local Medical Committee, the Newcastle-on-Tyne Women Civics Committee, the Northern Architectural Association, the Whitley Bay and District Hotel and Boarding House Association.
The great strength of the Commission is their detachment and impartiality. They endeavour—and pretty successfully—to steer clear of local conflicts and pressures. The idea of co-opting local representatives for the study of each area, which was put forward by the noble Lord who moved the Motion, is. I think, open to a number of objections. Either the representatives would be members of local councils, and then there would be charges, or, at least suspicions, of bias, local loyalties and so on; or else they would not be connected with local government, in which case it would be said that they knew nothing of its problems. There would also be the difficulty that the two representatives added temporarily to the Commission would be handicapped by their lack of previous experience of the Commission's work. With great respect to the noble Lord's sincerity, I do not think he has made out a case for changing or adding to the composition of the Commission. Indeed, his complaint was more in the form of a generalisation, and was not, I think, supported by any actual evidence.
I have said something about the progress the Commissions have made. Now I should like to mention the result of the Government's consideration of the Commission's reports. I have already referred briefly to Wales. As regards England, the Minister of Housing and Local Government has announced decisions on nearly all proposals contained

179
in the first three reports of the Commission on the East and West Midlands. This afternoon, we have been considering the promotion of Luton and Solihull. In addition, Orders for the amalgamation of the counties of Huntingdonshire and the Soke of Peterborough, and of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely, will shortly be laid before this House. These Orders will be subject to Affirmative Resolutions, and I think it would be better that I should discuss them then, rather than attempt to reply to one or two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, to-day.
Orders will also be laid this year for the conversion of Burton-upon-Trent to be a non-county borough, and for the extension of the county boroughs of Coventry, Northampton and Stoke-on-Trent, and for certain minor changes in the boundaries of a number of Midlands counties. The Minister's decisions on all these proposals have been announced. I also mentioned earlier that the Commission's proposals for a pattern of five county boroughs for the Black Country had been accepted; but any Order must await the outcome of the action brought in the High Court against the Ministry by five West Midlands district councils on procedural grounds. As for the remaining three reports already published, local inquiries are now being held, or will shortly be held, into objections to the Commission's proposals for the South-West and for Tyneside. Those for the rest of the North-East will come along a little later. The Minister hopes to settle one way or the other the future of local government in these areas in the next twelve months or so.
Perhaps I may now turn for a moment, in conclusion, to a few of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, who I think largely expressed satisfaction in his speech that the safeguards mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir had worked out pretty well. He acknowledged the difficulty of producing reports which are agreeable to all the authorities concerned. At the same time, he expressed some criticism and concern, on the ground that Parliament was perhaps not being consulted sufficiently. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, that this sort of Order is not amenable to amendment; but it is subject
180
to approval, and if it is not approved—and of course Parliament has the authority not to approve it—then the Government have to take it back and try to get some other form of solution. But, as my noble friend Lord Gage has said, that would be a discouragement, at least, to the prolonged and thorough work of the Local Government Commission. I do not say that for this reason Parliament should never take that step if it were thought to be necessary. But in view of the tremendous procedure which has been gone through over a period of two or three years, the many opportunities given to the public and everybody interested, including, naturally, Members of Parliament, during the period to know what is going on, and to find out and study these matters, and, as a result, to make representations to the Commission or at the inquiries, and, of course, direct to my right honourable friend in correspondence, I feel that Parliament is not being treated at all cavalierly in this respect.
Of course, I will put forward to my right honourable friend the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that, even so, there might be room for some intermediate procedure, such as publishing a summary of proposals in the form of a memorandum or White Paper, which might make it easier for noble Lords and honourable Members in another place to study these matters. I will put that suggestion forward and see what happens, but I do not think there is excuse for saying that Parliament is not being treated with respect in this matter.
I should like to join in the tributes paid by the noble Lord who moved this Motion to the members of the Commission. They have done, and are doing, remarkable work. It is a prodigious labour, and anybody who reads the reports must find them quite fascinating. If one starts on one's own area (I think that is the best idea), one immediately becomes interested; and I must say that, having read one report, I felt a compelling desire to read the others. I think the work the Commissions perform is quite magnificent, and of the greatest value. I hope that noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and those who have kindly listened to

181
it, will feel that it has been worth while, and that they have received a reasonable, reasoned and comprehensive reply from the Government at this midway stage of the reorganisation of local government throughout the country.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I did ask the noble Lord a question as to whether every change would be made separately, or whether the whole lot would be put through together. In my own county there will be four alterations in the boundary, affecting two other counties besides mine. Will they form one Order or four Orders?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am sorry that I inadvertently overlooked the question. However, I did say that, speaking of Wales, I could not give my noble friend any more detailed information about inquiries at all. The only one which is being brought is the one in respect of the extension of Cardiff. My right honourable friend is still considering the whole matter of the report and the form in which inquiries should take place. I am afraid that I cannot give an answer to-day.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I am not concerned with inquiries—I am concerned with the form of the Orders. That is what I asked the noble Lord.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am afraid we cannot anticipate Orders until the inquiries have taken place. That is the point.
4.55 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I speak now by courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, to whom I, with, I am sure, the whole House, am obliged for having initiated this debate this afternoon, which has turned out to be one of some importance. We are also grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the comprehensive reply which he has been good enough to give. I do not wish to say very much. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Minister does not confer with the Commission and does not influence their report at all. Of course, I do not wish to contradict him if he says that, but I am not quite sure. I should be surprised if there were not contact at some point between the Minister or his officers
182
and the Commission. I am rather confirmed in that view by my belief that there is a philosophy on general local government outlook behind these reports.
If we take Tyneside, as I said before, this proposal for a continuous county and the demotion of the county boroughs from county boroughs to most purpose authorities, and the absorption of some others in the larger county boroughs, bears a remarkable similarity to the Greater London idea in principle. Of course, the Greater London idea in principle was anticipated by the London Municipal Society some time ago, for political reasons, and the composition of the Greater London Commission was calculated to produce the result that the London Municipal Society wanted, and therefore the result that the Ministry wanted, especially in the days of Mr. Henry Brooke, who had sworn that he would kill the London County Council before he was done.
I say the Tees-side proposal is similar to the Greater London Scheme in principle. That is not to say it is wrong, but it bears a remarkable resemblance. And, by the way, for the information of noble Lords who may not know it, these reports of the Commission are obtainable in the Printed Paper Office. I have had them, and I have read them, and I agree with the Minister that they make interesting and informative reading, whether you agree with them or not. The views of the local authorities, whether for or against, are summarised in those reports.
A point has been put to me by my noble friend Lord Silkin that it may be useful if, before we get to this stage of approving or disapproving of a ministerial Order, we have a preliminary debate on the report before the Minister has made up his mind—in other words, to discuss this in general. It might or might not influence the Minister's mind. I can see an objection to that, not so much in this House, but on the part of the Leader of another place, because it will mean that he is in trouble about his Parliamentary timetable if he has two debates instead of one. But, still, it is a suggestion which is worth thinking about, because at this point we have the Order and all the House can do is to say, "Yes" or "No". And it is all the House of Commons can do. There is

183
no possibility of amendment. I must admit that on the Greater London Bill we had a chance of moving Amendments, and we took advantage of it. These poor souls have no chance of that kind. It is a sheer Parliamentary, "Yes" or "No", and nothing else.
I have dealt with Tees-side, and now we come to the Midlands, where the proposals of the Commission are different, but still anti-county. They are anti-county on Tees-side, and anti-Durham. My noble friend does not like the way they are carving up Durham and making it bleed right the way across. Neither does the noble Lord, Lord Meston; and I can understand it. Northumberland is to lose a chunk, as, indeed, in the Greater London Bill, London and Middlesex are abolished and the counties surrounding it are cut up. So there is an anti-county bias running through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. When one gets to the Midlands it manifests itself again. I am not asking everybody to agree with me about this, because there is more than one view about counties and county boroughs. I only say that where there is a bias it should be exposed, and I think it is here. Now coming to the Midlands, again the bias is for the creation of county boroughs. Logically, in the Midlands the report should have gone on the Tees-side model—
LORD HASTINGS: Tyneside.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am obliged. It should have gone on a continuous county with some most purpose boroughs within it, but not in the Midlands. I think the Ministry and the Commission thought they had better think twice about having a fight on hand with the great City of Birmingham. It is easy to have a fight with Newcastle-upon-Tyne—it is not easy, but easier than with Birmingham. I would prophesy that when they come to South-East Lancashire, which has one of the greatest of our conurbation problems, they will have to think carefully about what they will do about Manchester and the surrounding area, or Liverpool. If ever a place liked a fight, even if there was nothing much to fight about, it is the city of Liverpool. They love it just as the Scots love an argument for the sake of it—and, bless their hearts! let them get on with it. There will be
184
a tussle there, and it will be interesting to see how the mind of the Ministry turns out about it. These are important things. It is true that the local authorities have opportunities for putting their point of view, and it is right that that should be so. On the other hand, I must say—it may be it cannot be helped, and I have some sympathy with them—that by the time the Parliamentary decision has been taken there is no point in moving Amendments. There is room for speeches, but the Whips will be on, and the thing will go through. So the local authorities are at considerable disadvantage.
My Lords, I think this has been a useful and interesting debate, which I was not sure it was going to be when the Motion was put down, but I think we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and to the Minister for his observations. I will now retire and make way for the noble Lord, Lord Meston, to withdraw the Motion.
5.1 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, for his very careful and comprehensive reply to my Motion, and I should also like to thank all the other noble Lords who have spoken on this subject. I think myself that the question of the amalgamation and alteration of local government areas is one of great importance. It means, in effect, that sometimes an area is largely expanded in size, whereas another area is virtually obliterated so far as its old identity is concerned. I hope that in every case local feeling, that is to say, local patriotism, will be properly regarded so long as it does not militate against efficiency.
On the question of Parliamentary control, I feel myself that we all sometimes talk about Parliamentary control with our tongue in our cheeks. It is a most wonderful and beautiful democratic statement, but how it works in practice is open to legitimate criticism. As noble Lords know, an Order of this description, and indeed most Orders, can be either approved or disapproved; they cannot be amended. In practice, when it comes to a vote, people do not vote against an Order merely because they think it should be amended in a few minor, or even major, details. They

185
either refrain from voting or vote in favour of the Order. This happens in the case of all Statutory Instruments and Regulations that come before Parliament, and I think the time will soon come when some half-way point between approval and disapproval will have to be thought out. But, as Kipling used to say, that is another question. In the meantime, I wish to thank the noble Lord very much indeed for his most courteous and helpful reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ROAD ACCIDENTS
5.3 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the increasing number of accidents on the roads particularly on the motorways, what action they propose to take. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have felt compelled to put this Question on the Order Paper because, Eke many other people, I have patiently waited for some action to be taken which will reduce the road casualties, and I was very encouraged when I saw the list of speakers to-day to realise that noble Lords on both sides of the House are seized with the urgency of this matter. I feel, in the first place, that I should state my qualifications for speaking on this subject. I am a Londoner who has driven in London for many years and, in fact, drives in London every day unless I am on my holidays. As a pedestrian, like many of your Lordships I have known what it is to jump suddenly for my life when I ant crossing a road.
First of all, I should like the House to realise what is the measure of this problem. In 1962 (the last year for which we have figures) 6,709 people were killed and 95,000 seriously injured on the roads, and we are told that in the next six years traffic will be doubled. Therefore the urgency of the problem can no longer be ignored. No doubt regulations designed to combat this problem will be resisted as fiercely as those which were introduced to reduce the mortality rates in other fields. Why? Because self-interest was opposed to the interests of the community.
May I bring to your Lordships' attention what I consider is an apt analogy. I have in mind the efforts to reduce the mortality and morbidity rates which were related to unclean water, unclean air and, particularly, unclean milk. The farmers declared that Parliamentary action would infringe the freedom of the individual, and for about half a century reformers, no doubt both in this and the other House, tried to persuade farmers that infected milk killed and maimed children but, with a few exceptions, we were unsuccessful. At last, after having used all methods of persuasion, the 1948 Parliament was compelled to introduce the Clean Milk Bill to prohibit the sale of infected milk. The result has been dramatic.
I have said before that, unfortunately, in life chastity has no gossip value. The fine things in life are not talked about; the newspapers and our other media of propaganda are more concerned with unpleasant topics. But the fact is that that Bill had to be imposed on the country and on the farmers. The result has been that the orthopedic hospitals, which treated thousands of children who suffered from bovine tuberculosis, are now being used for other purposes. I feel that this analogy is apt because successive Ministers of Transport are doing precisely what had to be done by Members of both Houses in the last half century—introducing small reforms, making speeches, asking people to be careful on the roads but not imposing those measures which they should do. Last week, despite these appalling figures of deaths and injuries on the road, the Minister of Transport said that action should not be in excess of what public opinion would tolerate—and that was said repeatedly about the fatalities from infected milk.
Is the public aware of the situation? We have had exhaustive inquiries which have recently culminated in the Report Research on Road Safety, which was initiated by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Despite this, the Minister satisfied himself in the debate in another place last Friday week with these recommendations, after there had been a full-scale debate and both sides of the House had made very important contributions. The Minister said that he was thinking of sending glamorous racing

