Lords Sitting of 27 April 1967

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

GREECE: PROTECTION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS
3.6 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether all proper steps are being taken to safeguard British citizens and their rights in the situation now prevailing in Greece; and whether Her Majesty's Government will uphold the principle of civil rights in all communications it may have with the de facto Government of Greece.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, the answer to the first part of the question is "Yes". Our latest information is that two British subjects are in preventive detention. Otherwise, no British subjects have suffered in the events of the last few days. The British Consul visited the detained men on April 26. They had no complaint to make about their treatment. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in another place on April 24:
"We shall remain in the closest touch with the situation and take whatever measures are required to ensure the protection of British subjects and their property".
As regards the second part of the Question, Her Majesty's Government have not yet had any dealings with members of the new Government in Greece, but this does not, of course, prevent Her Majesty's Embassy from taking all necessary action with officials in the Greek administration to protect British subjects.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his Answer.
610
may I ask him whether he and the Government will accept that there is considerable concern in this country about the developments in Greece and about the threat to democracy? Will that be kept in mind?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I certainly note what my noble friend says.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, could my noble friend indicate what Her Majesty's Government consider necessary before they afford recognition to a new Government?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the question of a formal act of recognition does not normally arise unless there has been a change in the Head of State or two opposing régimes are each claiming to be the Government of a State. Neither condition currently applies in Greece. As I have said, so far we have had no occasion to have dealings with members of the new Government in Greece.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell the House on what grounds the two British subjects are being held in preventive detention?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the grounds are said to be those of security.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he could state what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government's representatives and the British delegation at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on the motion deploring what has happened in Greece? I ask that question particularly in relation to the proposal there: that in view of the detention of large numbers of democrats, including a respected ex-Prime Minister, the Committee of Ministers should pursue the matter through the European Convention of Human Rights, to which the Greek Government is a party.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as to what was said at that particular meeting, I shall be obliged if my noble friend would put down a Question. I cannot answer off the cuff. So far as the general question of rights of British subjects, or rights of human beings, is concerned, I am sure that the Greek régime will be fully aware of the strength of feeling in this House and in this country on the subject of civil liberties and justice.

RAILWAY NETWORK: STEERING GROUP REPORT
3.10 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will publish the report of the Joint Steering Group now engaged in studying the railway network of this country; and, if so, when it may be expected.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport hopes that by mid-summer the Group, under the chairmanship of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will have reported on those aspects of their remit which are likely to affect forthcoming legislation: It is too soon to say when they will complete the whole of their task. The results of the Group's work will become evident when the new transport legislation is published.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply to my Question. Is he aware that the factors on which the Government evaluate the future of the railway service will be of very great interest to the whole country, because on the one hand it affects their convenience, and on the other it affects their pockets? Does he not think that they are entitled to know just what factors the Government have taken into account?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I would agree with the noble Lord that the public, quite rightly, wish to know as much as possible of the background and the reasons for the Government's decisions in this field. However, the Report of the Joint Steering Group may well include details of the Board's organisational structure and commercial policies which for normal commercial reasons they will wish to keep confidential. It is for this reason that it is not intended to publish the Report in full. However, it is expected that the Group's recommendations will be reflected in legislation, and both in pre
612
senting that legislation to Parliament and also in a White Paper which she hopes to issue my right honourable friend will explain the reasoning behind the proposals.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, if I may pursue the matter with one further question, what I am really asking for is a modernised version of the last Beeching Report, which gave a very comprehensive view of the railway system of the country and its future. Would the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend whether she would kindly consider that?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I shall certainly convey to my right honourable friend the noble Lord's suggestion. I know that it is the general intention that the reasoning behind the legislation shall be made clear to Parliament.

THIRD LONDON AIRPORT
3.13 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: 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 where it is proposed to site a third international airport to serve London; when they expect construction to begin; and whether they will make a statement.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, the Government are not yet in a position to say where the third London airport is to be sited, and until this is settled it is, of course, impossible to say when construction will begin. The Government have the matter under urgent consideration, and I hope it will be possible for a Statement to be made soon.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is still the Government's view that there should be a third airport in the neighbourhood of London in operation by 1973? Further, would he ask his right honourable friend whether the Government have their priorities right? Is it really necessary to look after the interests of Londoners as exhaustively as this, when half the population

613
of England, those who live in the North—the harder working half—have only one international airport and would like a second, let alone a third?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, it is the Government's intention that there should be a third international airport in the neighbourhood of London by the early or mid-1970s. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's question, this is certainly a matter which is borne in mind, but I would remind the noble Lord that there are already (I am speaking from memory) at least two international airports in the northern part of Great Britain, in Manchester and Prestwick, which, so far as I know, are not at the moment operating to full capacity; nor will they be in the immediate future.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether Stansted is still being urgently considered by Her Majesty's Government, and, if not, what other site is being considered? And, if Stansted is still being urgently considered, for how long has it been so considered by the Government?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord when consideration of Stansted as a site actually started, but, as the noble Lord knows well, it was the subject of a public inquiry, the final report of which was presented to the Government in June of last year. Since then it has been considered in a very great deal of depth, because this is a matter of enormous importance which one cannot enter into lightly. That consideration is still continuing, but it is getting very near its final stages.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord not say what alternative the Government are considering, other than Stansted, without committing himself in any way as to where that other site is?
LORD WALSTON: No, my Lords, I am afraid I could not answer the noble Earl's question categorically in that way. The proposal which has been put forward and which has been the subject of a public inquiry is Stansted. It is now for the Government to decide whether Stansted will be proceeded with, or whether one of a series of other alternatives should
614
be investigated in still more detail. That is the point at issue at the present time.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government will ensure that, wherever the new third airport may be, it will not be near a built-up area, so that pilots, in trying to cut down the noise, will not be under the obligation to take off at what may be a dangerous angle of ascent?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, that is clearly one of the reasons why this matter has to be investigated so very closely. On the one hand, safety and amenity considerations dictate that the airport should be as far away as possible from centres of habitation; on the other hand, convenience dictates that it should be as close as possible to centres of habitation. It is to find the appropriate balance between those two that these exhaustive inquiries are being carried out.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the choice of Stansted would be widely regarded as marking a disastrous failure of planning and would be widely considered a national disaster?
LORD WALSTON: No, my Lords, I am not aware of that. I am aware that there are many people who feel strongly that the third airport should not be placed at Stansted, but I am not aware of the other fact the noble Lord has suggested.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would the Government still be prepared to consider siting the third airport somewhat nearer the coast, so that as few people as possible should be inconvenienced by the noise of jet aircraft?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, this has clearly been one of the factors which has been taken into account in the deliberations which have been going on and which, as I have already said, are now reaching the final stages of their activities.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it will be much more like a national disaster if the choice is not made fairly soon and the job got on with? Otherwise, air traffic from a great part of the world will come virtually to a standstill.
LORD WALSTON: Yes, my Lords, I am entirely aware of that, and that is why there will be, I hope, a Statement made in the very near future.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, Will the Minister consider the need for very good communications between airports, especially when they are widely scattered around the London area?
LORD WALSTON: I think that that is another question.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether we may expect the Government's decision on this matter before the Whitsun Recess?
LORD WALSTON: No, my Lords. I should not like to give an undertaking that it will be announced before the Whitsun Recess.

THE WHITSUN RECESS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in view of the supplementary on the last Question, the House may wish to know it is intended that the House shall rise for the Whitsun Recess on Thursday, May 11, until Wednesday, May 31.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, Hear!
LORD SHEPHERD: I am pleased that I have given some satisfaction this afternoon.

THE NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4 p.m. my noble friend Lord Stonham will be making a Statement on the appointment of the National Steel Corporation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion that stands in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Ferrier to advance his Unstarred Question from Tuesday the 9th of May to Thursday the 4th of May next.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES AND DISEASES (OLD CASES) BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. This is a Consolidation Bill which has been carefully considered by the Joint Consolidation Committee. As your Lordships will appreciate, when a highway authority is repairing a road it is no good its doing so if that road is just about to be torn up by the Post Office or if the Gas Board is about to make a large hole in it. One must wait for a gap when nobody is doing anything to it. Consolidation is like that, and there are times when the consolidator must wait for a gap, because the subject is one on which there is usually a Bill every other year.
This Bill is really a straggler from the major consolidation of the National Insurance and related Acts carried out in 1965. It was held back then because of the imminence of major amendments which were eventually enacted in the Workmen's Compensation and Benefits (Amendment) Act of that year. It was then held up for a while, waiting for some minor amendments by the Ministry of Social Security Act of last year and then kept back by the General Election. Then it was nearly caught by Lord Blyton's introduction of a Bill in the same field. However, this Bill moves in smartly behind that one, and so all the law in this field will be now up to date and in one place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ROAD SAFETY BILL
3.21 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Breath tests
2.—
(2) If an accident occurs owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, a constable in uniform may require any person who he has reasonable cause to believe was driving or attempting to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test—

(a) except while that person is at a hospital as a patient, either at or near the place where the requirement is made or, if the constable thinks fit, at a police station specified by the constable;

LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, in subsection (1)(b), after "a" to insert "recent". The The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House may recall that when this Bill was being considered in Committee on April 11 I called attention to what I thought was a drafting defect in Clause 2(1)(b). If I may remind the House, subsection (1) enables a constable in uniform to require a person to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test, if the constable has reasonable cause, under paragraph (a):
"to suspect him of having alcohol in his body;"—
or, under paragraph (b):
"to suspect him of having committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was in motion."
Throughout the discussion on the clause, I think that all who took part assumed that the traffic offence mentioned in paragraph (b) was a recent traffic offence. It was not thought, for example, that the constable would be enabled under this subsection to require a breath test merely because he recognised the driver as a person who had been guilty of a speeding offence three years before. Nevertheless, there is nothing in paragraph (b) that indicates any such limitation.
The Amendment I have set down, to insert the word "recent", will make the paragraph mean, in my respectful submission, what everybody who took part in the debate assumed it already meant, but what, I think, it did not necessarily mean. It is, I think, little more than a drafting Amendment if the intention of the House was what I believed it to be.
618
I have therefore set down this simple Amendment which avoids the danger that I have pointed out and, I hope, effects its object adequately. If, however, the Minister, with the advice of Parliamentary draftsmen, informs the House that some other form of words would be more appropriate for the purpose, I shall, of course, be most happy to consider such an alternative. But the fact that he has not put anything else down, and the fact that the paragraph as it stands clearly has the defect to which I have drawn the attention of the House, makes me think that there is not much wrong with my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, after ("a") insert ("recent").—(Lord Conesford.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that the clause as it stands is defective and needs some further words added to it; but I am not at all happy that the word "recent" is a satisfactory word to insert. My noble friend referred to the commission of an offence three years before the application of the test. That is taking an extreme case. Let us take the case when the Chief Government Whip is driving home on his regular route, and one week is seen by a police constable to drive across the traffic lights when they are red. The next week, driving home at approximately the same time, he is stopped by a constable. Was the first offence a recent offence or was it not?
I think the "recent" is too imprecise; although I think it does carry out, to a greater extent than the Bill does now, what I believe to be the intention behind the Bill. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will say exactly what that intention is, and if he does so I hope it will be found possible to find the appropriate words for including it in the Bill. If I interpret it correctly, what is intended is that if the police constable sees a person driving a car—that is, a car in motion—committing a traffic offence and stops him on that account, he will then be able to apply a breath test. If that is the intention I cannot myself see why it should not be expressed satisfactorily in this clause in perfectly ordinary language.
If on the other hand it is the intention, which I hope it is not, that a policeman who had seen the Chief Whip or myself,

