HL Deb 08 February 1966 vol 272 cc636-9
LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government why payments have been made for advertisements in national newspapers to endeavour to convince the public that a 70 m.p.h. speed limit is a desirable measure on all roads before the experiment has even been carried out.]

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, the purpose of the Press advertisements was to stimulate interest and discussion and thereby knowledge and observance of the statutory requirement.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, in that case would the noble Lord say why this advertisement should bear, to anybody who has any understanding of the English language, a strong slant that the decision of the Government to introduce this experiment was necessarily right? Because that is the meaning of these words. And since public money must have been involved in this advertising, should it not have come later, when the experiment was finished?

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, part of the noble Lord's question really relates to his second Question on the Order Paper, but may I make it quite clear that the National Opinion Poll was not a Government poll sponsored by Her Majesty's Government? It was carried out independently by N.O.P., and I would suggest, with the greatest respect, that it is not unusual for noble Lords on either side of the House to take advantage of information which is suitable to their case. That is what the Government did on this occasion. The National Opinion Poll took its survey, publicised the results, and the Government took advantage of it in their propaganda.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if I trespassed into the realms of the second Question, but may I ask him whether he does not realise that anyone reading this advertisement would consider the issue prejudged by the Government?

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, I think not. The problem was that here we had a statutory requirement for the observance of the law of the country. So far as classified roads were concerned, there were no 70 m.p.h. limit signs erected, and the purpose of the Government was to make sure as far as humanly possible that every motorist knew of the 70 m.p.h. limit on both classified roads and motorways. In spite of that, the noble Lord may have noticed that in one of the first prosecutions, in Leicestershire, the defence was that the defendant did not know there was a 70 m.p.h. limit.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, while recognising the desirability that everyone should be as fully informed as possible of any changes that may be made in the law, does the noble Lord appreciate that that is not as I understand it, the complaint made? The complaint made is that in doing that, efforts were made by the wording of the advertisement to convince people that the decision of the Government was right, before the public had had any opportunity of judging. Is not that another instance of the Government trying to prejudice public opinion in their favour to prevent the public from forming a fair conclusion on their efforts?

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, in the first place, unless the Government had thought it right to undertake this experiment they would not have done so. Because they thought it right to do so they undertook the experiment, and therefore called the attention of as many people as possible to the fact that an infringement of the 70 m.p.h. limit would be breaking the law. This is an experiment and one just as genuine as the 50 m.p.h. limit experiment which was carried out by the previous Government, of which the noble Lord who originated this Question was a distinguished and effective member.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I should like to ask a final supplementary question. May I ask the noble Lord just to make the matter clear, whether he is aware that I applaud the publicity used in endeavouring to bring this matter to the attention of the public? It is the terms in which it is made of which I am complaining. Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware—which he cannot be, but whether he will now become aware—that arising from his answer there comes another most interesting question which I shall have pleasure in putting down later in the afternoon?

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, could the Minister give us the figure for the total cost of this publicity?

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, the total cost was £75,000. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, I have here a copy of the advertisement, and one really must appreciate that it is not merely the question of the 70 m.p.h. limit but also an attempt to influence motorists to reduce speed to 30 miles an hour in fog when the flashing amber lights are on. Reading it again, I think it is good, sound common sense.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while I should like to accept what he says, all the facts, apart from the explanation in the right-hand corner of the advertisement, are confined to the 70 m.p.h. limit?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord whether the Ministry of Transport has to obtain Treasury sanction for the expenditure of £75,000 for this advertising?

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, as I understand it, and subject to correction, there is an allocation within the Ministry which is available for the use of the Minister and the Department at their discretion. Expenditure over this allocation, for special features such as drink and driving at Christmas, et cetera, must have Treasury sanction. But I think this was within the departmental allocation.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Could the noble Lord tell the House what the allocation is?

LORD LINDGREN

Not without notice.