187
drivers to speak at the schools; that he would compile a register of driving instructors; and that speed limits would be adjusted. I feel that these are a series of bromides. They just do not meet the situation. He then said that he did not want to say anything about the effect of drink because another inquiry is proceeding into the Christmas fatalities. But what can this reveal? It can only delay action. We had an inquiry in 1959 on the Christmas road accidents which showed that the proportion of accidents in which alcohol is a factor may rise as high as 56 per cent., and the Minister has himself said—and these are his words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 687 (No. 38), col. 1528]:
"Past research"—
and he says that this research has been done—
"has shown clearly that even small amounts of alcohol—say, two pints of beer or three single whiskies—can impair a driver's reaction …"
This is agreed, I think, by everybody who has studied the problem. Yet we are told that we must wait for yet another report.
I think it is significant that in Denmark there were no deaths on the roads over the Christmas holidays, and in Sweden there were only two or three. In those countries they have really grasped the nettle; they are having no nonsense. They use breathalysers, and fines are imposed which are related to income. I attach a lot of importance to that. It is of course quite absurd to fine a wealthy man the same amount as a poor man. There cannot be any deterrent to the wealthy man if he regards the fine as insignificant. Why cannot we adopt the same methods as Sweden and Denmark? I would remind your Lordships the Scandinavian countries have led the world in social reform in many other matters, and we have been only too happy to follow their lead.
The Minister said also that we want to know more about the human factor in road accidents and we must wait for a further report on that aspect also. I do not know whether he has realised—perhaps his advisers have not brought it to his attention—that the Royal College of Surgeons who reported last May on road accidents paid special attention to the human factor. They drew attention
188
to the man who is normally intolerant, aggressive and anti-social and who comes from an unstable background, and they concluded that:
"A man drives as he lives".
I think we all recognise that; the whole country recognises it. We ensure that the men who drive our public vehicles, police car drivers, tram drivers and bus drivers, are carefully chosen and supervised, with the result that they have a very low accident rate. Yet a psychopath has no difficulty in obtaining a licence and securing control of a powerful weapon, a car, to drive alone to the danger of the community.
The rate of accidents in different age groups varies. The 17 to 20-year old group have a very high accident rate, 4½ times the rate of those between 30 and 50. In my opinion—and this is my own opinion—I think that after the first serious accident a driver, let us say in this age group where the accident rate is so high, should be expected to pass the driving test again. The Report on Research on Road Safety said:
"If young drivers favour sports cars or have old cars which may have mechanical faults their accident rate will be thereby inflated."
I believe that if a young driver, a man between 18 and 21, is driving a car of this character, he should be compelled to undergo a second test with the car he is driving. It seems to me ridiculous for him to learn on a mini-car, to have his test on a small mini-car and go straight to a high-powered car or to buy a second one which is rather faulty. This can be disastrous, and the figures show that this is so.
Furthermore, if he is considered grossly culpable and kills or severely injures an individual, then his licence should be withdrawn. After all, if a doctor drinks or misbehaves and in consequence a patient dies, he can be struck off the register. Why should not the same principles be applied to the reckless driver guilty of homicide or serious injury? If the bus driver, the train driver, the man who is driving the police car, misbehaves himself, if he has a serious accident, then there is a most careful inquiry; and if it is considered that this man is unfit to drive he loses his job. And the public applaud such action; we all do; because after

189
all the public have a right in this matter. There is a tendency to think that only the driver has a right; but the public have a right to be protected. It may be said that a penalty of this kind would be too severe; but if the penalty is to be effective as a deterrent then it must be severe.
I do not belong to that school of thought which sees safety in removing speed limits. The fact is that where-ever a moderate speed limit has been introduced, safety on the road has been increased. Furthermore, I am not advocating narrow roads, but the fact is that where a road is narrow and twisting there are fewer accidents than on broader roads. The driver is compelled to go slowly, is compelled to take greater care; he is, incidentally, looking after himself.
Then we come to the pedestrian. I believe that the aged and the very young should be afforded protection by prohibiting crossing on all main roads other than at a pedestrian crossing. I know that this is being tried in some main roads. I know, of course, that there will be a tremendous outcry, and people will say that this will inconvenience them. But if we are to reduce the appalling death rate among the aged and the children, we must regard roads as we regard railways. We should be appalled to think that old people or children might be crossing railways when an express was due, but we are quite prepared to let them try their luck at getting across a main road in a very busy suburb. I think it should be prohibited and the pedestrian crossing alone should be used.
I wish to say something about the new motorways. I was impressed by the comments made by two lorry drivers involved in the pile up on the M.1 at Christmas. No doubt your Lordships saw it on television, where I saw it. They both, when asked the cause, said "They are idiots. They will speed, even in a fog". In the first place I want to say something on behalf of lorry drivers. They should be protected by regulation from the owner who offers incentives to drivers to complete a journey in a time inconsistent with safety. Let us establish that first. Do not let us say that the lorry driver is always wrong. Pressures may be brought to bear upon him which he never reveals
190
and cannot reveal. He may have a large family. It may be extremely important for him to earn this extra money. So, first of all, let us establish immediately the fact that he must be protected.
I would ask your Lordships to read the study of M.1 fatalities made by Mr. William Gissane, the surgeon, and Dr. John Bull, of the Road Injuries Research Group of the Birmingham Accident Hospital. They studied the 74 deaths occurring after accidents on the M.1 between its opening in November, 1959, and December, 31, 1962. They say that the greater speed made possible by good road engineering has been offset by increased hazards resulting mainly from driver behaviour. They recommend that a minimum and maximum speed limit could reduce the differential velocities of impacts when collision occurs, and that heavy vehicles should not be allowed to use the fast lane. I am very glad to hear noble Lords loudly applaud these sentiments. But when this, which obviously appeals to our common sense, is suggested, there are so many interests involved that they make life difficult for those people who are anxious to change the law.
There is another point. We were told when motorways were introduced that drivers should be allowed to go right through and should not be tempted to stop in a café. The doctors in this group who have studied the matter think that this is the wrong approach. They have formed the opinion that motorway cafes might have a potential safety value in refreshing the driver, who might otherwise attempt too much, particularly young people trying to rush through and do a big journey in a quite limited time. Therefore, these doctors advise that there should be cafés for refreshment.
The post-mortem findings which this particular group of doctors were able to supervise are really horrific. The post-mortem findings showed that each fatality had more than five severe injuries compared to three to four on other roads. Unhappily, the design of the motorways delays quick ambulance attendance. I have no doubt that, in regard to the men who constructed these roads, nobody raised his voice and said at the time, "Surely you are going to have a hospital near the motorway".

191
I suppose if someone had done that he would have been jeered and told he was being rather pessimistic. To take the example of a ruptured spleen, the bleeding that ensues forthwith of course needs immediate surgical treatment. Surely, as a result of these experiences proposed new hospital accident departments and new motorways should be related.
Now I come to faults in driver behaviour, which seem to be the main cause of 32 of the accidents resulting in 41 deaths: that is, two-thirds of the total of deaths can be related to driver behaviour. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I say this, but this is my simple analysis. I believe that the explanation of the change which takes place in a reckless man when he encloses himself—I emphasise the words "encloses himself"—in his car is, as I say, fairly simple: he removes himself from public opinion. The result is that the car is an extension of his ego—it can do something which he cannot do. Of course, for the most part this may be sub-conscious. He wants to score, to be superior to the next man; he wants to establish his financial status by giving the impression that he has a faster car. With a little alcohol, he becomes even more boastful, and his better self, his super-ego, becomes subdued. Even a fog will not act as an antidote to that man, as we have seen in the records. Consequently, the answer must be more prosecutions for careless driving.
If the traffic is to be doubled in the next six years we must increase our mobile police force in order to supervise these "idiots" (to use the lorry drivers' apt expression) who use a powerful vehicle as a means of self-expression. The knowledge that he may be observed, and that a severe penalty may follow if he misbehaves, is the only deterrent to such a driver. I think the position is so serious that we should use police in plain clothes. It is a rather curious thing that if you talk about using police in plain clothes in this context there is a frightful outcry, as though you are suggesting something almost indecent—that you are putting spies on the road. Well, we use policemen in plain clothes to detect criminals. Why not use them to detect potential homicidal maniacs on the roads? What is wrong with that? All
192
right, they are spies. They are spying out for these anti-social, irresponsible individuals who are prepared to kill and maim perfectly innocent people.
Now I come to my final words, and what may be most controversial in your Lordships' minds. I may be told—I probably shall be—that we have not enough men for mobile police duties. Then why not use women mobile police? We have accepted the principle of women police. I understand that they are doing well. Are they not qualified to police our roads? I want to remind noble Lords that I am asking for a deterrent. These women will be driving about and spotting the careless driver. It is not a question of a policewoman every now and again having a fight with somebody; and if it is a question of brute strength, I suppose that there could be a man in the car as well. But I am talking about daylight operations for women police in civilian clothes, simply driving about our roads.
Are they qualified? Again, I hardly dare say this, but the Institute of Advanced Motorists says that women make better drivers than men. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, says, "Hear, hear!" But there is even better evidence outside your Lordships' House. Practically every Government car has a woman driver, and politicians and civil servants prefer women drivers because of their reliability. We tried it in the war. We could have changed over, and we have not done so. There they are, sitting outside the Palace of Westminster, awaiting their masters, waiting to drive them safely and well, and to look after them. If the Government prefer women to drive their Ministers and civil servants, why should they not be recruited in a mobile police force to help administer the law? My Lords, that is my final word, apart from reiterating my view that strong action must be taken to control the irresponsible driver. Why wait until thousands more have been killed or injured on the roads?
5.28 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I am extremely pleased that the noble Baroness has seen fit to raise this matter. I should like to say straight away that I share the great disquiet, to put it mildly, that she has shown at the number of people killed every year on the roads. But when one comes to think