619
the day before, committing a traffic offence—perfectly inadvertently, as it would be in both cases—should then have the right to stop us the next time he saw us leaving the car park here, and were to apply a breath test in full view of all the people of the Palace of Westminster, it would be very unfortunate. I do not think that that is the intention of the Bill. If it is what I first suggested, surely a different formula could be found to make it right to apply the breath test when a constable has stopped a motorist on suspicion of having committed, at that time, another offence while the vehicle was in motion. I notice that the Government have not put down an Amendment to deal with the awkward problem of whether a man who stops his car on a clearway has committed an offence while the vehicle is in motion; but I leave that for the moment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has created a great deal of anxiety in my mind. He appears to be drawing the name of the Chief Whip to the attention of the police. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will assure me that he will not disclose to the police my normal route home. Initially, I had a great deal of sympathy, as did the Department, with the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. The Bill provides in Clause 2(1)(b) for a driver to be required
"to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test if the constable has reasonable cause … to suspect him of having committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was in motion."
The words "was in motion" were put in to meet the views of those people who considered that we should not have a system of random tests and of checking people at public houses without any other cause. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, in Committee and again today, said everyone has assumed it referred to a recent traffic offence. Of course, with the words as they now stand it need not be recent at all; as the noble Lord said it could be an offence of exceeding the speed limit three years ago. The Department and I have carefully considered the point raised by the noble Lord, and I agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that the words as drafted could have this interpretation and construction.
620
Perhaps I should state what the Government had in mind. The intention of Clause 2(1)(b) is that the power to require the driver to undergo a breath test is applicable from the moment when a constable first suspects that the driver has committed a moving offence; but it is not intended that the power should be there at that moment only. Clearly, the constable may need some time to catch and stop a driver or, if he is on foot, to arrange for a traffic constable in a motor car to apprehend the driver. It is therefore impossible to lay down a rigid time limit. I thought at one time that we could put in a limit of 12 hours or 24 hours, which would meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, but even so it would be extremely arbitrary. In some cases the period would be too long and in some cases, perhaps, it would be too short. Certainly there would be anomalies. Also, it is not intended that the power should be operative for ever. There should be some relationship (and this I think should be stressed) between the commission of a moving traffic offence and the amount of alcohol found in a person's body when the test is made.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has argued that the insertion of the word "recent", might help. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, asked what was meant by "recent". One may read in a newspaper that Mr. So-and-so is recovering from a "recent" accident, and the accident may have occurred some three or four weeks previously. So far as I know, there is no legal definition of the word "recent". I am clear in my own mind that if the word were to be inserted in the clause we should be placing drivers in a worse position than they appear to be with the words now in the Bill. From the police point of view it is thought that there is no serious risk of the subsection being misconstrued. I assure noble Lords that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will give express advice on this point to the chief constables, and even if the word "recent" is inserted similar advice will have to be given to them.
My Lords, the noble Lord has put his finger on a real difficulty. The reason we have not put down an Amendment is that so far we have not been able to find a suitable form of words. I am

621
still anxious to see whether there is a way to meet the point raised by the noble Lord. I would ask him to withdraw his Amendment now because the Department are still working on this matter, and it may well be, as I hope it will, that we shall be able to find some way of revising this part of the Bill to meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. But I am bound to say that it is not going to be easy.
VISCONT DILHORNE: My Lords, may I put this question to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd? Would he consider, instead of the formula used in subsection (1)(b), the inclusion of words to the effect that the test be applied after the driver has been stopped by a constable who has reasonable suspicion that he has committed a moving traffic offence.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will certainly look at such words to see whether they are appropriate. But we have examined this matter carefully, and I know that the Department were working late last night to try to give me some good news to give to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. At present we have not been able to find a solution, but if, recognising our difficulties—and perhaps recognising some of the weaknesses of his own proposal—the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw the Amendment, I will certainly continue to look at the matter and try to have something put down for Third Reading.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is always so persuasive and reasonable that I certainly wish to meet him. Perhaps I made a mistake in not drafting my Amendment with the assistance of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne. I can only say that I am quite certain that if my noble and learned friend were sitting judicially he would not be placed in as great difficulties if the word "recent" appeared in the clause as those in which he would be placed if that word were not there. Nevertheless, before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment I should like to put this point to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. Of course the word "recent" is inexact, but I think it would indicate to the courts the sort of thing at which they have to look, and would therefore be preferable to the words as they now stand in the Bill. I would say to the noble Lord, in asking leave to withdraw the
622
Amendment, that I do not think it will be at all satisfactory if Her Majesty's Government have not some Amendment to suggest on Third Reading. I should greatly prefer that it should be their Amendment, rather than mine, but I am sure that some Amendment is required. Having said that, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.38 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (2)(a), to leave out "if the constable thinks fit". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to subsection (2), and it formed part of a longer Amendment which was moved during the Committee stage and withdrawn. Subsection (2) lays down three places where a constable may require a breath test to be taken after an accident has happened. They are, first, on the spot; secondly, at a hospital where the person is a patient; or, thirdly, at a police station. In the case of the police station only, the subsection includes the qualifying expression, "if the constable thinks fit". I should not think that, where a clause is permissive only and not mandatory, an expression such as, "if the constable thinks fit" could ever be very useful, because I cannot imagine any constable doing something which he did not think fit, unless he had to.
When we consider this particular context it is rather curious because the inference, surely, is that a constable may order a breath test on the spot, even if he does not think fit; he may order a test at a hospital, even if he does not think fit; but he may order a test at a police station only if he thinks fit. I do not understand the usefulness of the expression, "if the constable thinks fit" in this subsection. I received a very courteous reply to my longer Amendment moved during the Committee stage, but I did not get a reply to this point. I gave notice that I should put it down as a separate Amendment this afternoon, and I look forward to hearing the reply to this point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, leave out ("if the constable thinks fit").—(Lord Airedale.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale,

623
has mentioned, this Amendment consists of part of the words which were included in an Amendment which he moved during the Committee stage. He gave notice of his intention to raise this point again because he did not get the explanation for which he asked about the need for these words. It is rightly said that a test can take place on the spot or at a police station. That is why we have the words, "if the constable thinks fit." If we accepted the Amendment, subsection (2) would read thus:
" … a constable in uniform may require any person…to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test—…either at or near the place where the requirement is made or…at a police station specified by the constable;…".
It would mean that the person concerned, and not the constable, would have the option whether a breath test should be taken on the spot or at a police station. We want—in fact, we insist—that the constable should have the option, and therefore the words that he wishes to leave out must be retained.
The Amendment is not merely a drafting Amendment. It would introduce a change of substance, and I think that the noble Lord himself would agree that such a change would be undesirable. A position could arise where a constable might be at the scene of an incident or accident and, not having breath-testing equipment, would have to wait for a motor patrol to come along before a breath test could be made on the spot. Therefore he would have to decide whether to do that or whether the test should take place at a police station. A constable working alone and without equipment might have to attend to the injured, or stay on the spot to direct traffic, or to do some other duty after an accident, and would therefore be unable to accompany the person concerned to a police station. If, therefore, the constable were not to retain the option, and it were left to the person concerned, as the noble Lord apparently desires, it might well be that he would never turn up at the police station and thus there would he no breath test. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied, after my exposition, that these words are necessary and are in the right place.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, while I do not disagree with what the Minister has said, I cannot read into this subsection any option to the suspected person to say where he is to have his breath tested. I should have thought that the subsection as drafted clearly gives the option to the constable to say where the breath test is to be conducted. I think that the proper course would be to withdraw this Amendment now, but perhaps the Minister and I could discuss the point together before the next stage, because I cannot read into the subsection what he would like me to read into it. But I will not pursue the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I hope that it will be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 at the same time as this one, because they are on precisely the same point. They are drafting Amendments which arise in response to a point raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, when I gave an undertaking to consider an alterative form of words to the expression "on a breath test". We propose instead, "in consequence of a breath test". I hope that the noble Lord will agree that this alters the offending words without altering the sense. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, leave out ("on") and insert ("in consequence of").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister has said. I think that this Amendment makes a great improvement to the drafting.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Laboratory tests]:
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 41, leave out ("on") and insert ("in consequence of").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, leave out ("on") and insert ("in consequence of").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Consequences of conviction of certain offences of driving or being in charge
5.—
(2) For the purposes of sections 5 and 7 of the 1962 Act (disqualification for holding a licence and endorsement of licences)—

(a) an offence under section 1(1) of this Act or an offence under section 3(3) of this Act which is punishable by virtue of paragraph (a) of the said subsection (3) shall be treated as if it were an offence under section 6(1) of the principal Act and accordingly as if it were an offence specified in part I of Schedule 1 to the 1962 Act (offences involving obligatory disqualification);

3.45 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved, in subsection (2)(a), after "disqualification" to insert:
"unless in the case of a first offence under this Act the court is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that there are grounds for mitigating the normal consequences of the conviction and thinks fit to order him to be disqualified for a shorter period or not to order him to be disqualified;".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to give the courts, in the case of the first offender convicted of driving with a blood alcohol level over the prescribed level of 80 mg., a discretion with regard to the 12 months' disqualification. As the Bill stands, the disqualification is automatic. I should recall that on Committee stage I withdrew this Amendment, when I was about to put it to the vote, at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on two grounds: first, to give time for consultations between Committee and Report stage; and, secondly, because, as the noble Lord put it to me, after seven o'clock votes were likely to be cast mainly on Party lines without the benefit of the large body of independent Peers who would be present to vote at an earlier hour.
On the first point, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, kindly arranged for me to see the Minister, but I regret to have to report that I was unable to persuade her of the wisdom of my Amendment to allow discretion to the courts. Therefore, there is no agreement between us. With regard to the second point which the noble Lord put to me, I recognise that discretion for the courts for first offenders is an important issue, on which the argument is evenly balanced on both sides,
626
and that it is in no way a Party matter—indeed, in another place there were votes from both sides, and possibly there will be in your Lordships' House, too. I believe that this is an issue on which your Lordships may wish to express a view and therefore I move the Amendment again.
The Bill does two important things in regard to drinking and driving. First, it fixes a statutory level of alcohol in the blood above which it would be an offence to drive. This is the first time our law has done so. The level of alcohol will be proved by laboratory analysis, which is provided for. It will have the great advantage of giving certainty in the event of a prosecution, and if the evidence given is satisfactory to the court a conviction will follow. It will replace the present situation in which all too often convictions are almost impossible to get. I very much welcome this innovation that the Government are making.
The second innovation, which is perhaps of equal importance, is the defining of the level of alcohol at which a driver is affected by drink at a much lower level than obtains at present. At present, the police do not normally prosecute at under 150 mg. of alcohol per ml. of blood, a level at which most people would be obviously drunk. The level in the Bill is 80 mg.—just over half of what is now recognised as being under the influence of drink. It is particularly with regard to this second major change that I suggest that the courts will need discretion in punishing a first offender in respect of the period of disqualification. As the Bill now stands, the courts will have discretion with regard to the amount of the fine, or, if imprisonment is ordered, with regard to the length of imprisonment, but disqualification for 12 months is automatic. The substance of the case for the Amendment is that this period of disqualification would be an unfairly heavy punishment, at least for some offenders in the early days, when many people will not be aware that they are committing an offence.
The level of 80 mg. was chosen by the Government, as they have told us, after consideration of the B.M.A. advice, and in the light of the Grand Rapids Survey. The Survey showed that accidents are nearly twice as likely to happen to a