193
about the number of people killed on the roans and the factors involved, there are one or two rather curious and—again I use the word—disquieting facts which emerge. I find it difficult to understand why, if one takes the total number of people killed in 1938, when the number of motor vehicles was about one-third of the number we have on the roads now, the figure is almost precisely the same as the figure in 1963. At the same time, I observe that the number of people who were seriously injured between 1938 and 1963 has gone up quite considerably. So I take it that one reason why the number of deaths has remained so constant is that people are becoming better at coping with road accidents; that there are more casualty services available. But it remains curious that those numbers should have remained the same, and I think in some way it shows that there has been some improvement in the standard of driving—though, of course, nowhere near enough.
One thing which impressed me greatly when I went to California about four years ago, and where they have a magnificent system of roads, was that the people there drove carefully and not very fast. They did not drive fast because there was a speed limit on the main roads. I forget whether it was 50 or 60 miles per hour, but I think that on a good number of them it was 50 miles per hour. Furthermore, the roads had markings on them showing what lane to keep to, and drivers kept to them. I remarked to the people who were driving me about what a remarkable thing this was. They said, "If we do not conform to the law we soon get caught and are severely punished". That seems to me to be the answer. What is the point of having a law if you make little attempt to enforce it?
At present we have a 30 m.p.h. speed limit over a large part of the country. I, like the noble Baroness, am a Londoner and have been driving in London for close on 40 years. When driving I try to keep to the 30 m.p.h. limit in town, but the number of times I am passed by other drivers is beyond belief. I have tried to count the number of cars that have done this—big cars, little cars,
194
new cars, old cars—and I have so often wondered why there has been no "traffic cop" or patrol to check these people. I share the noble Baroness's point of view that speed is dangerous; but if one is a first-class driver, driving a first-class car, speed is not necessarily dangerous. But if one is a rather mediocre driver, driving a mediocre car, then speed is dangerous—and it is speed that kills. Therefore, the right way to cope with the problem is to enforce the law a great deal more than we do now.
There is one particular form of enforcement which we do not use enough, and that is to withdraw people's licences—not necessarily for very long, but, for example, to take them away for a month for some comparatively mild piece of careless driving. This will be far more effective than fining the person £10; and if a licence is taken away for six months that does much more. One must not be too much impressed by the plea put forward that if a driver's licence is taken away it will mean he will lose his job. When it is a case of people being sent to prison one does not see the argument applied: "One must not send this criminal to prison because he will lose his job In the same way, if somebody does something criminally careless, which involves other people in death and mutilation, I cannot see why his licence should not be taken away, even though it does mean he loses his job.
Before I sit down I should like to make one further comment. We are a strange and peculiar country, because, although there is all this talk about the large number of people who are killed on the roads, the public do not seem to be really worried about it. We are told that far more people die from lung cancer every year through smoking cigarettes than are killed in accidents on the road. One would think that to get the cancer figures down, something should really be done to decrease the consumption of tobacco. Yet, so far as I can see, nothing is done about it. In the same way there must be some strong action to reduce road accident figures if people are not going to do something about it themselves. They think it will not affect them, and therefore do not try to do anything about it.
5.35 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I could not agree more warmly than I do with what the noble Baroness said, and we should all be very grateful to her for having asked this Question. I feel that there is one point on the other side; that is, that the driving standard in this country is not quite so bad as one might think from the figures, since we have, I suppose, about the heaviest traffic and the greatest number of cars per mile of road of any country in the world. Taking that fact into consideration, the percentage of cars that are involved in accidents is not outstandingly great. But that does not mean that action of some sort should not be taken by the Government if we are to save this frightful waste of life and ability.
I do not think the noble Baroness made it quite plain enough that the majority of accidents are caused by a comparative minority of dangerous drivers. On the whole, drivers are fairly reliable, and I do not agree with the noble Baroness's idea that when one gets into a car and shuts the door one shuts oneself off from the world and is in possession of a lethal weapon, and so on. That may be so in some cases.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I was not referring to the noble Lord. I said "the reckless man".
LORD SOMERS: I quite agree that it is the reckless man who does so. When the good driver sits down in a car, he feels that he wants to drive in the best way possible. A very few dangerous drivers can cause a large number of accidents, and unfortunately those accidents are not always to themselves. A point which has been consistently overlooked by the Government, and consequently by magistrates who deal with motoring offences, is the reason which lies behind dangerous driving. The noble Baroness dealt with that aspect up to a point. Some of these cases are due to mere incompetence and ignorance and inability to control the vehicle, but personally I think that those are the minority. Others are due to daredevilry in the very young; others are due to a total lack of consideration for others; others, as the noble Baroness said, are due to drink.
196
An understanding of the reasons that lie behind these accidents is very important—for two reasons. It is helpful in finding a possible preventive, and it influences the decision on the appropriate penalty. As regards the latter, I am strongly of opinion that there is only one penalty suitable to a dangerous driver, and that is instant disqualification for life; not, as it is at the moment, after three convictions within three years, or whatever it is. In cases where an accident is due to mere incompetence, the culprit should be allowed to take the test again after a given period; but in cases which are due to other causes I think the disqualification should be a life one. This may sound very harsh, and a great deal has been said about depriving the man of his work. But are we all so feeble that we cannot learn to earn our living in some other way? I am sure that it is only by eliminating this type of driver from the roads that we are going to achieve anything like safety.
I have recently seen some terrible cases of drivers who, obviously, had not the slightest feeling or consideration for anybody else on the road. I have seen three examples of one particular trick which I think is absolutely lethal; that is, nipping past on your nearside and then, owing to something being parked on the road ahead of you, swerving out in front of your nose. I have seen that happen three times within the last six months or so. That sort of thing is not going to be cured just by a fine or by six months' disqualification. It is caused by something inherent in the driver, and I think there should then be absolute and total disqualification.
I should like to touch on one other point. Because of the importance of ascertaining the reason behind an accident, I feel that special courts for dealing with motoring cases are necessary. I know that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has rather set his face against them, but I think they are essential, in spite of the fact that some people think that the motorist would be likely to get more lenient treatment from them. That is far from the case, my Lords. If a magistrate in a motoring court had real knowledge of what was happening, he would be far more likely to be a great deal more

197
severe, because he would realise the importance of preventing the wrong sort of person from driving.
As regards the test, that is all very well for just proving that a driver can make his car move, that he knows how to turn round in the street, that he knows on which side to overtake, and that he has read the Highway Code— which, of course, does not teach him much—but it does not go much further than that. I feel convinced that the two-tier test must eventually come. The advanced test, which should be something on the lines of the present advanced motorist's test, need not be compulsory. A driver could take it if he wanted to. The two-tier test has already been adopted, so I am told, in three countries; France, Greece and Australia have all got it. In France a driver is limited to a speed of 50 miles an hour for one year before he can take his second test. I do not know what the regulations are in the other two countries, but they are probably similar. I should say that in a country where the roads are as crowded as ours, 40 miles an hour would be a more appropriate figure.
I do not think the type of car one drives matters a great deal, because when one looks at these Mini-Minors and sees the speed that some of them can do, one realises that it is not the size of the car that matters but how one drives it. Of course, the objection will be raised that the instructors and testers cannot be found. The same objection has been raised as regards higher education and the extra year at school. The difficulty exists, but where the end is desirable one can find the people to do these things. In the same way, I feel that one could find instructors and testers for the second test.
The noble Baroness mentioned motorways in her Question and in her speech. Motorways are not dangerous in themselves. Some people have said that they are, and I know that my wife, who has just passed the test, certainly refuses to go near one at the moment, but I am hoping to persuade her one day. They are not dangerous in themselves, but, as in the case of any other road, they are dangerous if yon drive badly on them. You must know how to use them. I
198
entirely agree with the noble Baroness that, on the whole, lorry drivers are by far the best drivers on the road, but they sometimes act unwisely. I heard of a case not long ago where there was one lorry in the slow lane on one of the motorways travelling at about 15 miles an hour, which I think was its maximum; there was another trying to overtake it, which was doing 20 miles an hour; and a third one tried to overtake the two of them in the third lane at 25 miles an hour, while they were still abreast. Your Lordships can imagine for how long the entire motorway was completely blocked. I think there should be some regulation that lorries should not be allowed to use the fast lane.
The noble Baroness also mentioned cafés. I entirely agree with her there, and I think they are a very good thing. All I would say is that the only time I ever stopped at one was on the M.1 coming south, and the food was so utterly disgusting that I vowed I would never go there again. So I think something might be done there. Another important point is education. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, when discussing the Newsom Report not long ago, said that he felt that children of 16 should be taught to drive, and I quite agree with him. I think that even younger children should be taught how to use the roads, because all accidents are not due to motorists; a great many of them are due either to pedestrians who use the roads foolishly, or to cyclists who do the same. Unfortunately, in school areas there have been quite a number of accidents, because young children have suddenly seen a friend on the other side and, without a second's thought, have dashed across to talk to them when there has been a car coming and the worst has happened. Children should be educated from the earliest possible stage not to do that sort of thing. The motorist cannot take the blame. There should be films of how accidents happen, to make it even more realistic to them.
As to enforcement, which the noble Baroness mentioned, I quite agree with her that women would make an excellent source of recruitment to the mobile police. I also think that mobile police should not always take the form of travelling about in cars which are easily recognisable as police cars. One always

199
sees, of course, where there is a police car, that everybody is on his best behaviour. As soon as the police car is out of sight, the best behaviour vanishes. I think the police should be in places where they are not very visible to those persons on the road, and equipped with fast motor cycles so that they can catch up the really dangerous driver and, let us hope, secure a conviction. My Lords, this really is a very important subject, and I sincerely hope that the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport will pay a little less attention to people who park where they should not but where they will not kill anybody, and a little more attention to people who drive in a manner that is causing this terrible mortality.
5.52 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I feel sure that when this debate ends one thing will have been proved: that everyone agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in thanking my noble friend, not only for giving us an opportunity of discussing this problem but also for the informed and, indeed, moving way she presented the case. We are also grateful for the excellent suggestions she made for trying to lessen what I think everyone now regards as a social curse or menace which must be drastically dealt with, otherwise it will become endemic.
"The rising tide of traffic is already seeping through every street and alley of every town, spreading confusion, death and injury, noise, fumes and ugliness. The cause of traffic accidents is quite horrifyingly simple. We have created a vast mincing machine wherein we move in conditions which are too much for us. Every now and then someone slips, and it is statistically predictable how many will do so."
Your Lordships, and particularly my noble friends, will be aware that I myself should be quite incapable of penning those words, and I declare them at once, therefore, to be the words of Professor Buchanan. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will accept Professor Buchanan as one of the leading authorities on this subject, and that his description of the menace that confronts us is not overstated.
My Lords, Professor Buchanan says that it is "statistically predictable" how many of us will slip, and it is predictable, therefore, that, in the 24 hours of this very day, 20 people will be killed
200
and 1,000 people will be injured on the roads of this country. If that were the result of an earthquake, or if one-tenth of that number were to be killed or injured as the result of an air crash or a disaster at sea, it would make headlines in the newspapers of the world. But it is happening every day in this country, and does not make headlines at all. Indeed, the only time we appear to get really excited about it is at Easter, Whitsun and Christmas—and particularly Christmas, when we hear a lot about it on the television, with a great number of exhortations, and when the "cricket score" is put up every day, showing comparisons with the score last year. But, of course, if you look at those figures of deaths on the roads at holiday times you will find that, on the average, with rare exceptions, they are the same as are occurring every day of the week the whole year round. In fact, there are some holiday periods when the casualties are below average. They are below average largely because there are fewer road freight vehicles on the roads at holiday times, although there may be more cars. That is the measure of the problem with which we are confronted.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, I have driven a car nearly every day of my life for the last 43 years, and in the course of driving rather more than half a million miles I have never yet injured myself or any other person—touch wood! I am quite willing to admit I must be extremely fortunate, but I think that some part of it, at least, must be due to exercising normal care in driving. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Lindgren, not in his suggestion to "touch wood!" but in believing that this charmed life must very soon end. So much so that I am exercising discrimination in now driving only in London; in always going by train whenever I have to do a journey, and in quite deliberately never driving on the M.1 or other motorways—or, indeed, as my noble friend says, on the Kingston Bypass. Whatever one may say about these motorways, we know that in other countries in Europe, where they have far more of them, the accident rates are very much higher than they are in this country. I beg leave, therefore, to differ from those who regard motorways as safe. Certainly, if I can avoid them I will never travel on them again; nor