627
driver with 80 mg. of alcohol in his blood; and the B.M.A. advised that the great majority of drivers would have their driving capacity impaired at that level. Everybody agrees with this. There would, of course, be a small minority who would not be affected; and perhaps that is an additional reason for caution.
Here it is perhaps relevant to recall a point that I made earlier; that is, the experience of other countries which have similarly set a statutory level. Although some have a level lower than the 80 mg. that the Government are proposing to set here, most have set a higher level. In particular, most of the countries with similar living conditions to our own have set limits of 100 to 150 mg. I am the first to recognise that it is a matter of judgment for the Government to decide at what level to set the offence, after weighing the medical evidence, on the one hand, and the sociological evidence, on the other, and what its probable effect will be. But I think it is fair to observe that the level of 80 mg. is rather low by comparison with foreign experience.
The medical evidence is clear and definite. It is certain that the procedure laid down in the Bill will secure conviction of offenders with more than 80 mg. of alcohol in the blood. But it is the sociological effect which I suggest cannot be clearly forecast. At present we have virtually no knowledge of the number of people who drive after reaching the 80 mg. level and, therefore, the measure of adjustment which must he made in the life of our people to conform with this new law. It is because I am concerned that it may be large that I am urging that the courts should have discretion with regard to disqualification of first offenders.
It is estimated that about 4 million people visit a public house once or twice a week, and then drive away, and an unkown number attend cocktail parties and drive home afterwards. It is on these occasions, when most people drink on an empty stomach, that they are most vulnerable. The B.M.A. estimate that an 11-stone man may reach 80 mg. by drinking two and a half pints of beer or two and a half whiskies on an empty stomach. This is a level which is often exceeded without any hint of intemperance by the person who has drunk it. Of the millions of people who visit public houses or cock
628
tail parties, there are probably tens of thousands, or probably more, who exceed this level and then drive home.
The Government recognise that there is a major education campaign to be undertaken to teach our people that 80 mg. means impairment of ability to drive, and as soon as the Bill is on the Statute Book they mean to undertake this campaign. This is much to be welcomed. But I suggest that this gives emphasis to the point I am trying to establish: that most people at the present time are unaware that this change in the law is about to happen, and they simply will not be aware that they are committing an offence when they drink to this level. Everybody knows that he should not drive when he is drunk; but 80 mg. is much below that level for the average person and, therefore, a completely new lesson has to be learned. To conform with this new law will require a big change in the social habits of many of our people, and in the early days of its operation there will inevitably be many people inadvertently breaking it and being brought before the courts in consequence. I am the first to accept that they should be punished, but I am sure that in some cases the courts will feel the need for discretion with regard to the period of disqualification.
The gravity of the offence, and the circumstances of the offender, will vary widely—they are bound to—over tens of thousands of cases which will come before the courts, and although disqualification will be right in most cases, one can think of various circumstances in which the courts might wish to have some power of discretion. We have mentioned before in our debates that an obvious factor with regard to disqualification is whether the offender earns his living by driving a vehicle—a lorry driver, a van driver or a commercial traveller—the offence pehaps being committed after work when he goes out with friends in the evening. Twelve months disqualification of a man who drives for a living will almost certainly mean the loss of his job. That is a very heavy additional penalty. The Government's answer to this argument has been that if he drives for a living he ought the better to understand the gravity of his offence and deserves the drastic extra penalty. Although this could be the right answer

629
in some cases, I suggest that in others it could be devastatingly wrong.
Let us take the case, by no means exceptional, of a young man who has committed this offence and whose job it is to drive the local delivery van. Let us suppose that he has a difficult home background and has already been involved in minor crime; he has been before the courts, and has been put on probation. With a great deal of trouble, the probation officer and friends have secured him a job as a van driver, and he is settling down to earn an honest living. If the court is obliged to sentence him to 12 months disqualification his job will be lost, and his prospects of getting another very small; and if he is in an area of the country where unemployment is high, his chances of getting another job will be nil. The effect of a sentence of 12 months disqualification on a young van driver in those circumstances would be calamitous; his confidence in the humanity of the authorities would be completely destroyed, and the efforts to help him to lead a useful life would be entirely lost.
Such cases are by no means exceptional, as noble Lords who sit on magistrates' benches will know. Inevitably, in the nature of things, the courts are concerned with the failures of life, and all too often these weaker characters come before them. The courts and the probation service are continually striving to correct these erring youngsters, to set their wandering feet on the path of earning an honest living and becoming useful members of the community. The courts usually show great understanding and sympathy in dealing with these cases, and exercise their discretion to the utmost to avoid handicapping by heavy punishment those who are obviously the weaker members of the community. Is not this the spirit which is moving our whole concept of the administration of justice today? In making our laws, and dealing with those who offend against them, we have a common responsibility to help the offenders to a rehabilitated life.
In this context, how can we be sure that 12 months disqualification for this offence, with the drastic implications involved, which at present is largely unknown, will be right in all circumstances? I suggest that it must be right to give the courts a measure of discretion here.
630
This is the whole spirit of our administration of justice to-day, and in that spirit I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 29, after ("disqualification") insert the said words.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to follow the noble Lord and answer some of his points in detail, and also set out some of the difficulties that face the Government in deciding whether to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. First of all, I should like to express my deep appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for not pressing this Amendment, or a similar Amendment, in Committee. Certainly that provided me with the opportunity later in the Committee stage of satisfying the noble Lord, I think, that the Government were right in setting the statutory limit for alcohol in the blood at a rate of 80 mg. per 100 ml. It also gave me an opportunity to consider very carefully all the points the noble Lord made, and again to examine all the papers and the statistics, which I should like to give to the House this afternoon, and certainly to discuss this matter with the Ministers and the officials.
I will disclose to the House that when I first saw this Bill I took the same view as Lord Nugent of Guildford does. But I have now changed my mind, because I have seen the weight of evidence that is available; and some of it I will give to the House this afternoon. First of all, may I say that the Amendment is defective, although it could be amended if the House were to accept it. But we could deal with that at a later stage. To-day we are not discussing—and I am sure Lord Nugent of Guildford will agree with me—a technical offence. We are discussing the penalty for one of the three most grave offences on the roads, to some perhaps the gravest of the three. One has only to see the effect of alcohol on the numbers of road accidents: when one looks at the growth of accidents which cause death and serious injury at Christmas time, one sees that they are really tragic figures. I will not give them now, but I will certainly make them available to any noble Lord who would wish to see them. But there can be no doubt as to the effect of alcohol on road accidents.

631
This Government, like previous Administrations, have sought, by legislation and by education, to reduce this toll. The present Government have certain advantages over the previous Administration. First of all, we see the workings of the 1962 Act. We now have available—which information was not available to the Conservative Administration—far greater knowledge of medical and scientific examinations on the effect of drink on drivers. Also, we have a Minister who is prepared to take a very unpopular decision. Let us be under no illusions, my Lords. The Bill will be very unpopular in the initial stages, but I believe that, as on the Continent, it will become accepted; we shall discipline ourselves to it, and we shall then wonder why we had taken so long to introduce this type of legislation. But let us get it perfectly clear in our minds that, whatever educational programmes we have, whatever expensive publicity campaigns we undertake, whatever forms of legislation we present, these will be utterly useless unless there is effective enforcement. And enforcement depends upon the certainty of conviction and a clear and understood penalty; and, my Lords, a penalty that is fair to all and applies to all.
I do not think there is any doubt that disqualification is the greatest deterrent. I have before me a speech of Sir Richard Nugent (as he then was), Member of Parliament for Guildford, who has just moved this Amendment. He said in another place, on February 28, 1962:
"The second innovation"—
he was speaking of the 1962 Act—
"of great importance is, of course, in Clause 3, which will oblige courts to impose the penalty of disqualification much more often than they do at present. Once again, I think that this is right in principle. I agree with my right honourable friend the Minister that fines are not particularly effective with some people, and I am sure that it is right for us to try to encourage the concept that the driving licence is a privilege and that we ought to cherish it as such."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 28/2/62, col. 1384.]
I think most of us would agree that the licence is a privilege. I think it is right to say that this Bill is one of a series of pieces of legislation aimed at this.
In Section 15(1) of the 1930 Act we had what was then the definition of an
632
offence: being incapable of having a proper control of the vehicle. Subsection (2) laid down the penalty: obligatory disqualification, unless there were special reasons—and I will come to special reasons in a moment. We then had the 1962 Act, introduced by Mr. Marples. If I may say so, no one worked harder in the interests of road safety than did Mr. Marples, and he introduced this Act. In Section 1 we had a new definition, and we moved away from "incapable" to the word "impaired". He said, on February 28, 1962:
"Clause 1 therefore alters the definition of unfitness to drive to cover cases where there is a definite impairment of the driver's ability to drive properly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, cols. 1362–63.]
Section 2 provided for blood and urine tests. Here again, although there was in the definition a major change of law, the penalty of disqualification remained obligatory, with, again, the exception of special reasons. The weakness of the 1962 Act was, I suppose, that because of lack of firm agreement within the medical profession we were unable to define "impairment", and we therefore left it to the courts, where they had conflicting evidence. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has said, convictions were very rare where the blood content of alcohol was below 150 mg. We well know that there were acquittals in our courts when the accused had an alcohol concentration of 200 mg. or 250 mg.
The present Bill defines "impairment". We have defined it on the medical knowledge that is now available to us. Let there be no doubt about this: virtually everyone's driving ability is impaired at 80 mg. There may be some cases where one's ability is seriously impaired. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, suggested that there may be exceptions. We recognise that there are exceptions; but so far as I know there is no medical knowledge available to say who is the exception. There is not one of us who can say whether he is the exception to being impaired, or seriously impaired, at 180 mg.
A NOBLE LORD: 80 mg.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg your Lordships' pardon—80 mg. I think the House should be reminded again of the statistics

633
that we have. Where drivers have a concentration below 80 mg. they are responsible for some 10 per cent. of those accidents in which drink was a factor. But at 80 mg., and in excess of that, we move to a figure of some 90 per cent.
If I may, I will read to the House—because I see that the House is a good deal fuller than it was on the previous occasion—a report of the British Medical Association. They say:
"The recent evidence also shows that, though the degree of impairment and risk of accident involvement varies between different individuals at concentrations of alcohol in the blood up to 80 mg., the variable factors responsible for these differences are dominated by alcohol if the concentrations are in excess of this concentration…"
The report went on to say—and these are very significant words:
"The Committee feels that its previous conclusions concerning driving performances at concentrations of 100 and 150 milligrammes must now be qualified. There are very few persons in whom the impairment of ability to drive properly and an increased risk of being involved in an accident are not present to a significant extent with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 milligrammes."
I have read those words out deliberately in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, drew our attention to the fact that there are certain countries where the basis is higher than ours. In examining the papers I believe one could make a case for a statutory limit of 50, and not 80, milligrammes, but the Minister, after most anxious thought, decided to put it at 80 because we did not wish to set it too low and then have large numbers of persons committing a criminal offence. I think that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, accepted this view.
We are considering here a penalty for one of the most grave offences on the road; and it is not a technical offence. It is for Parliament is legislate, and certainly I think it is right to say—and we should support it—that there should be a continuing process of giving greater discretion to the courts. In those circumstances, however, it is right that we should consider how the courts exercise their discretion. Therefore I would draw your Lordships' attention to the other two grave offences—I refer particularly to the offences of dangerous driving and careless driving—and to the way in which the courts have exercised their discretion and
634
administered the penalties. The 1962 Act doubled the maximum fine, to £100. At that time, for careless driving the average fine in this country was some £6 19s. 0d.; in 1967—and bear in mind the changed value of money—the average fine was £10 10s. 0d. For the offence of dangerous driving, the average fine in 1960 was £15 13s. 0d., and in 1967 £19 19s. 0d.
Now let us consider the offence that is before us to-day, that of driving while one's ability is impaired by drink or drugs. In 1960 the average fine was £25; in 1967—again one must bear in mind the change in money values—it was £29. Disqualification has been obligatory, except where, in the court's view, there were "special reasons", and I think I should set out these "special reasons", so that the House will have in mind the amount of discretion that is available to the courts.
By Case Law the special reasons must relate to the offence and not to the offender. Only the courts can decide what are valid reasons, but on past form these special reasons have provided an escape. It is possible for a proportion of offenders against the present law successfully to plead special reasons. In 1965, magistrates' courts convicted 6,195 first offenders of being unfit to drive through drink or drugs. Of these, 141 were not disqualified at all, and at least 65 were disqualified for less than would have been the minimum period if there had been no special reasons. Thus at least 3 per cent. of the offenders were able to plead special reasons. Moreover, 74 second offenders were not disqualified for what would have been, without special reasons, the minimum period.
In the higher courts at least 43 out of the 815—or some 5 per cent.—first offenders had special reasons. A man can plead special reasons for committing this offence if he is saying, in effect, "No reasonable or responsible man would have done anything else in the circumstances". For example, in a case of drink or drugs a court may find that a man had special reason to commit the offence if he was driving to avert a calamity which could not be averted in any other way—for instance, if he was rushing a critically ill man to hospital when no other means of transport were available. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, drew our attention to the hypothetical doctor