201
suffer what I regard as the indignities and hazards to which one is subjected when travelling by car on these longer journeys.
My Lords, it is not so much the drunken driver I fear as the "thrusters"; the "speed hogs", who are much more numerous than has so far been suggested in this debate. My noble friend Lady Summerskill gave the accurate description of such persons from the Report by the Royal College of Surgeons; but they are the unmannerly, the utterly selfish people, who, unfortunately, seem to me increasingly to characterise the age in which we live, and who really display the attitude of many people to-day when they get inside a car. The noble Lord who has just resumed his seat mentioned the mini-drivers, from whom we have all suffered constantly as they dash by, literally under our right ears, coming from nowhere; and he instanced that as indicating that it was obviously not the cower of the car that is the deciding factor. I believe that it is power in relation to weight, because I find that the chief offenders are always either the drivers of Jaguars or the drivers of the mini-cars.
My noble friend Lady Summer-skill put forward a number of extremely valuable suggestions for policing these people, and suggested that we should have mobile women police. That is an excellent idea. But, my Lords, we cannot possibly have sufficient police, whether in uniform or not in uniform, to deal adequately with these people. I think that motorists as a body, ordinary decent motorists who try to care for other people, whether they be other drivers or pedestrians, will have to do this matter for themselves by reporting as acts of dangerous driving all the kinds of incidents with which we are all familiar. It is not very difficult to take the number of a car and to note the place if any car has gone whizzing on even if, on that occasion, it has not caused a serious accident. We know the kind of bad driving and bad manners which inevitably will involve accidents; and I think we ought to help the police in doing the public work of reporting these incidents.
But, my Lords, however we deal with the end-product, as it were, it cannot in
202
my view be denied that the major cause of this problem, the real basic cause, is the frustration arising increasingly from urban congestion. I know that urban congestion does not exist on the motorways; but if accidents are analysed, then unquestionably the major number occur in such areas and in the conurbations. The point has not so far been made in this debate, but, in my view, the Government are increasing congestion by deliberate acts of policy. I have very large correspondence on this subject; I have letters every day. Here is one that I received this morning from a man living at Uxbridge. He says:
"The branch line between Uxbridge and West Drayton was closed to passenger traffic just over eighteen months ago because it was losing money (it was said), about £10,000 a year."
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Newton, thinks that what I am going to say is funny. I do not. I think it is a serious and important subject. The letter continues:
"Uxbridge is a fairly large and populous town growing rapidly and it is to be redeveloped shortly, and a large Brunel College is also to be built with many hundreds of students who will require transport. The branch line is a short one with only one stop in between … the run throughout only occupying eight minutes. The line has since been maintained for goods traffic, but on February 24 it is to be closed altogether and all goods traffic is then to be brought into the district by road from Slough. … When the passenger service was stopped it was promised there would be an improvement in the bus service. On the contrary it has worsened; and there is no shelter for shivering passengers … passengers returning home in the evening have to wait for a long time for a bus.…
"I wrote to Mr. Marples some time ago. The reply was: 'This is a matter for British Railways'. Further, at West Drayton, a large coal concentration depot has been opened, said to be the largest in Europe.… It sounds good, but all coal merchants within a radius of eight miles from West Drayton have to go there for their coal supplies. This includes Uxbridge, Slough, Southall, Hayes and other places. All this coal traffic having to be brought by road where it used to be conveyed by rail to these towns."
I know that reasons are given for accidents of this kind; usually they are financial reasons. Whether or not they are valid I am not at this moment prepared to discuss. But the point is that all the towns I mentioned on the Great West Road are in areas where there is already an enormous amount of traffic.

203
Slough, for example, one of the most accident-conscious towns in the whole country, has taken very great measures with regard to road safety because of the formerly high accident rate. Yet here we are, not merely adding more buses, but adding large numbers of lorries on to those roads gratuitously, quite apart from the fact that there will have to be very considerable provision of roads. I assure your Lordships that that sort of thing can be duplicated in every part of the country; and in many cases traffic is being forced on to roads totally unsuitable for it.
This is the case not merely in urban areas. Two months ago in Devon a railway line was closed down and a bus service was approved in its place. At Morebath in Devon buses are now allowed to go over a road where the road is ten feet wide and the gradient is one in five. I pointed that out to the Minister, but he refused to intervene. I do not pretend this is the only cause of accidents, but surely it is beyond dispute that the increasing congestion is a major cause of accidents particularly in urban areas and in the conurbations. Why, therefore, do not the Government call a halt to the tragic farce, as I see it, of allowing British Railways to advertise railways of this kind in our conurbations for closure. I call it a "tragic farce" because Dr. Beeching himself said only a few months ago that they must defer closure procedure in such areas.
Only three weeks ago the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Housing and Local Government sent out a joint circular to the local authorities instructing them that land use and transport must be considered as a single subject; that the Buchanan Report had been approved; and it instructed these local authorities, in conjunction with their fellows and neighbours, to draw up a plan in which all these matters of road transport, land usage and housing were considered as one subject. What does it mean? I hope the Minister will reply. Why are we going on putting hundreds of thousands of people and many local authorities to the trouble of opposing these closures now advertised, when, surely, it is utterly impossible to imagine that these lines will be closed.
204
There is, for example, to mention only one, the Manchester-Buxton line, where the trains are crowded to the doors, even in the guard's van, every night and morning and the road itself is always heavily congested. The length of time taken by the buses during the rush hour can vary by as much as three-quarters of an hour above the scheduled period. In such circumstances, it is surely quite impossible to consider going on in that way. It is completely relevant to the discussion we are now having, because if we deliberately force extra transport now from the railway to the roads—and very often roads which are not yet prepared to take the extra transport—and if, at the same time, we destroy in those areas the safest form of transport yet discovered on land, then we are deliberately inviting an increase in road casualties. And it is as certain as anything can be that the casualties would be increased.
No one doubts that, from the Minister downwards, the Ministry of Transport is deeply concerned about road accidents. We know that the Minister has taken, and will doubtless take, other measures to try to lessen the incidence of accidents, but in effect they are palliatives, however determined that action may be, if basically and all the time we build up additional transport and continually increase the congestion.
No one doubts that the sentiments are right, but in this, action counts for more than sentiment and will save more lives. I would ask that as a practical earnest of the Government's determination to fight this menace they make a declaration that, in the conurbations and congested areas, they will not allow any railway lines to be closed and that they will suspend closure procedure on all urban lines which have not yet been advertised for closure. I think that this one step not only would be an earnest of their intention but would also make the most immediate contribution that we can make towards saving lives on the roads.
6.12 p.m.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I join with noble Lords who have spoken earlier in expressing my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, for having raised this matter to-day. If I may say so with respect, I found her speech most interesting and construc-

205
tive, and I find myself in full agreement with almost all of it. I should like to try to dispel the idea which has cropped up in certain sections of the Press that so far nothing has been done to reduce the number of accidents which take place on our roads. Much has been done, and it has been done most effectively. It might be expected to be a mathematical certainty that accidents would rise in direct proportion to the number of vehicles at risk. In practice, it has not been so. Although the volume of traffic has risen three times in the last 15 years, the accident rate in relation to the number of vehicles has in fact fallen.
When we try to get the problems of road safety into their proper perspective we must realise that there is no one and no easy solution to these problems. In my view, no one is more alive to the problems than is the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport, and no one has done more to improve standards, both of conduct and of driving. He has done a splendid job in keeping the accident rates down, despite an enormous increase in the number of vehicles. The right honourable gentleman has never been afraid to experiment nor has he been afraid of publicity, even of adverse publicity, of which he has had more than his share. But he is not a dictator and he can go only as far as Parliament and the resources at his disposal permit.
Even if the supply of money available were unlimited, I very much doubt whether there would be enough contractors and machines to build new roads and new motorways much more quickly than is being done now. In addition, the acquisition of land is a very lengthy process, and these new motorways require an enormous amount of land. I think I heard the figure of 24 acres for one mile of motorway, but I am not certain of that. The acquisition of land must be a lengthy process, if the objectors to its acquisition, who always arise, are to be given a fair hearing; and, quite rightly, they always are given a fair hearing. I forget now how long it took the Ministry of Transport to settle the objections raised over the M.1 extension to the North of Leicester but, at a guess, I should think certainly two years.
206
Good roads are not, by themselves, enough, and enforcement of the law is the answer. It must be remembered that the police are already stretched to the limit and that they are already unable to carry out all the duties imposed on them. I say this with regret, for no one is more anxious than I am to see more policemen on the roads. I believe that they do more to ensure good behaviour on the roads than anything else.
Nevertheless, my Lords, better roads must be part of the answer. M.1, much abused though it is, has proved to be three times safer than was the A.5 before the A.1 was built. Many more miles of motorways are necessary. They are the safest roads of them all, for they employ the vital principle of segregation of traffic. For example, on a motorway it is virtually impossible to kill a pedestrian or a cyclist or an animal, and it is very unlikely that another car will hit you head-on. Not that I do not regard it as bad enough to be hit from behind, but, clearly, the combined speed of two vehicles creates a greater impact than a car coming from behind.
What it really amounts to is that it is impossible to legislate against human folly. The recent accidents on the M.1, in conditions of thick fog, show that even the best roads cannot be made fool-proof. The Minister has been criticised for not having a warning system on the M.1, which would give advanced warning of fog and ice. Clearly, this would be helpful in some conditions, particularly in denoting the presence of ice. I believe that this is done in France, and very successfully. I think that everybody would welcome this, because ice is something on which one can come unawares. But why it should be necessary, in conditions of visibility as they were on that dreadful Tuesday, to tell somebody that there was fog, I fail to understand.
To revert to the warning system, I understand that the Ministry are making, or proposing to make, an experiment elsewhere on another stretch of motorway. No doubt my noble friend who is to reply for the Government will correct me if I am wrong, but I think there is some difficulty with regard to the supply of electricity for working these instruments on M.1 which has not yet been overcome. If a driver is unable to see the dangers of fog as

207
it was on that day, he is not, in my view, fit to drive at all. The number of vehicles which were involved in the crash must prove that they were all following each other much too closely and at too fast a speed, which, as we all know, is a common fault in driving.
I must not weary your Lordships with too many suggestions, and I will summarise my points as briefly as possible. I was glad to hear it suggested that lorries should not be allowed to travel in the fast lane, and I hope that some action will be taken to prevent this. In my view, they already go quite fast enough, and they create a situation of grave danger when three enormous vehicles are all going at virtually the same speed and it takes several minutes to establish which one is going the fastest. I hope that something will be done to stop that, too.
I should also like to see the anti-dazzle fence extended down the whole length of the motorway. I suggested that in your Lordships' House some years ago, but the fence is still exactly the same size as it used to be. It may be that other drivers do not suffer so much from dazzle as I do, but I believe that if the anti-dazzle fence were extended it would be most helpful; because not only would it solve the problem of dazzle, but it would also have the tendency to keep skidding vehicles from crossing the centre section and arriving in the face of traffic coming the other way. The fence need not be of any great strength, because anything skidding into it would hit it only a glancing blow. I am informed that this has happened on several occasions where there is such a fence, and that in every case vehicles have returned to the road where they started. This would not necessarily mean that somebody would not hit the vehicle from behind, but anything is better than a head-on collision.
Another thing I should like to see is a return to the pre-war special test for drivers of heavy vehicles, many of which are now driven by quite young men of, say, 21 or so, who have had little experience on the roads. I do not think it is entirely without reason that insurance companies "load" the premiums when asked to insure young
208
people. I am quite sure that these heavy lorries involve a rather different technique and that a fairly rigorous test should be imposed before comparatively inexperienced young men are allowed to drive them. Another way in which lorries may be rather dangerous is that in almost all cases they do not belong to the person who is driving them. If somebody has a car he is probably rather fond of it, and does not want to buckle a wing or dent the side; and he takes considerable pains not to do so. But if a lorry hits a small car even a glancing blow, what is only a slight dent to the lorry is a very heavy blow to the small car, and may even result in turning it over.
I fully agree with what has been said about education in road safety in all its aspects, and if more and better driving instructors could be found—which apparently they cannot—the driving test should be made much stricter. In my view, lack of knowledge and incompetence are far more productive of accidents than is drunkenness. That subject has been discussed at great length, and I do not propose to go into it again; but that is my view. Initial and once-and-for-all driving tests are not enough. Speaking of that, I am intrigued with the idea of the two-tier test. I think this is an admirable suggestion, and I hope that it will be taken up. The number of people who fail the test of the Institute of Advanced Motorists (the proportion is about 50 per cent.) must be proof that the present ordinary test is much too easy. Indeed, I should have thought that no lower test than that of the Institute of Advanced Motorists should be accepted for drivers of motor cars.
In conclusion, I would say that I do not believe that having fines and prison sentences provides a suitable or effective remedy. Motorists may be foolish; they may be incompetent; they may be bad-mannered and selfish. But they are not criminals. But if, by the folly, stupidity and incompetence of their actions, they prove that they are not fit to drive, they should have their licences withdrawn, and they should be restored only after further instruction and after a most searching test has been satisfactorily completed. Prison is not the place for the bad driver; but no more is the driving seat of a motor vehicle.
6.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, unlike other noble Lords whose wide-ranging contributions to the debate I have greatly admired, I am going to make a short speech on a small aspect of this problem. I propose to deal with the driver who is too old to be safely on the roads. This is a subject which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth in our last road traffic debate, and I hope to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that it is receiving a measure of attention from the Government.
I suppose we should agree that one of the most important qualities that a motorist requires is the ability to realise and react quickly to a dangerous situation. A motorist must be a man who can think and act quickly when the unexpected occurs. He must be ready in a split second to make his decision, and then to brake, to swerve or to accelerate. If he runs into a patch of ice, he must take, in a split second, the necessary action to get out of a skid.
I believe it to be undeniable that old age robs us of these qualities of quick and accurate judgment. It also very commonly robs us of the power to act quickly. Our arms and our legs stiffen with arthritis or some other disability. We are no longer able to stamp on the brakes or turn the wheel with the rapidity required. It will be said in reply that the old driver is generally a slow driver as well. Of course, if everybody drove slowly on the roads, slow driving would be a safety factor. But all motorists realise that the slow driver who goes at less than a reasonable speed is, in fact, a danger factor rather than a safety factor on the road.
Consequently, I suggest that really old people driving cars, and even driving mechanical chairs, are a danger to themselves, a danger to their passengers, and a danger to other road users. Such old people are, fortunately, rare. Most sensible men and women, as they realise that their faculties are beginning to decline, have the good sense and good judgment to give up their cars; and it is generally a matter of enormous satisfaction to their friends and relatives when they do so. On the other hand, it is something of a courageous act for an
210
old person, especially when living in the country, to give up driving. It may mean acceptance of loneliness. He will be henceforth dependent upon other people to come to see him. Therefore, some old people postpone the day of decision, and drive when they should no longer do so.
I may be asked what I mean by "old", and that is, of course, a most difficult and delicate question. But I will suggest that a man or a woman who is in the seventies ought to be required to prove that his or her faculties as a driver are unimpaired. By that, I do not mean that they should be required to take a driving test on the roads. What is needed, I think, is a simple mechanical test, such as has been devised, I believe, by psychologists and could easily be adapted to a test of ability to react quickly enough to drive. Such a test would not be at all costly, since the necessary mechanical apparatus would have its cost covered by a small fee.
There is a further point which would receive attention at such a testing, and that is the sight of an applicant for a driving licence. That is a matter in which Her Majesty's Government show a childlike trust in the applicant. We are asked to fill in "Yes" in the appropriate column if our sight is good enough. Of course, we ought to be very conscientious indeed in filling in that space. But I regret to say that I knew an elderly lady well in the eighties, who fell so low in her wickedness as to fill in "Yes" in that column, when she knew that "No" was the correct answer. To make the story even more painful, she was lured into that immoral action by an elderly gentleman who said that he did the same. We should not put temptation in the way of the very old, and it would, of course, be very easy to give a sight test at the same time as a test of quick reaction.
I hope this matter will receive favourable consideration. I know very well that one has to go on and on raising points like this for years and years on end, in the hope that in the long run a little may be done in the matter. At any rate, if Her Majesty's Government feel able to give any sort of favourable reply, it will be well received in insurance circles, which are well aware of the bad risk that very elderly motorists make.
6.39 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, time is getting on and I, too, wish to refer to only one aspect of this complicated subject. May I remind your Lordships again for a few moments of that "Black Tuesday" on the motorways, Tuesday, January 21, to which the noble Lord, Lord Allerton, referred a few moments ago? On that day there was widespread fog throughout the country, although it was not particularly dense fog. May I quote to your Lordships something that was said on that day by the head of the accident unit of the Luton Hospital, a doctor who ha; frequently had the unhappy experience of attending the scenes of accidents, upon the M.1? He said:
"When the fog comes down the M.1 is just a trap. Drivers travel much too fast. It is ridiculous. You stand out there at the scene of a crash and you don't know from one second to the next whether something will come charging out of the fog and run you down."
I believe that this problem was successfully solved by the Armed Services during the last war, and I regret to say I believe that this valuable lesson has been largely lost in the intervening years. During the last war soldiers were driving vehicles in many parts of the world under black-out conditions, which had very much in common with the problem of driving in fog. The Army Council impressed upon soldiers that if they drove beyond the range of their vision so that they ran into some obstruction ahead of them simply because they could not stop in time when they saw it, then they committed a serious offence, and it did not matter what was the nature of the obstruction ahead, whether it was a road block or some stationary unlighted vehicle. If a soldier ran into it simply because he could not stop in time when he saw it, then he committed a serious offence. I believe that simple piece of discipline could perfectly well be instilled into the civilian population in 1964. I am not saying anything new. It is fair to say that the Minister of Transport himself said very much these words in Question Time in another place on the day after that "Black Tuesday".
Surely the matter is as simple as this. If the fog is of equal density in Oxford Street and on a motorway, and if 5 m.p.h. is the maximum safe speed in Oxford Street, then 5 m.p.h. is the
212
maximum safe speed on the motorway; and if somebody drives at 20 m.p.h. on a motorway because he supposes that, with a bit of luck, the road must be clear ahead, then he is driving recklessly and he deserves to be very severely dealt with. This is the only contribution I have to this otherwise most interesting debate.
6.42 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I owe your Lordships in general, and the noble Lady who introduced this Question in particular, an apology for my absence from my seat early in the debate, but I was detained at an important meeting. It is a measure of my concern at this dreadful situation that in the circumstances I dare to speak to your Lordships, but in consequence of my misdemeanour I shall curtail my speech.
First of all, my Lords, I feel (this point may have been made already) that we are short of a proper analysis of the causes of accidents. Statistics, so far as I have been able to get them, are, in my opinion, too vague. On the subject of drunken driving I do not suggest any relaxation in the pursuit of the drunken driver, but I do urge that the hue and cry against him—and, occasionally, unfortunately, against her—should not blunt the dissecting and the evaluation of the other causes of serious accidents. Indeed, like everybody else, I welcome the new and, if I may say so, overdue efforts to analyse specific accidents. I go further and make bold to say that this analysis will prove, I believe, that the stationary vehicle plays too large a part, indeed a good deal larger part than is thought at present, in causing accidents. Motorways and clearways are a solution. Let us have more of them, but let us use them safely. Incidentally, for roads that cannot be made clearways I believe that much more could be done to draw attention to the danger of vehicles being run into from behind. At this time of the year, when rear lights and reflectors soon become obscured, I believe that more advice and publicity should be given about the responsibilities of individual drivers to this matter when they stop.
As every noble Lord has said, excessive speed is the basic cause of most accidents, whether the speed arises from lack of judgment, bad manners or sheer

213
reckless folly. As other noble Lords have emphasised, just what speed is excessive depends upon conditions of the road, of the vehicle and its load and of visibility. On this latter point, I shall refer later to what the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, has said on the question of drivers' eyesight in connection with licences. But I would say that I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said about driving in fog: five miles an hour may be too fast. Visibility is related, whether in fog or clear daylight, to the ability of the individual driver to see. I would refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Allerton, said about that "Black Tuesday", and on drivers who are driving too close. Unfortunately, many of the tragedies were caused to drivers who were stopped clear of the vehicles in front but were struck from behind by drivers who were going too fast. Then, the good driver was injured. Therefore, it is not the case that all the drivers were driving too close.
My Lords, on the subject of speed I am tempted to say something which I have said in your Lordships' House before. Can we not all remember to start our trips in time, and realise that a run which ten years ago could be safely carried out in 50 minutes—shall we say, from my home to Edinburgh—to-day takes at least an hour? The temptation is to leave at the time one has been used to. I believe that this point could be made in urging people to drive at a more sensible speed.
Of course, there is a remedy in regard to this problem of running into vehicles from behind, particularly in conditions of dark or poor visibility—and this, again, may have been mentioned by the noble Lady. It is that there should be more rear lights on the vehicle, high up, out of reach of mud, snow and smoke. The practice which one sees in a number of large vehicles to-day might be developed, and perhaps made obligatory. Higher reflectors, too, which would be free from the risk of being obscured, would also help.
On this point of visibility, I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, said in connection with elderly drivers. The police authorities in my neighbourhood have made a point which I believe to be a sound one—noble Lords and
214
noble Ladies who are doctors will be able to describe it better than I can. It concerns the older—though not necessarily very old—driver. The point is that the older you get, the more careful you must be, coming out of brightly lit premises, such as a shop or one's own home, not to drive off too quickly without allowing your eyes to adjust themselves to the strange conditions.
A young man returning to this country the other day, after some years in the U.S.A., told me that he was horrified at the standard of driving here to-day compared to what it was some five years ago. The driving is probably much the same, but the concentration of vehicles on the roads has made it appear more dangerous. His view, with which I agree, is that a real deterrent to excessive speed, bad driving and bad parking is the visible presence ("visible" is the point he makes, and this point about the police has been made by other noble Lords) of traffic "cops" in cars, moving with the traffic and also halted, where they may be clearly seen from passing cars, as is the case in the U.S.A. Never mind trying to get convictions by cunning traps! Until there are men to spare, let the existing men try to prevent accidents by advertising their presence as the minions of the law.
There are too few police. Other noble Lords have made this point. But is this something that cannot be adjusted very much more quickly than might be thought? Is not the emergency serious enough to justify a class of special constable, or more use of the existing special constables, so as to strengthen this force on the road? Both the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord Allerton, seemed to feel it is not possible to increase the police as rapidly as might appear necessary; but I wonder whether this suggestion, which perhaps has already been made, is not one which is worth considering.
I agree with the Minister of Transport that it seems to be impossible to make more varieties of notice effective. I am reminded of a friend who was very keen on safety, and another mutual friend said, "That man will kill himself falling downstairs because there is not a notice at the top to 'Mind the step'." There is something in that; one can overdo it. I am reminded also