635
involved in an accident. Had that been the doctor's day off, and had he been called in an emergency, if no other means of transport was available and he took his car out on the road when his concentration of alcohol was in excess of 80 mg., I believe this would have been a special reason which he could plead in court.
I will give one last figure in connection with dangerous driving—and this was perhaps to me the most horrifying of the statistics that I have seen. Among the second convictions of dangerous driving within three years of the first offence, in England and Wales, 328 drivers were convicted of whom 154 were not disqualified. These figures are available in the Home Office statistics.
The Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, widens the discretion of the courts considerably. It provides that on a first offence a magistrate may take into account mitigating circumstances. Let us remember the gravity of this offence. So far as I know (and perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, may help us later on), there is no definition of "mitigating circumstances". I believe that if this Amendment were accepted it would enable the court to decide the degree of impairment of a driver. It might well be that a driver would be before the court and found guilty of having a concentration in excess of 80 mg., but the court would be able to say: "This was a technical offence, but in our view this man's driving was not impaired". It may be said that is stretching the argument too far, but this was the argument that was put forward by a number of supporters of this Amendment in another place. I suggest that if Parliament says that a man's driving is impaired at 80 mg. then that should prevail, and it is not for the courts to overrule it.
Can we define "mitigating circumstances"? The noble Lord has taken, word for word, the drafting of the 1962 Act, so far as it applies to what is called the "totting-up" system—that is, where there have been three endorsable offences in three years. Those words were specifically devised for that Act because it was deemed reasonable—and I think rightly—that if a man was driving some 1,000 miles per week and committed
636
three trivial offences in three years, there would be a case for his putting forward mitigating circumstances.
Now let us see how the courts have administered the law in regard to these mitigating circumstances—because I think we must expect that the courts would apply the "mitigating circumstances" provision, if we put it into the Bill, as they have done under the 1962 Act. In fact 26 per cent. of the persons convicted under the 1962 Act were not disqualified. We have records of cases where courts have decided, on the most trivial grounds, not to disqualify. I will give some examples. A man who was about to take a motoring honeymoon pleaded mitigating circumstances, and he was not disqualified. A "pop" star was not disqualified because the effect of disqualification would be to cut his earnings by a third. A young man working in Blackburn, who travelled by car to Oxford each week-end to see his fiancée, was not disqualified on his third offence because to do so would ruin his wedding plans. It was not made clear why it was impossible to get from Blackburn to Oxford by public transport. Then a Nottingham businessman pleaded the extent of his business, and the courts did not disqualify him. It is true that there have been professional drivers who have not been disqualified, but others have. Therefore there is this anomaly.
May I say that if disqualification is to be a deterrent, clearly it must be uniformly applied and must appear to be just. I asked the Department whether they would carry out an exercise for me, having an imaginary man driving from Liverpool to Hull: in other words, cutting right across the country. These statistics may be of interest to the House. Let us assume that the driver already has two endorsements on his licence and he commits a third offence. Let us consider his chances of not being disqualified. On past figures, in Liverpool in 54 per cent. of cases he is unlikely to be disqualified. In Lancashire as a whole, the county through which he first travels, the proportion is 19 per cent. In Warrington it is a certainty that he will be disqualified. In Salford the figure is 56 per cent.; in Manchester, 45 per cent.; in Oldham, 5 per cent; in the West Riding, 16 per cent.; in Leeds he will be disqualified; in the East Riding the figure is 17 per cent.; and

637
in Hull 30 per cent. Those are his chances of not being disqualified on a third conviction in three years. That is in the North of England.
I now turn to the South. At Southend-on-Sea the figure is 19 per cent.; at Bournemouth 13 per cent.; at Eastbourne 45 per cent.; and at Brighton 12 per cent. To take another seaside area, in Blackpool the figure is 52 per cent. That, surely, is the grand lottery of all time. If disqualification is a deterrent, I hope that the House will agree with me that there must be a high degree of certainty in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guild-ford, spoke of the professional man and the van driver who may lose his job for driving when the proportion of alcohol in his blood exceeds 80 mg. I do not believe we should take a man's personal circumstances and put him in a special category in law. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, may remember these words. They are not his words, but those of a colleague of his who was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. I agree with the words, which he used on February 28, 1962:
"We should clear our minds of cant about this. It seems that there is a fundamental confusion of thought, for the object of our concern is road safety and that is a paramount consideration. If what we are considering was the career of an airline pilot who, as a result of misbehaviour, negligence or dangeorus conduct was convicted of an offence, we would not for a moment say that he should not be disqualified from piloting an aircraft because it would mean that he would lose his livelihood. I cannot see any logical difference between the situation of an airline pilot and the situation of a professional driver of a lorry or public service vehicle on our roads."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons: 28/2/62, col. 1472.]
I believe that to be true especially when one sees the size of vehicles to-day and the speed at which they operate. They certainly need drivers with their wits about them, just as a pilot needs his.
The noble Lord said that the public will not know about the new rule. I informed the noble Lord in Committee that we intend to undertake a massive educational and publicity campaign. Of course there will be difficulties. Certainly there will be some hardship. Other countries have gone through this and have rapidly adjusted themselves to it. Quite soon the country will accept the rule that if you are going out and drink is
638
going to be available you do not take your car. I think we must get this firmly in our minds and in the minds of people throughout the country. That is the purpose of this piece of legislation.
I have spoken a great deal longer than I intended, but I thought I would again set out the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the courts are administering the law. I suggest to the House that we have no reason to believe that the courts will administer this particular Bill in a different way from the other legislation. That being so, if the Amendment were accepted, I believe that the value of the Bill would be lost. We must have the known limit; and that is set out in the Bill. I believe that we should have it known that conviction is more certain. We have the evidence through our laboratory tests, and we get away from all the conflicting evidence in the court. Therefore there must be the certainty of the penalty. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and to any of his colleagues who to-day support this Amendment, that if your Lordships pass this Amendment in regard to the offence of driving while impaired, the impairment being defined on the best medical advice offered to us, I believe you will be destroying all the good that this Bill can do in regard to a reduction of accidents.
4.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd has made a most interesting, indeed a most powerful, speech in resisting the Amendment moved by my noble friend. But in my view—and I listened to him with the greatest attention—a great many of the arguments he used were fallacious, and some of them were utterly misleading.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Viscount—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord without comment, although I felt inclined to comment. If he will allow me to develop my argument as I allowed him to develop his, it is conceivable that I shall be able to convince him. I shall give way when I have finished the sentence, and at least there will be a hope of convincing him that some of the arguments he advanced were in fact misleading and fallacious.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount will then tell the House the facts which he says were misleading.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I said that the arguments advanced by the noble Lord were misleading, and I certainly would not make a statement of that kind without seeking to substantiate it. The noble Lord began by saying that the Amendment was defective. I must say that I cannot see in what respect the Amendment is defective; but I leave that point on one side, as he did. Then he said that the effect of alcohol on road accidents at Christmas time had shown really tragic figures. I believe there is some dispute as to the conclusions to be drawn from those figures. However that may be, I should like to make it clear at the outset that I am not one of those who regard anyone who drives when his faculties for driving are impaired by alcohol or drugs as deserving of sympathetic treatment or as not being guilty of a serious offence. I start with that, and I hope I carry the noble Lord with me.
But then he said that effective enforcement depended on certainty of conviction. Before you get to conviction, the effective enforcement of the law depends on the odds being against committing it and avoiding detection and arrest. The most important element about enforcement is that the odds against getting away with it should be reduced as much as possible.
LORD SHEPHERD: The Bill does that.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: No, the Bill does nothing of the sort. The Bill does not provide any greater degree of enforcement in the chances of people being stopped and brought before the courts. That will depend on the police, and I hope that that will be the result. The effective enforcement of any of our criminal law depends in the first instance on the police. The second element is that where the guilt is proved there should be a conviction. There we are in agreement. But I disagree about the third point. It is surely not an essential element of effective enforcement that the penalty on conviction of a crime should always be the same. If that were so, then our courts are acting wrongly every single day. That was the main fallacy of
640
the noble Lord's argument: the assumption that for effective enforcement one must have a penalty—and I quote his words—"that is fair and is applied to all." That is to say, he is arguing that, although for this offence and other offences the courts have discretion to temper justice with mercy and to impose a penalty which they think is appropriate, for this offence they can do that in relation to imprisonment, they can do that in relation to the fine, but they cannot do it in relation to disqualification.
The noble Lord went on to make some telling quotations from speeches made by my noble friend and by Mr. Marples in another place, and I began to get rather anxious lest he should find something that I had inadvertently said. I am comforted by the fact that he did not. He then went on to give us the averages. He gave us the average fine for careless driving and said how it has increased; the average fine for dangerous driving, and so on. Nothing could be more misleading. I remember years ago Lord Simon, in the course of arguing a case, pointing out how misleading reference to averages could be. I remember his talking of an illness and the assertion that the average age at which it was suffered was 45 years of age, but that there were only two known instances, one of a man of 90 and the other of an infant under the age of one. Nothing could be more misleading than to talk about the average fine for careless driving. Careless driving may be a very trivial offence not warranting a heavy fine if justice is to be done.
LORD SHEPHERD: What about dangerous driving?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Dangerous driving varies in degree, too, and the averages there are just as misleading. The noble Lord has only to read the newspapers to see that in many cases nowadays the fines have substantially increased—and when I say "substantially", I mean it. I do not think we ought to found our decision on this issue on any argument based on averages of fines, or indeed on the averages of cases in which the courts have held that there have been special reasons for not disqualifying. Of course, if one takes the view, as does the noble Lord, that in every case there should be a disqualification, then it is wrong not to disqualify even if, although

641
the law allows it, there are special reasons for not disqualifying. That is what the law allows. The noble Lord's argument has no weight at all unless he says that under that law the courts which applied that law were wrong in the decisions which they made. He cannot say that, nor can my noble friend behind me, because they do not know the facts and one cannot just read the facts from Press reports. I am not in the least convinced about the numbers who have not been disqualified.
What is the real issue here? It is the issue whether Parliament takes away from the courts part of their normal function. Whatever the offence, it is normally the court's function to decide, having regard to all the circumstances, what are the appropriate penalties. I have always been against the imposition of automatic penalties in principle because, in my belief, automatic penalties can in a number of cases be excessive, unfair and unjust. But this Amendment is not concerned with removing the automatic penalties on a second or third offence. All we are concerned with here is the first offender. I would ask the noble Lord to bear that in mind.
When I was Lord Chancellor the training of magistrates was started. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made that compulsory, and the response of magistrates has been extraordinarily satisfactory. I think it is true to say that they have now a much greater, and indeed growing, appreciation of their duties and of the importance of them, and a greater knowledge of the considerations to apply in determining what is and what is not the proper sentence to impose. Quite apart from that, as the noble Lord I am sure knows, the Lord Chief Justice has held conferences, as have others, up and down the country giving guidance to magistrates amongst other things, as to sentencing.
I think that it is a very desirable feature, and I think that as a result the standard of administration of our justice in magistrates' courts has improved considerably. That is why I consider that it is a retrograde step now to deprive them of all discretion in this field in relation to the first offender. If they are not passing sufficiently adequate sentences according to the best public opinion, then surely the answer is not to
642
make it arbitrary justice by the imposition of automatic penalties but to seek, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is doing, and as his predecessors did, to improve the administration of that justice. Surely that is the right way to do it, and it is for that reason that I support this Amendment.
What harm can be done if this Amendment is carried? It may mean that in some cases—and I do not think there would be many because the view of the gravity of this offence has changed a good deal in recent years—conviction for having more than 80 mg. would not be followed by disqualification, although it might be right that that should be the consequence, and if the noble Lord were sitting adjudicating he might well take that view. But if he did, I feel sure that the financial penalty which would be imposed would be one which would impress the gravity of the offence very seriously indeed upon the offender. I should like to see the courts entrusted, as I think they ought to be, with that discretion. I do not like the use of the word formula, like "special reasons". As the noble Lord knows, those words give rise to considerable difficulties in the courts. The words of the Amendment give a very wide discretion where it is thought that there are mitigating circumstances. I should have thought that that was right, but I do not believe that would be generally or widely used.
As to the limit of 80 mg., the noble Lord devoted a great deal of his speech to justifying that limit. I am not competent to express any opinion on it. I hope it is right. I am ignorant of that subject, though I was comforted by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford indicating that it required much more alcohol to raise the blood content of a large man to that limit than it did in the case of a smaller one. Be that as it may, this is a serious issue. In the past in this field we have entered into the practice of imposing automatic penalties and not leaving it to the courts. Personally, I think that it is undesirable as a general principle that a special case has to be made out for doing this. I do not think that a special case has been made out in relation to first offenders for an offence under this Bill and, therefore, if my noble friend presses this