215
of a man whom my wife unfortunately collided with as he came out of a side road. She said, "You saw me coming; why did you not stop?" He said, "There was no 'Halt' sign". There are difficulties connected with additional notices which can well be watched.
We want more guidance, I believe, from the analysis of statistics, and we want better statistics to guide us. Take, for instance, the principal cause of accidents—either the first or second cause given in the statistics—"Turning right without due notice". I have tried to follow this up, and it is clear to me that a number of these accidents may well have arisen through a quick turn to the right caused by a stationary vehicle which has subsequently driven away. That is an illustration of what I mean by statistics as they exist to-day not being sufficiently full.
I have one other point. Are the Churches doing enough about bringing home to the people this dreadful problem? I wonder whether they are tempted to allow their natural indignation at drunken driving to blur the need for the pressing of the Christian virtues of unselfishness and courtesy on our roads. I trust I have not been unduly repetitive of points which other noble Lords or the noble Baroness may have made earlier in the debate. However that may be, I do congratulate her most heartily on taking this opportunity of giving this House a chance to examine this dreadful situation.
6.53 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I have only one point I wish to make and I hope I shall not detain your Lordships overlong in doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, rightly mentioned that statistics were needed, and I would ask Her Majesty's Government if they would not be prepared to supply one entirely fresh statistic in connection with accidents, in particular upon motorways. Anyone who drives upon motorways, as I expect most of your Lordships do from time to time, will know that the speed of cars on these motorways is high. The roads are made for speed. But there are many cars going along those roads not only at 60 miles on hour, but at 70, 80, 90 or even 100 miles an hour. In certain circumstances, provided the
216
drivers are good and the conditions are good, that may be perfectly safe.
However, there is a further condition that has to be fulfilled and that concerns the car itself. There are very few cars on the market to-day which cannot in fact travel at 90 m.p.h., but there are very few cars on the market to-day which are safe at 90 m.p.h. There are cars which are constructed to have a maximum speed of 120 or even 150 m.p.h. If they were being driven at 90 or 100 p.m.h., given adequate drivers in good conditions, there would be no danger, because their whole construction is designed for these very high speeds and they are comfortably within their margin. But cars with a maximum of 90 m.p.h. being driven at 85 m.p.h., even by a good driver—and, in my submission, a good driver would not drive such a car at 85 m.p.h.—are intrinsically dangerous vehicles, because their brakes are not constructed for those speeds; their road-holding is not such as to maintain stability in an emergency at those speeds, and all the other things which go into the design are lacking to create safety.
If this contention of mine is correct, one ought to be able to learn from statistics whether certain makes of cars driven along motorways are in fact more susceptible to accidents than others, and I would urge upon the Ministry of Transport the need to publish such statistics. It would not be very difficult. The statistics of the cars involved in accidents are already available. All one needs is spot-checks in order to get statistically accurate figures of the numbers of cars of the different makes that are driven upon the roads, and then there could be published a chart showing that make X has an accident rate of one per thousand cars on the M.1, make Y three per thousand, and make Z ten per thousand, or whatever it may be. I grant that it would be strongly resisted by the manufacturers of the cars; of course it would be. But, after all, in a matter as important as this we cannot afford to bow to susceptibilities, whether they be of the drunken driver, or the 88-year-old lady whose eyesight is bad, or whoever it may be. We are dealing with human life. The motor car manufacturer who produces a car which is safe to be driven, by the ordinary people who buy it, at

217
such speeds as are done on motorways, would have nothing to fear.
If my contention is entirely wrong and all cars are equally safe and road accidents are a purely human factor, there would be no significant difference between the makes and no one would be the loser. But if it were found that certain cars were more accident-prone than others, surely the public should be told of that so that they can either avoid buying such a car, or, if they do, will know they should exercise rather more care with it than with another make. I urge upon Her Majesty's Government that they should give consideration to this. The Minister of Transport is a man of courage: he does not bow down to vested interests in most instances of this kind. The statistics could be obtained with very little trouble, and I think they could be very valuable.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, is it not possible that the insurers are interested in this angle and might be able to assist the Government in regard to the figures of various makes?
LORD WALSTON: That might well be so, and if so, so much the better. I should be happy if they could.
6.58 p.m.
LORD GLENTANAR: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but there was one small point made in the admirable speech of the noble Baroness in introducing this debate that I should like to comment upon. For considerable periods before the war I lived in Norway. The noble Baroness commented upon the good way in which the Scandinavian countries look after these things. One point there which I think is important (I am speaking about the law as it was before the war, but I have no reason to believe it has been materially altered) is the attempt to prevent the drunken driver from driving at all, without waiting until he has had a smash. The police had power to stop anybody—they were particularly liable to stop drivers after a dinner party—and they were not supposed to have drunk for six hours before. They would take a driver to the police station and say, "I am sorry; I must test your blood", and if he was found to have too much alcohol in the blood he had
218
an alternative: it was either one week on bread and water or two weeks on normal rations. He usually chose the one week on bread and water. But it had a remarkable effect. The principal thing there is the attempt to prevent accidents rather than to deal with the miscreants after the accident has happened.
7.0 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make one small point, I hope in one minute. I refer to the question of piling up and being run into from behind, of which we had such a vivid example given to us by my noble friend Lord Airedale. Those of your Lordships who have driven in Italy will know that on crossing the frontier one is obliged to take a small tripod with "cat's-eyes" in red, which must be put about 20 yards behind the car in the case of any unexpected stoppage, so that it gives traffic behind a chance to see that ahead there is trouble. Perhaps I may suggest that for the consideration of the Government.
7.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I apologise for intervening at this late stage of the discussion and perhaps for making points which I fear may well have been made by other noble Lords. Lest this should be the case, I propose to speak quite briefly. First, may I compare the figures of last year with the pre-war figures? I know that such a comparison has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, but I wonder whether he went back far enough. Are your Lordships aware that in 1962 6,700 people were killed on the roads, and that in 1930, 34 years ago, the figure was 7,300? Are your Lordships further aware that the number of cars on the road in 1930 was 2,300,000, whereas in 1962 it was 10,500,000? In other words, 600 more people were killed in 1930 than were killed in 1962; yet the number of motor cars in 1930 was one-fifth of the number that it is now. The extraordinary thing is that, search as I may through our newspaper files, I cannot find any major trace of public outcry against what was a far more shocking affair then than it is to-day. Perhaps there should have been. I think there should. I simply report the facts.

219
In our, if I may use the words, almost psychopathic desire to blame ourselves and to prove that in every case the ghastly event was somebody's fault, may we not perhaps be going a little too far? Take this matter of drinking. Of course an excessive amount of drink is a wicked thing for the driver of a motor car or a motor cycle, a cyclist, or a road user of any sort, including a pedestrian. But is there any conclusive evidence that drink is a major factor in the cause of accidents? Such as it is, the evidence seems to be rather to the contrary. The noble Baroness has mentioned the Scandinavian countries where they do not drive when they drink; but in fact 20 people were killed in the Scandinavian countries over Christmas and the New Year, and pro rata in relation to the number of motor cars in those countries and in Britain, I do not think that their record was much better, if at all, than our own.
Again, is it not generally accepted that the effect of alcohol varies with the individual, and that it is not the quantity that a man has, but what man drinks it? I once knew an engine driver in Germany who was not fit to drive his engine until he had absorbed 18 pints of beer, and then he drove it extremely well. Your Lordships perhaps recall that when we discussed the Road Traffic Act two or three years ago, I consumed a quarter bottle of whisky before breakfast and was pronounced fit to drive by my most excellent doctor. By concentrating on drink and legislating against drink as the biggest single cause of road accidents may we not perhaps be in danger of misleading ourselves?
Finally, I put it to your Lordships that, however hard we try, by warnings or by legislative action, we are not going to change human nature. There will always be the man or woman who drives selfishly, impatiently, who is late for an appointment. There will always be the boy who wants to show off to his girl friend. There will always be the fool in driving. I am not a defeatist. I think your Lordships will admit that there will always be the ordinary criminal. Nobody ever suggests that one day there will be no crime. What we have to do, however reluctantly, is to accept this as a national matter, and so to arrange things that those who are in danger of killing or wounding others shall have the smallest
220
possible opportunity of doing so. In practice, I believe that this really means double track roads, with a barrier in between the roads so that motorists going in one direction simply cannot get at those going in the other.
I know about the M.1—I live on it. In a fast car in which I was travelling at 30 m.p.h. in the fog, I was being passed by lorries doing 60 m.p.h. and over. I hope the lesson has been learned. I do not believe that there will be a repetition of these stupidities on the M. roads. Anyway, fog is, thank heavens!, a relatively rare meteorological event. If we really want to reduce the casualty rate, and if we really believe that human life is valuable, then let us spend the nation's money on the nation's roads. That, I submit, is the only sure way to success.
7.7 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I should like right at the start of my speech to join with those of your Lordships who have expressed their appreciation to my noble friend Lady Summerskill for having made this debate possible. I think it is a compliment to her that the standard of debate has been so high. It has made my task in winding up from this side all the more difficult, because there are few points which have not already been dealt with. In spite of the fact that Lord Ferrier regretted that there might be repetition in his speech, there is bound to be repetition in mine, because of the emphasis I wish to place on what I consider to be perhaps the most important points that have arisen during the debate.
Practically every noble Lord who has spoken has said that motorways, as motorways, are not dangerous roads. We have to admit that when an accident happens on a motorway it is of greater severity than an accident on the normal highway, but that is because of the speed at which the vehicles are going. The damage arises from the impact at speed and the lack of ability of the individual within the motor car to stop within the length of his vision, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, referred. But whilst it is true that the severity of an accident on a motorway tends to be greater, it is equally true that the frequency of accidents on motorways is much lower than that on the normal highway. The cause of accidents on

221
motorways is not the road; it is either a mechanical defect within the vehicle, or human error and driver behaviour.
I think we can take pride in motorways generally. Their design and standard of construction is reasonably good. But even if we were to reach a state of perfection, both in design and construction, accidents would still happen if men and women drove foolishly and without consideration for others. That major consideration arises from the inability to stop at speed within short distances.
My noble friend Lady Summerskill paid a tribute, as did a number of your Lordships, to the average lorry driver. Lorry drivers are men of considerable skill; they generally show consideration to others and their competence as drivers is beyond reproach. But there are exceptions, one of which was referred to by my noble friend in her opening speech. I would refer to inducements offered by some employers to their drivers to break the Road Traffic Regulations in regard to the speed of vehicles, and even as to hours worked. In regard to road haulage generally it is the curse of bonus and piecework which is a contributory factor to accidents. One does not wish to specify particular trades or callings, but one can speak from one's own experience. My experience has been with the sand and gravel lorry rushing from pit to building site, or the lorry carrying rubble to the tip. Not only is the roadworthiness of the vehicle doubtful, but the driver is on piecework, which is encouraged by the employer, and it tends to make the driver less considerate to other road users than is the case with his colleagues who operate the normal long-distance lorries.
Having said that—and I join with all other noble Lords who paid a tribute to the average lorry driver—I must support the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and my noble friend Lady Summerskill, on their point as to lorries in the third lane. The instance to which Lord Somers referred I have myself actually seen happen. Let us remember that motorways are built for speed, and when a motorist is going safely along in a car at speed and suddenly comes up against three lorries blocking the whole
222
width of the road and travelling at a maximum of 25 miles an hour, this makes accidents likely because of the car's inability to stop quickly enough. In spite of the vested interest that will be aroused—the road haulage associations and the rest are bound to kick up a fuss—on the grounds of safety, when we are dealing with human life, the Ministry ought to consider the question of banning lorries from the third lane and leaving one lane free for fast-moving vehicles. This is one point on which the Minister is not being as forthcoming as he might in regard to the motorways.
In reading the debate in another place, I thought that his answer to the discussion was in some ways plausible. When there are adverse conditions on the motorways, or when an accident occurs, other accidents are made much more likely. A sign on the bridges which cross the motorway saying "Accident ahead" is much more likely to be taken notice of than flashing lights on the roof of a police car, because the police cars themselves are generally moving and in conditions of fog the traffic itself is not restricted as to speed. More ought to be done than is being done at present in regard to experiments with warning signs where it is expected that vehicles will be moving at speed.
To turn from accidents on motorways, there has been a tendency, as the noble Earl, Lord Arran, has just said, to over-simplify the causes of accidents on other roads. There has been a tendency, on the part not only of the public but also of the Press, to emphasise the factor of drink. I should not like it to be thought that any words of mine are intended in any way to mitigate the criminality of a person who drives a motor car while under the influence of drink or drugs. But to say that that is the major cause of road accidents, or to allow it to detract from the basic causes, would be wrong. Here the public have a responsibility.
Magistrates have come in for some criticism to-day. When the police apprehend a person for driving under the influence and the person is charged, it is my experience as a magistrate that the lawyer immediately advises his client to go to quarter sessions. Why? Because he is going to be tried by a jury. The lawyer says to him, "You will be un