643
Amendment to a Division I shall certainly give him my support.
4.40 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, we have had two very different and distinctive speeches in favour of this Amendment. For my part, I much prefer the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, to that of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. If ever there were a statement which might be misleading it was that of the noble and learned Viscount, when he referred to "automatic penalties". There are no automatic penalties; the noble and learned Viscount knows that. There is a discretion, whether the case be in the magistrates' court or before a learned judge, because there is a range of penalties. I do not know of a single offence in which either the higher court or the lower court has to apply a fixed penalty. It has certain conditions which it has to follow. Therefore, if anybody has been misleading, it is the noble and learned Viscount.
Equally, one of the problems in so far as drink and driving are concerned concerns the legal profession. The manner in which lawyers have abused doctors who have been called by the police to give evidence is to my mind disgraceful. They have almost asserted that the doctor did not get his qualifications by examination. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, was quite right when he said that there had been a change in social habits. The motor car has changed social habits. It has affected whole spheres of activity. If there has been a change in social habits, in the extensive use of a vehicle which is liable to cause considerable damage and distress to others, even loss of life, then there ought to be a penalty in regard to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, referred to cases where hardship might be caused, but there was hardship before we had the motor car. We had two legs, and there was the horse. I had a case before the Bench on which I sit where it was argued by learned counsel that the man should not be disqualified because he used his car for going to and from work. If one replies that other people have to go to work without having a motor car, they do not
644
like it. If a person has the responsibility of driving a car, then he also has the responsibility of seeing to it that, so far as possible, he uses that car effectively and without danger to others. I think it has been proved conclusively on medical grounds that the taking of drink beyond a certain limit when driving and controlling a car is dangerous to others. Therefore, one ought not to do it.
I agree entirely that disqualification is the highest penalty. A large number of people do not care if they are fined. What they are concerned about is losing the convenience and facility of being able to drive a car when and where they want to. If a person wants that privilege of citizenship in an affluent society, then he has a duty to conform to rules and regulations which will make the roads as safe as possible. I hope that the House will not accept this Amendment.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I think it has been accepted for a long time by public opinion that the penalties imposed by the courts upon persons guilty of dangerous driving have been too lenient. It has been the steady line of the Ministry of Transport over a number of years, regardless of which Party has been in power. I well remember in the middle of the 'fifties, when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, we approached the then Lord Chancellor and asked him to take an opportunity of drawing the attention of magistrates to the desirability of imposing greater penalties.
If we follow the line of legislation, we see that Parliament has consistently endeavoured to give a lead to the courts to impose heavier penalties. It has done so by increasing the penalties which might be imposed; it has also done so by restricting, directly and by suggestion, the discretion of the courts to impose less severe penalties. After listening to the examples which have been given, I have no hesitation in saying that in many of those cases the decision of the court of magistrates was definitely wrong. It is in order to bring pressure to bear upon the magistrates to impose heavier penalties that I think this Amendment ought not to be accepted.
The position of Parliament in these matters is a difficult and delicate one. Of course, if one goes to the extreme of

645
requiring a very heavy penalty to be automatically imposed, the consequence is that the courts do not convict. That was the case in the 18th and early 19th centuries when a person was hanged for stealing anything in excess of 5s. or 6s. or something of that kind. We are not proposing anything of that kind; we are not going to that extreme. But it really is a serious matter when the courts use the discretion which has been given to them in an unduly large number of cases.
At the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, gave us some examples of the penalties which had been imposed on persons driving while disqualified. There were 8,500 convictions for driving while disqualified, and in 4,500 of those cases the penalty was a fine only. Parliament laid it down in Section 110 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, that:
"If a person disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence…while he is so disqualified drives on a road…shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or, if the court thinks that having regard to the special circumstances of the case a fine would be an adequate punishment for the offence, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds…"
The clear indication given to the courts by Parliament was that in all normal cases when a person who had been disqualified was driving a car the penalty should be imprisonment. It was only in special cases justifying more lenient treatment that a fine might be substituted for imprisonment. But in 4,500 cases out of 8,500 the courts found that there were special circumstances. I cannot believe that that was in accordance with the intention of Parliament. I believe that it is due to the natural and excusable, but regrettable, tendency of magistrates' courts to deal too leniently with motoring offences.
The explanation of it is perfectly simple and not discreditable. It is that nearly all of us drive motor cars, and when a person is accused of an offence one is very apt to say, "There but for the grace of God go I". It is for Parliament to give a clear indication to the courts that, in a matter of this gravity, which every year involves many deaths and still more injuries, penalties should be more severe. I believe that the Bill as drafted is right. I do not think that the fact that a person is a professional driver of motor cars is any reason why he should not be dis
646
qualified. On the contrary, I should have thought that it was an additional reason for disqualification. Therefore, I regret I find myself unable to agree with the reasoning of my noble friends who have already spoken in support of the Amendment.

THE NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
4.51 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by the Minister of Power. I will use my right honourable friend's own words:
"I am glad to say that the following have accepted my invitation to serve as members of the National Steel Corporation:
Chairman: Lord Melchett, who was Chairman of the Organising Committee and previously a Director of Hill, Samuel & Co. Ltd.
Deputy Chairmen: Dr. H. M. Finniston, Technical Director of C. A. Parsons & Co. Ltd. and Managing Director of International Research and Development Co. Ltd.; Mr. M. Milne-Watson, Chairman of Richard, Thomas & Baldwins Ltd. and Mr. A. J. Peech, Chairman and Managing Director of United Steel Companies Ltd.
Full-time members: Lord Layton, Managing Director of the Steel Company of Wales and Mr. Ron Smith, previously General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers.
Part-time members: Mr. Raymond Brookes, Chairman and Managing Director of Guest, Keen & Nettlefolds Ltd; Alderman Sidney Harris, until recently employed on the shop floor in the steel industry; Sir Cyril Musgrave, Chairman of the Iron and Steel Board and Mr. Peter Parker, Director of Booker Bros., McConnell & Co. Ltd., and Chairman of Booker Engineers & Industrial Holdings Ltd.
"Mr. Peech will for the time being remain Chairman of United Steel Companies Ltd. and will after vesting combine his Deputy Chairmanship of the Corporation with an important operational appointment in the industry. Alderman Harris and Sir Cyril Musgrave will each give substantially more time to the work of the Corporation than is normal for a part-time member. Further appointments will be made in due course.

647
"The formal appointments will be made at once. The National Steel Corporation will then be constituted and the Organising Committee will be dissolved.
"The Government have decided that vesting date for the securities of the companies listed in Schedule 1 to the Iron and Steel Act 1967 should be Friday, 28th July 1967. I shall at once be signing an order under Section 9 of the Act to give effect to this decision, which means that the period between Royal Assent and vesting date will be rather shorter than for the nationalisation of any other major industry. The Corporation and all others concerned will have a formidable task to complete the necessary preparations. The ground has, however, already been prepared by the outstanding work of the Organising Committee, to which I would like to pay tribute, and this early vesting date will end uncertainty in the industry and clear the way for the structural changes which are generally agreed to be necessary and urgent."
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this is an important Statement, although in some respects an inadequate one. It does not tell us, for example, for how long the members of the Corporation have been appointed. This is a provision of the Iron and Steel Act—it is in Section 1, subsection (4)—so it must be done very soon, anyway. It is a pity that information has not been included in the Statement. Nor does the Statement itemise the salaries against the names of the individuals, although the scales have already been announced. Nor does it contain a complete list of the members appointed to serve on the Corporation. The Bill was rushed through just before Easter, with the co-operation of the Opposition, so that uncertainty in the industry could be reduced as far as possible; yet here we are, some weeks afterwards, and the Government are still not able to disclose a full list of appointments. Up to twenty members of the Corporation can be appointed, and only nine have been appointed so far.
On this side of the House we are pleased to see that a number of ex
648
perienced people from inside the industry have been appointed to the Corporation—in particular, perhaps, Mr. A. J. Peech, the Chairman of United Steel Companies, Limited, who is this year's President of the British Iron and Steel Federation. The omission of one name stands out, and that is Mr. MacDiarmid, the Chairman of Stewarts and Lloyds, who served as Vice-Chairman of the Organising Committee. Can the noble Lord tell us whether Mr. MacDiarmid was invited to serve on the Corporation?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am glad to have the general welcome (if I may put it that way) of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for the Statement and for what the Statement contains. With regard to the terms for which members will be appointed, I can give the noble Lord that information now. Lord Melchett's initial appointment, in accordance with arrangements made when he was appointed to the Organising Committee, will be for two years. The other members, appointed to-day, will serve for the following periods: Dr. Finniston, Mr. Milne-Watson, Lord Layton and Mr. Ron Smith for five years; Mr. Peech, Mr. Brookes, Mr. Harris, Sir Cyril Musgrave and Mr. Parker for three years. They will be eligible for reappointment at the end of their initial periods. A finance member has yet to be appointed. Including the Chairman, the names that I have given total ten. It is the case with regard to the names I have announced that among those who were members of the Organising Committee the name of Mr. Macdiarmid is not included, but on that matter I cannot forecast what may happen in the future.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. In another place, the Left-wing supporters of the Government will be feeling satisfied to-day that they have scored their first political interference in the potential efficiency and independence of the steel industry under public ownership.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if, by that remark, the noble Lord is referring to my answer in respect of Mr. Macdiarmid, I would say that such an inference cannot be drawn. I simply said that he is not in the list but I would not make any forecast as to the future.

ROAD SAFETY BILL
4.58 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, if we may now return to the Road Safety Bill, I should like to mention very briefly the consideration which led me to add my name to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. It is a consideration which has certainly not been emphasised in this debate so far, if, indeed, it has been mentioned. I believe that if we pass this Bill without this Amendment we shall be making a very great departure in principle from the present law with regard to what we call automatic disqualification. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is shaking his head, and if what I am now going to say is wrong I am sure I shall be put right, because the noble Lord has clearly studied this matter very carefully indeed.
I believe I am right in saying that up till now nobody has suffered what is called automatic disqualification without having known perfectly well that he was committing an offence. I mean that either his driving ability was impaired to such an extent that witnesses came forward and said he was behaving in a more or less drunken fashion, in which case he himself must have known that he was committing an offence; or, alternatively, of course, he may have already known that he was driving when disqualified. But here we have a situation where somebody with 85 mg. of alcohol in his blood may not know that his ability to drive is impaired. I think it is common ground that people with strong heads will not know, when they have 85 mg. of alcohol in the blood, that their ability to drive is impaired. I believe one can go a step further and say that it is agreed that a very few of them will not have their ability to drive impaired at all at 85 mg. It is true that my point applies to a very few people only; but it is there. The noble Lord the Chief Whip continues to shake his head, but I pursue this argument.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the point is that it is entirely a matter of opinion, so far as the individual is concerned. There is no medical evidence or scientific method by which a person can say that his driving is not impaired
650
at 100 mg., 150 mg., or 85 mg.; it is merely a question of personal opinion. There is no validity in it at all.
LORD AIREDALE: That does not detract from what I was saying: that there will be cases where a person is found to have 85 mg. of alcohol in the blood and will not have known, until the result of the test was made manifest, that his ability to drive was impaired. In my view, that is a fair point, and therefore this is a great departure from the law as we have it at present. Nobody so far has ever had his licence automatically forfeited without knowing that he was committing an offence. I will grant that in five years' time we may have a breath test gadget made available to us by mass production which it may be possible to buy over the chemist's counter or over the counter of a public-house for 9d. It will be a vest-pocket gadget into which a man can blow to find out whether he has an 80 mg. or an 85 mg. level of alcohol. When that time comes it may be fair even for the first offender to be automatically disqualified from driving; because he will have every means of knowing that his ability is impaired. But to introduce this provision now is a departure from the existing law, and I believe that we should not do it at this moment.
5.3 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, surely it is a great mistake to discuss this matter as though it were an issue between an automatic penalty and one that is not automatic. The argument of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, was completely misleading. He took the stand—and I am sorry that he is not in his place—of a lawyer defending the freedom of the courts to exercise their discretion. That is not the issue. The issue is between the freedom of the courts to exercise their discretion within wider limits or to exercise it within considerably narrower limits. There is a penalty prescribed; but in each case, under the present law, there is a loophole. Under this Amendment there would be a much wider loophole. The question is not whether there should be any loophole or no loophole, but whether it should be a wide or a narrow one.
As my noble friend Lord Shepherd pointed out, under the present law a small number of persons whose driving is found

651
to be impaired consequent upon their having taken alcohol are not, in fact, disqualified. The figures are of the order of about 3 per cent. in magistrates' courts, and about 5 per cent. in the higher courts. It is difficult to imagine, even in the case of first offenders, a much higher percentage than that being entitled to be free of disqualification if, in fact, they are driving with more than the prescribed level of alcohol in the blood. The whole issue turns upon the difference between "special reasons" and "mitigating circumstances". We have some experience of both. At present, "special reasons" apply in cases of drunken driving, and "special reasons" have been rigidly defined in the courts. The most outstanding point in the definition is that "special reasons" must apply to the offence and not to the offender.
The term "mitigating circumstances"—which this Amendment would substitute in the case of first offenders—is very much wider, and the formula "mitigating circumstances" occurs in the present law in what are known as the "totting-up cases"—that is, where an offender has committed three endorsable offences within a certain period and is automatically disqualified for six months unless there are mitigating circumstances—not special reasons, but mitigating circumstances. It is a fact that there is very great difficulty in the magistrates' courts in determining how widely "mitigating circumstances" should be interpreted, and in some courts there is a tendency to interpret this phrase so widely as almost to make nonsense of Parliament's intention that in the normal case anyone with three convictions of an endorsable nature should he disqualified for six months. The kind of thing magistrates are inclined to take into account in considering whether there are mitigating circumstances is whether an offender is a professional driver, someone who drives for a living. But this, surely, is quite irrelevant in the case of drink.
I think one can see the irrelevance if one asks what attitude one would take in the parallel case of, say, an air pilot Everyone would be sorry for the airline pilot who was intoxicated and was, in consequence, deprived of his licence to pilot an aeroplane; but nobody would say that it was a mitigating circumstance
652
that his living depended on piloting aircraft. I am sure we must come to the stage when we see the responsibility of driving a car as very much like the responsibility of piloting an aeroplane. We have also to bear in mind that the professional driver is one who is constantly on the roads and therefore likely to be much more a danger to the public than somebody who is driving only occasionally. I should have thought that we should hesitate a great deal before opening the door to saying that because a man was a professional driver, therefore on the first occasion on which he is found to have more alcohol in his blood than the prescribed limit he might plead "mitigating circumstances" and be free from disqualification.
When we compare what has happened in the courts in the "totting-up" cases with what happens in the courts under the much stricter rule of "special reasons", which applies to drink cases, we see the danger of opening this door widely. The Magistrates' Association are much opposed to applying the formula "mitigating circumstances" to cases of drunken driving, largely because they are completely embarrassed by it. It gives them no secure guidance as to the circumstances in which they ought to waive disqualification. I am sure that we shall be much safer—and I am speaking literally—if we adhere to the present rule, which gives us a small loophole in the hard cases where there really are "special reasons", and do not open this door through which a great many cases may pass, the nature of which we cannot foresee, by using the formula "mitigating circumstances".
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, was about to speak but has decided not to. I feel that we have been deprived of a valuable contribution, which I regret. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the great trouble he has taken in answering the case that I put to him, and I may say that perhaps the very interesting debate that we have had is justification for my having moved the Amendment again. I should like immediately to answer the last point of the noble Lord, when he said that in his opinion the Amendment would seriously weaken the Bill. I should like to make it plain that it is not my intention to

653
weaken the Bill. He quoted with approval some observations of mine in another place in 1962, to the effect that disqualification should be awarded much more often than at present and that the holding of a driving licence was a privilege. Those are still my views; but I did not advocate then, nor do I now, that they should be applied in all cases. Disqualification should, I am sure, be the usual punishment in these cases, but I believe that the Bill will be more effective if courts are given some measure of discretion. If this penalty is automatic, some very hard cases will result, and they will seriously damage public confidence in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, argued most cogently the differences between special circumstances and mitigating circumstances; and of course they exist. Special circumstances apply only to the intrinsic merits of the case; mitigating circumstances apply to the offender. I quoted one case, and could quote many others. I feel that there will be some extremely hard cases if the full penalty of 12 months' disqualification is awarded. I am sure that benches of magistrates, and indeed courts of quarter session, would wish to have the latitude to take a more sympathetic course. No one could have said with greater
authority than my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne that the discretion of the courts is necessary, and, indeed, that without mercy justice is not justice. I profoundly believe this to be true. I believe—and this is why I moved this Amendment—that this Bill will be more effective if it has this measure of latitude in it.
There are two further points, one of which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. This is a new offence and a big new lesson has to be learned before we can be sure that everyone will obey the new law. This is a big change in the lives of many people, and we have to make it effective. The second point is that in any event the level of 80 mg. has been rather tightly drawn. I accept the figure of 80 mg., and I accept the medical evidence, but I believe that the figure is rather lower than most people were expecting. For these reasons I think that acceptance of this Amendment would improve and strengthen, rather than weaken, the Bill and I feel that I should ask your Lordships to vote on it.
5.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not Contents, 70.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L. [Teller.]

Effingham, E.

Milverton, L.

Airedale, L.

Foley, L.

Monsell, V.

Alport, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Montague of Beaulieu, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Mottistone, L.

Arran, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Glasgow, E.

Rea, L.

Audley, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Birdwood, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Blackford, L.

Hawke, L.

Sherfield, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hereford, V.

Sinha, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Stamp, L.

Carrington, L.

Ilford, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Chesham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Teynham, L.

Denham, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Thurlow, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Dudley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Bowles, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Ailwyn, L.

Brown, L.

Faringdon, L.

Albemarle, E.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Amulree, L.

Caccia, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Archibald, L.

Champion, L.

Granville-West, L.

Auckland, L.

Clwyd, L.

Greenway, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Hacking, L.

Beswick, L.

Crook, L.

Haddington, E.

Blyton, L.

Darwen, L.

Hall, V.

Hankey, L.

Pargiter, L.

Shepherd, L.

Henley, L.

Peddie, L.

Sorensen, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Stonham, L.

Hunt, L.

Platt, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Plummer, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Jackson of Burnley, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Jessel, L.

Rowallan, L.

Taylor, L.

Latham, L.

Rowley, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Leatherland, L.

Royle, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Lindgren, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Williamson, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

St. Davids, V.

Willis, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sandys, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Maelor, L.

Serota, Bs.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Mitchison, L.

Shannon, E.

Ypres, E.

Molson, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 [Extension of powers to regulate construction and use of goods vehicles]:
LORD WINTER BOTTOM LORD WINTER BOTTOM moved to insert, after subsection (1), the following new subsection:
"(2) In framing regulations under the said section 64 prescribing a weight of any description which is not to be exceeded in the case of goods vehicles of a class for which a manufacturer's certificate or Minister's approval certificate may be issued under section 10 of this Act the Minister shall have regard to the design weight of the like description determined by virtue of the said section 10 for vehicles of that class and shall secure that the first-mentioned weight shall not exceed the design weight."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have to move a whole series of Amendments all of which, with the exception of Amendment No. 28, rotate round a single point; and since this Amendment is consequential upon a later Amendment, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I explained the main reasons for this group of Amendments now.
As I said at an earlier stage of the Bill, Part II is designed in the main to give power to the Minister of Transport to make certain amendments to the Road Transport Act 1960 by regulation. I said then that these regulations would not be picked out of thin air, but would be drafted as a result of consultation with all sections of the road transport industry. This consultation is a continuing process. Between Committee stage and to-day it has become clear that there are certain problems arising out of Clause 10, which relates to type approval of new types of vehicles.
Type approval is a system of which there is as yet no practical experience in this country. Certain other countries
656
have had experience of this, but we are feeling our way. It is therefore no more than common sense to provide in the Bill, where necessary, sufficient flexibility for a workable system to be threshed out in consultation with the interested organisations. These have already come up with the request that our original intention in Clause 10 should be modified. As the Bill stands at present, the Minister, when granting type approval, is required, under Clause 10(4), to specify the plated weights for a type vehicle and for vehicles conforming thereto. Similarly the manufacturer, when issuing a manufacturer's certificate for a conforming vehicle coming off his production line, is required to specify the plated weights and also to mark them on the vehicle.
The difficulty we found was that the plated weights to be allotted to an individual vehicle may not be known until it is known to what use that vehicle will be put by the ultimate purchaser. The articulated vehicle is an example that comes to mind. A prime mover may be entitled to operate at varying weights under existing Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations according to the braking capacity of the trailer. The same rule may apply in reverse to the trailer. There is also no single overall weight, under the existing C. and U. Regulations, for a given prime mover or trailer when in combination with either a towed or towing vehicle as the case may be. It depends on the partner to which the vehicle is attached. The pair together may be entitled to a higher or lower combined gross weight, depending on the total number of axles, their configuration and the total length of the combination. And one prime mover may operate a number of trailers or trailers made by different companies. Consequently, the Minister, who only sees the type vehicle, and the manufacturer, who may make no

657
more than the chassis, may be able to specify in advance only the design weights of the vehicle—that is, the weights at which, regardless of factors such as the limitations of bridges and highways, to which current C. and U. Regulations are largely directed, the vehicle itself is technically capable of operating.
The interested organisations consulted are all agreed that, unless the maximum permissible operating weights for a vehicle are shown on its plate, plating is meaningless, because the object must be to indicate clearly to all concerned what are the weights which may not legally be exceeded. It is necessary therefore, first to indicate in Clause 10 that the Minister, when granting type approval, is concerned only with design weights, and to define what is meant by design weights; secondly, to leave open the option as to whether the manufacturer's certificate should specify the plated weights, that is maximum permissible weights, in addition to the design weights, or should only specify the latter; and, thirdly, to leave open the option as to whether the manufacturer should be required to mark the plated weights, or whether this should be arranged by the Minister, once there is a prospective purchaser who can provide the information on which the proposed use of the vehicle—and thus the appropriate plated weights—can be ascertained.
The proposed Amendments leave open the second and third options I have mentioned by giving the Minister power if necessary to require the manufacturer, by regulation, to specify the plated weights in his manufacturer's certificate and to mark those weights on the vehicle. In any other case the manufacturer's certificate will certify conformity with the type vehicle, but will specify only the design weights. The certificate will specify these even in a case such as that already mentioned, where the Minister has also required the specification of the plated weights. The manufacturer will not have to mark the vehicle with weights in this latter event. What will happen is that the dealer or purchaser will send the manufacturer's certificate to the Minister stating the proposed use of the vehicle and any other necessary information, and the Minister will return to him the manufacturer's certificate endorsed by the Minister with the plated weights, and a plate containing plated weights cor
658
responding to those in the endorsed certificate. The user will have to fix this plate in a conspicuous, protected, and readily accessible position. Of course, the certificate and the plate at the end of the day will have the same information on them. That is the background of this complicated group of Amendments.
I now come to Amendment No. 7. As I said earlier, this Amendment is a prerequisite of the Amendments which the Government are proposing to Clause 10 of the Bill. The object of the Amendment is comparatively simple; that is, to make the type approval provisions of the Bill more flexible as regards who is to specify what is in the certificates to be issued to the owner of a vehicle subject to type approval, and who is to mark the plated weights on such a vehicle.
The present Amendment to Clause 8 has the effect of making it clear that a design weight (as defined by the proposed Amendment to Clause 10) is not necessarily the same as a plated weight. A plated weight, as defined in the existing Clause 8(2) is a weight required by regulations under Section 64 of the Road Traffic Act 1960. Such weights, when specified by the Ministry under the procedures in Clauses 9 and 10, will be the weights which, by regulation under Section 64 of the principal Act, or Clause 8(1) of this Bill, it will not be permissible to exceed when the vehicle is in operation in this country.
The plated weight and the design weight may correspond, but it is possible that, because of factors such as the limitations of bridges and highways, a lower plated weight may be determined—for example, a weight prescribed by the current Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations—than the weight at which the vehicle itself, on the basis of its design, is capable of operating. In order to make Clause 10 workable in practice, it is essential, for the reasons I have explained, to draw the distinction drawn by the present Amendment between design weights and plated weights. That is the intention lying behind Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for