223
lucky if there will not be eight or ten out of the twelve members of the jury who are also motorists. You are much more likely to get off because they will think, 'There, but for the Grace of God, go I'." It is no good criticising benches of magistrates when the legal profession advise their clients to go to quarter sessions, for it is the citizens, the motoring public, who tend to be much more lenient to the infringing motorist than they ought to be. There are few of us who have not read Press reports of cases at quarter sessions where one feels that that has happened; although I would admit straight away that one cannot always get all the facts from reading a case as reported in the Press. If one had heard the case in court one might have taken a different view.
Mechanical defects in vehicles constitute a very big factor contributing to accidents, and this is true of road haulage vehicles, commercial vehicles and the motor car. Perhaps I can say from this side of the House what noble Lords opposite might hesitate to say: there are far too many people running cars to-day who cannot afford to run them. When cash is short, maintenance is done on a shoestring or is not undertaken. "Do it yourself" is all very well in some spheres. If you are trying to paper a ceiling and fall off a ladder, it is your fault and it is your leg which is broken. But when it comes to driving a vehicle, if it is not properly maintained and is likely to cause death or severe injury to other persons, then, of course, it is nothing less than criminal. It is all a question of the standard of the vehicle.
It is not only a question of the car driver. This applies equally to some road hauliers and commercial undertakings who are using vehicles and perhaps having a hard time to make their business go, and they let the condition of their lorries or vans depreciate. The tests which the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport has instituted in regard to vehicles over five years of age are very necessary, but it is really surprising, when one is sitting on a bench of magistrates and someone is up for an infringement of a traffic Act, how the police then find out that there is no test certificate, and other offences also appear.
224
The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, referred to the question of eyesight and mechanical tests for those who are elderly. I would go much further than the noble Earl. We require a certificate to show that a motor vehicle which is going to be driven is roadworthy. Yet any person can get a provisional licence and pass a test without any medical examination whatever. It was reported in the Press last Friday that a driver in Luton who was driving a small minibus had an accident, and the defence proved, by medical certificate, that he was not fit to drive. My contention is that, rather than that we should have a medical certificate saying that a man was not fit to drive because of his physical condition—not through drink or anything like that; it was a heart condition—there should be a medical test before a driving licence is given. There ought to be a medical examination of drivers as a requirement for getting a driving licence; and, equally, a medical examination ought to take place periodically during the life of the licence.
There is one point which has not been mentioned to-day, and that is the "cat's-eye". I think that the "cat's-eye" is one of the biggest contributors to road safety which was ever invented. So far as driving in fog or mist is concerned, it is a godsend. So far as driving under normal conditions is concerned, it is a guide to the driver as to exactly where the centre of the road is, and where danger lies. Reference has been made to cyclists and the possible danger from them. I think it is true that a number of motorists, particularly those who have not been driving for a great time, tend to drive towards the crown of the road because of the fear of hitting a cyclist, particularly a wobbling cyclist, and the "cat's-eye" helps them to see that they do not get over the crown of the road. I have been surprised—and perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will have some answer to this—to find that over recent years the number of both "A" roads and "B" roads fitted with the "cat's-eye" is declining. It seems that where a road is re-surfaced a white line is placed down, and not a "cat's-eye". If that is because of economy by the Ministry of Transport in their grants to local authorities for

225
the work of road maintenance, then I think it is a very foolish economy. In any case, the Ministry of Transport ought to call the attention of the local authorities to "cat's-eyes", and where they have been discontinued they ought to be reinstituted.
Another matter which has not been mentioned is the three-lane roads. In my opinion they are the most dangerous of all roads. Everyone tends to think that he has the right of the road. This may be taken as a criticism of the lorry driver, but the fact is that it is much less difficult for the lorry driver to move from one lane to the other; also, as he has a heavier vehicle, it is wiser for anybody else to get out of the way if the lorry is in the centre lane, rather than continue in it. But the three-lane road is a death trap, because of the possibility of head-on collision at speed with a heavy lorry. I think it would be wise for the Ministry of Transport to abolish these roads. In some places they have converted them into two-lane roads. That does not give the inducement for quite such reckless overtaking, and it is certainly a point of improvement.
Practically all the suggestions that have been made to-day, including my own of a medical examination before getting a driving licence, have been made many times before. I do not want to relieve the Ministry of Transport or the Government of any of their responsibility. They have heavy responsibility. We want more motorways, we want safer roads, we want grants for the road improvements of which local authorities have been deprived for many a long year. But the fact remains that the basic responsibility lies with the public. I agree with noble Lords who have spoken to-day and who said that it is a minority of drivers who cause the greatest danger to the public.
If that is so, then the public has a responsibility. I do not want to keep pressing the point of view of the magistrates, though they have been criticised to-day, but even when the police bring a case, it is very rarely that the police have been on the spot at the time the accident happened. All they can do is to assess the statements made by the drivers of the vehicles involved and then bring a prosecution in the light of
226
the evidence, as they see it, from the statements made by those involved in the accident. More often than not, the problem of the magistrate is to assess which of the two drivers is telling the truth, because there is no independent witness. British law says, quite rightly, that when there is a doubt the person prosecuted has a right to the benefit of the doubt. When they have seen accidents the public should come forward much more generously than they do to give evidence, and so should motorists themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred to the fact that he had seen people cutting in front of others. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham—and we regret that he is indisposed and not able to take part in this debate to-day—in his broadcast at Christmas time was very emphatic about the bad driving that he had seen. I agree with my noble friend Lord Stonham, who said that if a motorist sees other motorists committing offences it is his duty to report it and to support the complaint by evidence to the police. Because, as I said earlier, it is surprising that when one offence is committed one generally finds that there is a number of other infringements which should be looked at as well.
The only other point to which I want to draw attention, and it is one which I might have been a little shy of making myself, is the point of my noble friend Lord Stonham about road and rail transport. As a railwayman, I might be accused of being biased in favour of rail—and I should not deny it; but I think it is another factor. But when one is dealing with causes of accidents, then every cause ought to be taken into account and examined. I think there are very few indeed who would not agree that many of the loads which are on our roads to-day are unsuitable to be transported by road and ought to be transported by rail. But they will not be dealt with in that manner unless there is a directive from the Ministry of Transport, in the light of the type of traffic and type of vehicle, that that traffic should go by rail.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I entirely agree with what he says, but is it not true that some of

227
the enormous loads that are carried on the roads are so enormous that they are too large for the railway loading gauge?
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, my Lords. They are what we, as railwaymen—and road hauliers, too—term "out-of-gauge loads"; but that is really only a question of cost.
What used to happen is that we would take these out-of-gauge loads on railways—and in some instances still do. But what happens with these extraordinarily large loads is that they are erected at the site at which they are manufactured, and taken, as complete as possible, to their destination, to the point where they are to be shipped or erected, whereas they could quite easily be dismantled and reassembled at the other end. It would mean added cost, but everything with which we deal on the question of lifesaving, so far as roads are concerned, is bound to cost money. The provision of "cat's-eyes" in the roads costs money: road improvements cost money; the cost of police supervision is money again. Every factor, of course, means added cost: but when it comes to the saving of life then that expenditure is well worthwhile. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and, in particular, my noble friend Baroness Summerskill for giving us the opportunity to take part in this very interesting discussion.
7.33 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, I think I should explain that no sinister significance should be attached to the fact that I am replying to the noble Lady's Question. It is simply that my noble friend Lord Chesham is in hospital. However, I am very happy to be able to say that he is going on well after his operation this morning.
I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, that the standard of debate has been high, and for my part I should certainly like to thank the noble Lady for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject. I should also like to thank all those noble Lords who have taken part, not only for what they have said but also for (shall I say) the spirit which has informed their speeches. As I expected—and, indeed, had hoped—there has been a wealth of ideas and suggestions
228
thrown up; some of them ruthless; some of them moderate; some of them very sensible; some not quite so sensible; some of them aimed at my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport; some of them aimed at the police; some of them aimed at drivers; some of them aimed at pedestrians; some of them aimed at the Church; some of them aimed at magistrates; some of them aimed at the public in general, and some just at human nature.
My Lords, I think it is an excellent thing that this has happened, but I hope that your Lordships will understand that I clearly shall not be able to reply to all the points of detail. As I said, I am a locum tenens, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, rightly said that this is a complicated subject. But, my Lords, I feel that it is a very good thing that there should have been this wealth of ideas and suggestions, and I can assure your Lordships that my noble friend and his Department will study them all. I also hope that all the other people I have mentioned, to whom ideas and suggestions have been addressed, will take note of those things that apply to them.
I would say also, without hesitation, that Her Majesty's Government agree entirely with the noble Lady and other noble Lords who have spoken that the present level of accidents is too high, and that we must all—and I stress, all of us—do everything we can to reduce it. Indeed, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport said in a debate in another place last week [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 687 (No. 38) col. 1517]:
"… if there are half a dozen deaths, there are half a dozen too many".
The noble Lady was also quite right in saying that the number of casualties on the roads in increasing. It has almost doubled over the past fifteen years. But during this period the amount of traffic also has risen. Indeed, traffic has increased threefold during the period in which the number of road casualties has doubled; so the accident rate has gone down, as several of your Lordships have pointed out. Another mercy is the fact that the number of road deaths has not increased as fast as the total number of casualties: it has gone up by less than half as much. We have also done a good deal better than most other Euro

229
pean countries, where, apart from Norway, Sweden and Belgium, the fatal casualty rates are higher than here, in some cases twice as high.
I mention these figures, not because they give grounds for complacency—far from it!—but because they do, I think, put the problem in the right perspective. They suggest that the measures that have so far been taken to reduce road accidents have had some success, and they give us hope that we can continue to keep ahead of the rising volume of traffic in the future. That, I think, is what my noble friend Lord Arran, who seems to have gone, was concerned to argue in his speech. My noble friend Lord Allerton was also concerned to make that point, and I am grateful to him for having done so. I would also thank him, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for their tributes to my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree (who told me he could not remain), also sought to suggest that we have to look at these matters in perspective. While on that subject, I would remind your Lordships that, although the total number of people killed on the roads in Great Britain in 1962 was, as the noble Lady said, 6,709, in the same year the total number of deaths from cancer of the lung was 26,383—nearly four times as many. Yet we know, my Lords, that only a small fraction of that number would have occurred but for the habit of smoking cigarettes. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for rolling my own Departmental log for a moment, but it will perhaps be recalled that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, did give me my opening to do just that. How I wish that the public were as much concerned about avoidable deaths from lung cancer as they are about avoidable deaths on the road! And, my Lords, I would even venture to say that I wish your Lordships were as equally concerned.
Now the noble Lady's Question is particularly concerned with accidents on motorways—and, of course, everybody, I think, still has in mind the ghastly accidents on the M.1 in the fog, about which so much has been said. My right honourable friend is still waiting for the full report he has asked for on these accidents, and there is nothing much that
230
I can add to-day to what has already been said about them. They took place, of course, in abnormal conditions, but they draw attention to the fact that, when accidents do occur on motorways, they tend to be more severe. The proportion of fatal and serious casualties to drivers on M.1 is therefore higher than on other roads. But the M.1 is still much safer. The total number of accidents and the proportion of casualties per million vehicle miles is only a third of that on other rural roads, and the proportion has gone down slightly since the motorway was opened.
Before I go on to say what the Government are doing about road accidents there is one point that I should like to make quite clear; that is, that there is no single dramatic solution to the problem. Not even a single road accident has a single cause. There are always a number of contributory factors, some of them more important than others; some of them relatively easy to prevent, some of them extremely difficult. But these factors, and the measures that can be taken to deal with accidents, fall into three categories: the road, the vehicle, and the road user. What we therefore have to do, and what my right honourable friend has been doing, is to find out by research and analysis as much as we can about the factors involved in accidents under each of these three heads, and to devise ways of eliminating them or making their effects less severe.
As the noble Lady has drawn particular attention to motorways, and they have figured largely in the debate, perhaps I might begin by saying what Her Majesty's Government are doing about them. The first thing we are doing is to build more of them. Despite the recent crop of accidents, motorways are still much safer than the average road. The noble Baroness was not correct, if I may say so, in saying that narrow, winding roads are safer than modern high-speed roads. The statistics do not support that view.
Secondly we are experimenting with ways of making motorways safer than they already are. Crash barriers are being erected on two 9-mile lengths of M.1; and experiments are already under way to test the effectiveness of expanded metal anti-dazzle screens and of planting