659
explaining to us so lucidly this highly complex set of Amendments. I confess that I shall have to study his words in print to-morrow before I fully digest them, but I think I get the general drift of what is intended to be done. I had prepared myself for the occasion by inquiring from the interested organisations whether he had consulted them; I found that he had, and that they are quite happy with these changes. I can well understand that moving into this field, in which Government Departments naturally have no experience, it is wise to make the arrangements as flexible as possible—as the noble Lord says, to keep all the options open—so that as experience shows the best way of handling this difficult problem of design weights and plated weights regulations can be drawn accordingly. I am sure that this is the right way to proceed, and I support the noble Lord in these Amendments.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I confess that my mind is in an absolute whirl. From what the noble Lord has said I cannot understand whether design weight or plated weight means unladen weight, the weight which the vehicle is capable of carrying, or laden weight. To which does the noble Lord refer?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: It is the weight which the vehicle is permitted to carry in two alternative circumstances. I was sticking closely to my brief because, as the noble Lord will realise, this subject is important. I hope that what I have said is clear to those who are professionally interested in the matter. In simple terms, a manufacturer designs a new type of prime mover, a short chassis job, which can pull any number of different trains. The manufacturer, when he designs this prime mover, knows what its prime capacity is. But on to the back of this prime mover can be tagged a whole series of trailers: tankers, gravel lorries or anything you like can be put on the back of this prime mover. Until it is known what the prime mover is going to tow, it is impossible to say what the plated weight or the permissible weight when loaded will be. It is in order to enable the ultimate user, the actual agent who sells the prime mover and trailer, or the individual who buys it, to settle exactly what the permissible
660
loaded weight of this combination is that we have kept these options open. We have done so by giving the individual dealer, the manufacturer and the Minister power to decide what the actual permissible weight of this loaded combination will be. I hope that this makes the position clearer.
LORD SOMERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Clause 10:
Approval of design, construction, etc., of goods vehicles
10.—
(5) A manufacturer of a type vehicle in respect of which a type approval certificate is in force may issue, in respect of each goods vehicle manufactured by him which conforms with the type vehicle in such of the relevant aspects of design, construction, equipment and marking as are mentioned in the type approval certificate, a certificate (hereafter in this Act referred to as a "manufacturer's certificate") stating that it does so conform and specifying the plated weights for the vehicle and, where he issues such a certificate, shall mark those weights on the vehicle by means of a plate fixed to it.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 together. The purpose of these three Amendments is to define what is meant by "design weights". It may seem rather a complicated way of doing it, but each of the Amendments is consequential on Amendment No. 13, and all that we are trying to do is, having agreed a principle, to define what we mean by "design weights" under the new approach to the problem. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 12, leave out from ("which") to ("not") and insert ("in the opinion of the Minister should").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 14, leave out ("the following provisions of").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 15, leave out from ("to") to ("references") in line 16 and insert ("design weights shall be construed as").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendments already moved. I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert ("design weights for that vehicle").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 is a drafting Amendment which is intended to make clear that the job of the Minister in approving a type vehicle is to concern himself, in so far as weights go, only with the design weights. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 40, leave out ("plated") and insert ("design").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved, in subsection (5), to leave out from "specifying the" to the end of the subsection and to insert:
"design weights for the vehicle, and shall in such cases as may be prescribed specify in the certificate one or more of the plated weights for the vehicle.
(6) Where a manufacturer issues a manufacturer's certificate for a vehicle, the Minister shall, on an application made by any person containing such information as he may require with respect to the proposed circumstances of operation of the vehicle and on production of that certificate, specify in the certificate any plated weights for the vehicle not so specified by the manufacturer.
(7) Where a manufacturer issues a manufacturer's certificate for a vehicle then—

(a) if he is required by subsection (5) of this section to specify any plated weights for the vehicle in the certificate, he shall mark those weights on the vehicle by means of a plate fixed to it;

(b) in any other case the Minister shall on an application for the purpose secure that those weights are so marked."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the most important Amendment in the series. It falls into three sections. The clause is Clause 10, subsection (5). In subsection (5) the last three lines are taken away, and the words on the Marshalled List are added. The first of the three
662
Amendments to Clause 10(5) is a drafting Amendment designed to relieve the manufacturer from the need to specify in his certificate more than conformity with the type of vehicle and the design weights, unless the Minister by regulation imposes on him a requirement to include plated weights in the certificate as well.
May I try to make that a little clearer? The manufacturer may be making a prime mover to which a number of trailers can be attached, or, alternatively, he may be designing a vehicle which cannot be altered, in a case where the design weight and the plated weight are one and the same thing. Every vehicle that comes off the production line will conform with the design and the manufacturer at that moment can plate it. The actual salesman or buyer has not got to get a certificate from the Ministry of Transport for the total combination of vehicles. This is a drafting Amendment which clarifies the position of the manufacturer here.
The new subsection (6) is the one which empowers the Minister, on application of the purchaser of the vehicle, to endorse a manufacturer's certificate which shows only design weight. The Minister fills in the plated weight in a space provided, having been told by the purchaser or dealer the use that is intended for the vehicle. That is the new subsection (6).
If we take the new subsection (7), we find that this is the provision which leaves it open whether the manufacturer or the Minister is to arrange the actual marking of the vehicle by means of a plate. The Minister will be able to decide which alternative is to be used when the time comes, because of the regulation-making power given to him in line 8 of the page by this Amendment. That is to say, the first part of Amendment No. 13 is in fact carried into effect by the new subsections (6) and (7). I hope that is reasonably clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 8, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 10 and insert the said words and subsections.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I briefly thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for his further explanation? I think that all these Amendments are really consequential on acceptance of the general principle that there should be this greater flexibility in the

663
type approval arrangements, so that there is provision for the design weight and type weight being two separate things. For myself, I should advise noble Lords to accept that as being a wise provision in the Bill. As I say, all these Amendments are really consequential upon it and a necessary part of the machinery.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, am I to understand that the noble Lord is suggesting that these Amendments should be put en bloc? If so, it would save a tremendous amount of time in the House; and, of course, it would save the Deputy Chairman a great deal of talking if they were put en bloc. I do not know whether that appears helpful.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is extremely helpful and courteous of noble Lords to accept this proposal. Amendments 14 to 21 are consequential.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 14 to 21 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 14, line 15, after ("requirements") insert ("and the Minister has sufficient information to enable the plated weights to be ascertained for the vehicle")
Page 14, line 18, after ("its") insert ("design weights and")
Page 14, line 19, leave out ("those") and insert ("the plated")
Page 14, line 45, leave out ("plated") and insert ("design")
Page 14, line 46, leave out ("and (5)") and insert ("(5), (6) and (7)")
Page 15, line 1, leave out from ("certificate") to ("weights") in line 3 and insert ("under this section the design weights or plated weights for a vehicle or as requires the Minister or a manufacturer to mark or secure the marking of the plated")
Page 15, line 10, at beginning insert ("design weights and")
Page 15, line 10, leave out ("those") and insert ("the plated").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Clause 11 [Supplemental provisions as to type approval and other certificates]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 are again consequential and are purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 2, leave out ("plated") and insert ("design")
Page 16, line 6, after ("marking") insert ("or any such aspect which affects the plated weight")
Page 16, line 30, leave out ("relating to") and insert ("specifying").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Clause 12 [Appeals]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, once again these Amendments, Nos. 25, 26 and 27, are consequential. They maintain the right of appeal to all persons who had that right in the Bill as originally drafted. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 2, at end insert ("a manufacturer's certificate")
Page 17, line 4, after ("to") insert ("design weights or")
Page 17, line 8, leave out ("such a certificate") and insert ("a type approval or a Minister's approval certificate or in respect of the plated weights to be included in a manufacturer's certificate").—(Lord Winterbotrom.)
Clause 18 [Operators' duty to inspect, and keep records of inspections of, goods vehicles]:
5.47 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved, in subsection (5), to leave out all words after "person and" down to and including "case means" and insert:
"in the said excepted case means a person of a class prescribed by regulations under this section in relation to any particular class of goods vehicles or, subject to any such regulations,".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 28 deals with a different matter. This is a rather interesting point. Since our previous debate on this matter the licensing authorities, who have some experience of what I believe are generally known as the "wide boys", have found a loophole in our proposals. Clause 18(5) defines the "operator" of a goods vehicle, for the purposes of the clause, as (a) the person to whom it belongs; or (b) the hirer under a hire-purchase agreement; or (c) a person hiring (other than by way of hire-purchase) or borrowing the vehicle, if that person has expressly agreed to keep it properly maintained. The reason why I have stressed

665
the third alternative is that it is to protect the genuine short-term hirer or borrower in the event that a periodic inspection, under the provisions of regulations made under the clause, might fall due during the term of the hire or loan. It was felt that it would be unfair to make the short-term user liable unless he had expressly agreed to be so.
Further consideration of the drafting has, however, drawn attention to a possible loophole which could exist if, first, the person to whom the vehicles belonged formed a subsidiary company to own the vehicles, but not to operate them, and, secondly, hired back the vehicles from the subsidiary without expressly agreeing to keep them properly maintained. This seems a very elaborate way of getting round the law, but elaborate ways of getting round the law are frequently devised. The subsidiary would then remain the "operator" for the purposes of operator's liability to meet the maintenance requirements of Clause 18.
The disciplinary powers of a licensing authority—for example, revocation of licence—can be invoked against the "operator" who fails to comply with Clause 18. But in this case the powers could not bite on the subsidiary, because the subsidiary, not in practice being an operator for licensing purposes, would hold no carrier's licences. The person to whom the vehicles really belonged would be equally immune from disciplinary action by the licensing authority for a breach of the requirements of Clause 18. The purpose of the Amendment is to counter such possible action by giving the Minister power to define by regulations, notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 18(5), the person who is to be regarded as the "operator" for the purposes of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 5, leave out from ("and") to ("that") in line 7 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining the purpose of this Amendment, and I think he has certainly taken "a stitch in time" to give the Minister power to prescribe by regulations the particular classes. As he says, he has to provide for the "wide boys". Of course, at the tail end of the motor business to-day are those picturesque folk who in
666
our young day used to be called "horse capers"; they are now "car copers", and there are some pretty remarkable characters there who will find a way around most Acts of Parliament. I only hope the noble Lord has effectively sewn up all the openings. This is obviously a wise provision, to give the Minister power to define these classes by regulation, and I warmly support the Amendment.
Clause 25 [Miscellaneous Offences.]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as noble Lords will see, this is purely a drafting Amendment in order to alter the numbers of subsections in the final Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 4, leave out ("or (6)") and insert (", (6), (8) or (11)").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Clause 29 [Supplemental.]
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this, too, is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 39, leave out ("20") and insert ("22").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 17, leave out ("and 20") and insert ("to 22").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
5.52 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, after Clause 29, to insert the following new clause:
Arrest without warrant of persons driving while disqualified
" . A constable in uniform may arrest without warrant any person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road whom he has reasonable cause to suspect of being disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence granted under Part II of the principal Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that on Committee stage I moved an Amendment to give power to a police constable to arrest without warrant persons driving while disqualified. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, agreed to the Amendment in

667
principle, but pointed out drafting deficiencies. The Amendment now on the Marshalled List in my name is the result of deliberation by Parliamentary Counsel and therefore can be assumed to be effective for the purposes intended.
The Amendment restricts the power to a constable in uniform. This is in line with Clause 2 of the Bill, which empowers only constables in uniform to require people to take roadside breath tests. Obviously it would be alarming for motorists to be unexpectedly stopped by persons in plain clothes, and it seems only right that this power should be exercised only by police officers in uniform. In this new clause disqualification is described as:
"disqualification for holding or obtaining a licence granted under Part II of the Road Traffic Act, 1960."
This follows the wording of Section 5(8) of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, and it is obviously desirable that this should be so.
One effect which may not be immediately apparent is that, in addition to being able to arrest a person who has been disqualified by a court, the constable may arrest a person who is under age for the vehicle concerned—for example, a person under 21 years of age driving a heavy motor vehicle. Section 107 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, provides that in this case there is a disqualification for holding or obtaining the necessary licence. This is an important point which ought, I think, to be included. I should like to express my gratitude to the Government for accepting this Amendment in principle, and for having been good enough to draft the Amendment in a watertight form. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 29, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Molson.)
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply one question. This is obviously a necessary provision, but what about the person who is not disqualified and who could obtain a licence but just has not got one? In that event will the constable have the power to arrest?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, perhaps I may reply immediately to the point
668
made by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. A person commits an offence if he drives without a road fund licence but he is not disqualified. This Amendment gives a constable the power to arrest without warrant a person whom he has reasonable cause to suspect is driving while disqualified. We are dealing only with that point at the moment, and not with the whole field of persons who may be driving without a licence, either because they have forgotten to obtain one or, alternatively, because they have not applied because they think they will not get one.
On behalf of the Government, I should like to express our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in the first place, for having raised this most important matter. This new power will be most helpful to the police when it is included in the Bill. I should also like to thank the noble Lord for having drawn attention to the fact that it applies only to constables in uniform, and also for having drawn attention to the extra provision in his Amendment; namely, the power residing in constables to arrest persons without warrant if they have reason to suspect that they are under age for the particular type of vehicle they are driving.
I should like to refer to another matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, referred in Committee, when he asked about power being taken to make it obligatory for drivers to carry their licences with them, as is the practice in some other countries. I gave an undertaking to consider that point. We have considered it, and we think that it would be contrary to the normal British practice of not making the citizen carry identifying documents. It would be necessary to make it an offence for a person not to have his licence with him when driving a motor vehicle on the road, but to penalise a driver simply because he had mislaid his licence might lose a certain amount of the general good will which will come from taking the power to arrest a person for driving a vehicle while apparently disqualified.
It is accepted that the general practice of carrying driving licences would not only assist the police but would be to the advantage of law-abiding drivers, since it would enable them to clear themselves with the police straight away. We have reached the conclusion, however, that it would be better at this stage not to