231
on the central reservation. These devices have disadvantages, as well as advantages from the safety angle, and I am advised that so far the evidence is by no means conclusive that these devices would reduce accidents. But we hope that the experiments will give us the answers. Experiments are also under way to find the best type of reflective material to mark the edge of the carriageway and for lane markings on motorways. And as my right honourable friend has recently announced, a trial is shortly to begin on M.5 to test advance illuminated warning signs. I hope that that news will be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren.
I turn now to the question of speed limits on motorways. First, let me make it clear that the recent deplorable accidents on M.1 and other motorways really have no bearing on the case for having general speed limits. Secondly, we must have regard to the extent to which speed limits can be enforced. We do not want to divert too much police effort off other roads to motorways which, I repeat, are still our safest roads. At the same time, I do not want to suggest that my right honourable friend has made up his mind against having speed limits on motorways, either generally or for particular classes of vehicles. We shall certainly consider that idea as we build up experience and statistical evidence, which we can compare with evidence on motorways in other countries. The position inevitably changes as traffic volumes increase, and what has been justifiable policy when traffic is fairly light obviously may require revision in different circumstances. I can assure the House, however, that my right honourable friend is giving very close personal attention to this question of speed limits.
The noble Lady, my noble friend Lord Somers and one or two other noble Lords have talked about the desirability of imposing conditions on the use of the fast lane of a motorway by slow vehicles and lorries. My right honourable friend last year explored this idea with the chief constables concerned with the M.1, and the conclusion was reached that, although there is some abuse of the fast lane, at present regulations would not be justified. But naturally my right honourable friend will go on watching this, and I feel
232
certain his determination will be strengthened by what noble Lords have said about it this afternoon. But the right solution, of course, must be for people to observe the motorway rules laid down in the Highway Code. I cannot help feeling that if that did happen, we should be spared a great many of the accident problems which are perplexing us to-day; and my right honourable friend is planning a further publicity campaign for this purpose.
But motorways are only a part and, at present, a relatively small part of the picture. We need to make our other roads safer and to build more of them to take the increasing volume of traffic. Even quite small improvements, such as better camber, better alignment and better visibility, can reduce accidents by over 60 per cent., and hundreds of such schemes are included each year in the road programme. Public expenditure on new construction and major improvements of the motorways, trunk and classified roads in 1956–57 was £20 million. By 1968–69 it will be over £200 million. This is an increase of ten-fold in just over ten years. Although my noble friend Lord Arran is not here to hear that, I am sure that what he reads in Hansard to-morrow will give him satisfaction. This increase in expenditure is an important way in which the Government are helping to reduce the number of accidents.
Better traffic signs and road markings also improve safety. The Warboys Traffic Signs Committee recommended greatly improved traffic and road markings, including "cat's-eyes". I was glad to hear the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, about "cat's-eyes". Like him, I regard them as extremely valuable and helpful—at least they have always been so to me. The Government have accepted the recommendations of the Warboys Committee, and my right honourable friend hopes to put them into effect within three years on major through routes and elsewhere as quickly as possible afterwards. At the present time detailed guidance about this is being prepared, and shortly a manual covering all aspects of the use of road signs and markings, including "cat's-eyes", is going to be sent to the local authorities.

233
We also realise the need to make the roads as safe as we can for pedestrians, who represent over one-third of those killed and seriously injured in built up areas. As the Buchanan Report makes clear, the ultimate solution is complete segregation of pedestrians and vehicles; and the new urban road schemes provide increasingly for pedestrian subways and bridges. Pedestrian crossings also help; and my right honourable friend is experimenting with new kinds of light-controlled crossings which we hope will be safer than ordinary "zebras". Incidentally, better provision for pedestrians in the new one-way schemes in London have reduced accidents to pedestrians by 36 per cent.
My second main category, as noble Lords will remember, is vehicles. As to them, the Government can, and do, play some part in laying down minimum safety requirements; but much depends on the owner, who has a social responsibility to satisfy himself that his vehicle is safe and well-maintained. I thought, if I may say so, that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, made some shrewd observations on that aspect. Not everyone, unfortunately, can be relied upon to see that his vehicle is maintained properly, and that is why, in 1960, the Government introduced their vehicle-testing scheme. It applies now to 44 million vehicles and is gradually being extended. The scheme has had some effect. In the early days, 40 per cent. of the vehicles tested failed at the first test. Now, only 26 per cent. fail.
Finally, I come to the third category—human behaviour. This is perhaps the most important factor of all, and undoubtedly the one which is hardest to tackle. Most accidents need not have happened had those involved been fully alert and considerate, and had they adjusted their behaviour to the prevailing conditions. No Government can control this completely, but we do our utmost by way of training, testing, advice, propaganda and the traffic law. One of the steps we have taken recently is the introduction in the 1962 Road Traffic Act of the new nenalty system for motoring offences. The purpose of the Act, as your Lordships well know, is to encourage better behaviour on the roads.
234
The noble Lady raised the question of drink and driving, and this question was discussed by most of the noble Lords who have spoken. There is strong evidence that drink is a factor in road accidents, and Parliament recognised that when it passed the 1962 Act. I am glad that my noble friends Lord Ferrier and Lord Allerton pointed out that drink is not the only factor, but I would not go so far in that direction as my noble friend Lord Arran seemed to want to do. The 1962 Act strengthened the law in three ways. First, it redefined the offence of driving while unfit through drink or drugs and it says that
"a person shall be taken to be unfit to drive through drink or drugs if his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired."
Secondly, it requires the courts to have regard to any evidence of the proportion of alcohol in the body or blood of an accused person. If he refuses without good reason to provide a specimen for analysis, his refusal may be treated as evidence of his condition at the time. Thirdly, it increased the penalties for drunken driving and provides that disqualification is compulsory, subject to special reasons, for at least twelve months for a first offence, and three years for a second offence within ten years of a previous conviction. Convictions for drunken driving also count in the "totting-up" procedure.
These drink provisions have been in operation for only just over a year, and the higher penalties for barely nine months. We do not therefore known yet what effect they are having. It is too soon to say whether new and sterner legislation is necessary, or what form it should take. But my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has said that if the Christmas accident inquiry provides even more conclusive evidence and the powers of the 1962 Act are shown to be inadequate, he will not hesitate to come to Parliament with fresh proposals. Your Lordships will, I hope, not expect me to speculate to-day on what kind of proposals my right honourable friend may put forward. That is my answer to the noble Baroness, who thought it unnecessary to have an inquiry into the Christmas accidents.
Several noble Lords, as well as the noble Baroness, raised the question of

235
enforcement, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, gave an interesting personal story about being overtaken whenever he observes the speed limit. I find that myself at Oxford. But before long we shall have an opportunity of discussing enforcement in detail, when the Police Bill is brought from another place. I know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is satisfied that the chief officers of police are well aware that the enforcement of the traffic laws is a major responsibility, and recognise the need to ensure that a proper proportion of their available resources is allocated to carrying out this important side of their work.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport also attaches great importance to propaganda and training, particularly of the young. Most of this work is carried out for him by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. They organise the National Road Safety Campaign every year and specialised schemes directed al the most vulnerable road users. The child cycling proficiency scheme and the "Tufty Club" for children under five are examples. The Minister of Transport is also giving special attention to the R.A.C.-A.C.U. scheme for training learner motor cyclists, and this is to be expanded. My right honourable friend will soon be announcing details of a scheme for setting up a register of approved driving instructors. I rather thought that the noble Baroness was a little scornful of this, but I am bound to say, with the greatest respect, that it seems to me a very good idea indeed that there should be a register of those driving instructors who are approved.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I was scornful only because I felt that the measures that the Minister mentioned were absolutely insufficient.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I understood the noble Baroness to be scornful of the idea in general, but perhaps I was wrong. Another point that the noble Lady made was that driving offenders ought to be made to take driving tests again. Perhaps I ought to point out that, under the 1962 Road Traffic Act, the courts already have the power to order a test to be taken for 26 serious motoring offences. The noble Lady also thought
236
that there ought to be automatic or mandatory disqualification for serious offences. Already the courts must disqualify from driving, unless they find special reasons, after conviction for serious offences, such as manslaughter, causing death by dangerous driving and driving under the influence of drink or drugs.
My noble friend Lord Somers called for what he described as a two-tier test, saying that the higher or second test should be voluntary, and my noble friend Lord Allerton supported him in this. I suppose that the higher test would involve tests on high-speed roads, and if we were to do that it would take more time because most test centres are situated some distance from highspeed roads. Nevertheless, I am advised that wherever possible a de-restricted road is included in test routes.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I can only say that, when I took the advanced test, it was from the middle of Kensington and we managed to get out to a decontrolled road for high-speed purposes within a three-hour test. Admittedly, that is longer than the ordinary statutory test, but still it is not too long.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the conception of a special, second test if it were separated from the normal test would mean, as my noble friend himself recognised, the imposition of some kind of arbitrary speed limit, which I think he fixed at 40 m.p.h., for drivers who did not pass the test. It occurs to me at once that there would obviously be great enforcement difficulties, which I am sure, if he thinks about it, will occur to him. What I really want to tell the noble Lord and your Lordships is the experience of this sort of two-tier test in Switzerland. There they have a system under which 20 per cent. of all candidates for the driving test are arbitrarily required to undertake an extended test, including open road driving, and they have found the pass-fail ratio on these extended tests is no different from that on their normal test, which is similar to ours. I think this tends to prove—I do not want to put it higher than this—that the scope of their normal test is sufficient to ensure that a driver capable of passing it is also capable of passing their open road test.

237
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, told us that he had never injured himself or anybody else, and I can only hope that his charmed life will continue. I admire the ingenuity with which he managed to bring in the Beeching Plan, but, however relevant or irrelevant that may be, I do not think your Lordships at this time of night would feel that I ought to pursue it. The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, discussed the problems of the slower reactions of elderly people and their failing eyesight, and the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, called for medical examination of drivers before the grant of a driving licence. I think the right answer to them is this: that at present there is little evidence either way to show the extent to which age or physical disability or disabilities of health are a significant factor. But if further evidence can be obtained—and my right honourable friend is looking into this matter at present—it will certainly be considered in the light of that evidence what changes of the kind noble Lords are asking for would be desirable. He has not informed knowledge at the moment about what the precise factors are.
My noble friend Lord Ferrier made many suggestions. The one which particularly appealed to me was that elderly people ought to accustom their eyes to the dark before coming out of a lighted house and driving off into the night. That seems to me to be an excellent idea for all people, and not only the elderly. I took Lord Walston's point as to the statistics he asked for about cars driven faster on motorways than, for mechanical reasons, they can safely he driven, and I will ask my right honourable friend to look into this. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I would say that regulations permitting the use of the triangular warning signs for which he asked will be issued shortly by my right honourable friend.
All the measures that I have mentioned in my reply help to improve the standard of driving behaviour, but we realise that we need to know still more about why people behave as they do and how they can be influenced to behave better. As I have said, this requires more research. This is now being carried out by a team, including psychologists, physicists and engineers, at the Road Research Laboratory. But ultimately road safety is a matter of personal and social responsi
238
bility, and drivers must be brought to realise the terrible responsibility they assume when they take a car out on the road. We may have excellent roads, vehicles and laws, but all this is useless if the man at the wheel neglects his duty to act always with care and consideration for others.

TELEVISION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House, That the Bill had been endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.