669
create a new offence of not carrying the licence. However, the new power created by this Amendment will be watched carefully, and if experience shows that a good case exists for making it mandatory for drivers to have their driving licences with them, the Government will regard themselves as entirely free to introduce the necessary legislation in due course.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his reply to my noble friend, I should like to join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Molson on his admirable Amendment. But may I, on my own account, utter a word of warning about the idea of making it mandatory to carry one's driving licence? It seems to me that this proposition needs a great deal more thought, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will treat it with great caution.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, could not this matter be left to the discretion of the police? I hardly feel that a policeman would be likely to arrest without warrant anyone who, simply through carelessness, had not got his licence with him, or who perhaps had allowed it to run out because he had forgotten to renew it. The whole purpose of this Amendment is to arrest without warrant those who are driving while disqualified. I think the police have sufficient discretion to know when to arrest and when not to arrest.
6.0 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, after Clause 29, to insert the following new clause:
Revocation of power of court to suspend disqualification of convicted person pending appeal.
" . The power conferred by section 105(1) of the principal Act on the Court by or before whom a person was convicted to suspend his disqualification for holding or obtaining a licence pending his appeal is hereby revoked:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect any such suspension granted by the court before the date of the coming into force of this section."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can put this point extremely briefly and simply. Under Section 105(1) of the principal Act it is provided that when a subordinate court has disqualified a
670
person from driving it may, if it so wishes, suspend the effect of that disqualification pending an appeal to a higher court. No one wants to prevent a person who has been disqualified at a subordinate court from appealing to a superior court and having the matter determined by that court. What is not clear at all is why, if a subordinate court is of the opinion that a person should be disqualified, it should be so doubtful of its own opinion that when it hears that an appeal is to take place it should suspend the operation of the disqualification until the appeal has been heard. If the subordinate court really has great doubts as to whether a person should be disqualified, that subordinate court ought not to order the disqualification. If it is sure in its own mind, and is of the view that a person should be disqualified, he should be disqualified until the appeal has been heard and the disqualification has been quashed by the superior court. It is in order to do away with this anomalous provision that I move the insertion of this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 29 insert the new clause.—(Lord Molson.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope the House will not accept this Amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, will agree to withdraw it. Under Section 105(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1960, the courts have discretion to suspend disqualification pending appeal. This provision has existed since the earliest days of traffic law. For instance, Section 6(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1930 provides for that discretion in words not too dissimilar from those of the 1960 Act, and during all this time the arrangements have, on the whole, worked well. The noble Lord's Amendment seeks to remove this discretion.
In an earlier speech this afternoon may have appeared to be attacking the courts for the way in which they have administered road traffic legislation. I think there is a good deal of evidence that they could have acted less leniently, and, whatever the view they may have taken on the previous Amendment I think most noble Lords would share that view. On the other hand, let us face it, magistrates have a difficult task, in that they have to use their own judgment without

671
having a great deal of basis for comparison. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has said, now that the training of magistrates is just coming into being it may well be that we shall see an improvement, and perhaps a greater degree of conformity throughout the country.
In the case of this legislation, there will be no doubt as to whether a man is guilty or not guilty, in the sense that we shall have the laboratory test, which in itself will be conclusive evidence as to the man's impairment. On the other hand, it may well be that the accused will feel that the lower court has not paid sufficient attention to the manner in which the initial blood tests were taken, or that the administration had not been conducted properly; or there might even be some doubt, as there was in Cardiff, as to whether the blood was that of the accused or of someone else. There is always a possibility of administrative difficulties, and therefore an accused might wish to appeal against the decision of the lower courts.
I would not take away the right of an individual to appeal against the decision of a lower court. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, would agree with me. On the other hand, if a person has been convicted and some time elapses between the hearing in the lower court and the appeal, I think it would be rather hard on that individual if, taking all the circumstances into account, the court had no discretion to suspend the disqualification. If a person were successful on appeal, he having been disqualified and having lost his licence for that period, he may well appear in the public eye to be a victim of injustice, and public opinion in itself could well be affected.
I hope that the noble Lord would feel that the courts can use their discretion in this matter, on the basis of the knowledge that they will have of the case and of the individual, and of the circumstances of the individual before them. As I see it, on grounds of road safety there is no benefit in accepting this Amendment. Disqualification is designed to take the dangerous driver off the road. By removing the court's discretion the period of disqualification will not be increased. If the appeal is dis
672
missed, then the disqualification will start from that time. In other words, lodging an appeal will not be a device to reduce the period of the disqualification.
I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue this Amendment to remove a discretion which, from all the information at my disposal—I think the noble Lord, Lord Molson, would agree that I have done a good deal of digging into the facts and figures of this Bill—is being used sensibly. It has been in practice for some 37 years, and I am not aware of any reasons why we should remove it. I think the matter really falls back on the element of justice. I think that in respect of nearly every offence—in the most severe cases, and even in criminal offences—when an appeal is lodged the courts have a discretion to release the accused on bail between the time of the hearing in the lower court and the appeal.
In those circumstances, I believe it would be wrong to take away the discretion of the court where there is an appeal in relation to a road offence, particularly if to remove it would be to the detriment of the accused. I hope that the noble Lord will see the justice of those words, and will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I certainly shall not press my Amendment. I put it down rather in line with the speech I made earlier this afternoon on another Amendment, because I believe that although the general trend is to tighten up the administration of road safety legislation far more disqualification is desirable. I also criticised the courts for the excessive leniency which they have shown over many years, and I thought that the Amendment which I proposed was in general line with the course of legislation over the last 30 to 35 years. But I do not attach any great importance to it. The noble Lord has advanced strong arguments against it, and therefore I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to correct a technical error. The words which we propose to

673
leave out are merely a redundant heading, which unfortunately was left behind by mistake. The paragraph to which the heading originally related was deleted by an Amendment during Report stage in the other place, but inadvertently the heading remained. The Amendment removes the unnecessary words. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, leave out lines 4 and 5.—(Lord Stonham.)
In the Title:
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved to add to the Title:
"and to empower constables to arrest persons suspected of driving or attempting to drive while disqualified ".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the fact that your Lordships accepted my new clause, which will be Clause 30, means that the Long Title of the Bill as drafted is not sufficiently extensive to cover that new clause. It was in order to move that Amendment, because it was within the scope of the Bill as defined by Erskine May, since the Bills deals with road safety; but the Long Title covered only
"persons driving or being in charge of motor vehicles after consuming alcohol or taking drugs and with respect of goods vehicles."
It is therefore necessary to add to the Long Title words which would include the new Clause 30. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 4, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Molson.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the Government agree with the noble Lord that the Amendment which he is now proposing is consequential upon the earlier Amendment which the Committee accepted empowering constables to arrest without warrant persons whom they suspect of driving whilst disqualified. Therefore I hope that it will be accepted.

THE ROYAL DEFENCE COLLEGE
6.14 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their decision to establish the new Royal Defence College at Shriven-ham rather than at Greenwich. The noble Earl said: My Lords, as I came into the House this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, happened to be coming in at the same time. He said, "This is going to be a pretty dull day". I make no apology—
LORD REA: But do.
EARL JELLICOE: —for making it duller, for raising this issue and for detaining your Lordships for a little time on it. And may I say how glad I am to notice that my noble friend Lord Mottistone has chosen to "break his duck" on this particular wicket?
First, a quick look at the background. At present most embryo officers do their initial training at single Service establishments at Cranwell, Sandhurst and Dartmouth. Those who are specialising in technology also go to single Service colleges—to Cranwell and Greenwich, to the Royal Naval Engineering College at Manadon and to the Royal Imperial College of Science at Shrivenham. Apart from this, Greenwich houses a wide variety—it would be more apt to call it a hotch-potch—of naval technical courses, the Naval Staff Course and the Royal Naval War College.
In their recent White Paper the Government announced far-reaching changes in the present system. In future cadet-entered officers will spend only a short initial period, a year or so, at Dartmouth, Cranwell and Sandhurst. Thereafter, following a short period with their own Service, they will go to the proposed new tri-Service Royal Defence College. There some—the estimate is rather over 50 per cent.—will do a one-year course; the remainder will stay, as undergraduates as it were, working on a three-year course for a degree. Shrivenham has been chosen by the Government in preference to Greenwich as the home both of the new Royal Defence College and of the Royal Defence Academy which will control the Defence College and also the three technological colleges at Shrivenham, Cranwell and Manadon. The future

675
of Greenwich remains obscure. We have been told, rather enigmatically, by Mr. Reynolds, the Minister of Defence (Administration) that he and his colleagues
"are looking at the future use of the actual building at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich."
In my view, there is a lot to be said for much of what the Government propose. I am not opposed in principle to the idea of a tri-Service Defence College as such. I have no intention of beating a single Service naval drum here this evening. Nor am I opposed to the emphasis being laid on the obtaining of a degree within the Services. Far from it. The Services, in these technological and complicated days, really need bright young men as never before. Those who wish to "go places" in a post-Robbins society need degrees in their knapsacks—and this applies to Service officers as much as to anybody else—as never before. It is right that the Services should do everything possible to attract young men and women with degree ability and, having attracted them, to make it possible for them to realise their full potential.
Nevertheless, I am deeply concerned about the Government's specific decision to opt for Shrivenham rather than Greenwich as the home of the new Defence College. I am concerned on the merits of the case itself and also because I believe this could mean a break in the long links which have bound Greenwich to the Armed Forces. I also deplore the hugger-mugger way in which Mr. Healey and his Ministers are going about this matter.
I would recall to your Lordships that the Government asked two distinguished men, Mr. Cyril English and Professor Michael Howard, to advise them on these matters some time ago. Mr. Cyril English is a senior Inspector of Education, and Mr. Michael Howard is the Professor of War Studies at King's College. I do not question the Government's seeking advice from these two people; they could not possibly have chosen better people from whom to get it. We have been told that Mr. English and Professor Howard reported some months ago and recommended not only the establishment of this new Defence College but also that it should be sited at Greenwich
676
rather than at Shrivenham, and it has been rumoured that this proposal was backed by the Chiefs of Staff. Both these matters are rumours. The Government have deliberately drawn a cloak of silence round their decision. They have failed, hitherto at least, to respond to questions on this matter put to them in another place from both sides of the House.
Mr. Healey, in answer to a request for the publication of the Howard-English Report, returned a remarkably uninformative "No". And the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, last week tried to fob me off, if I may say so, with the feeble excuse that this was a personal report to the Secretary of State—some sort of personal billet doux—and that it would be quite contrary to normal practice to publish it. It was really asking a lot of our credulity to state that it would be contrary to normal practice to publish this Report. Certainly, at least one of the authors of the Report wrote it in the belief that it was going to be published. I think I am right in saying that many of the people who gave evidence to the two distinguished authors of the Report, gave evidence in the belief that the Report was going to be published.
Of course, if the Secretary of State so chose, it would be perfectly easy for him to "come clean" with this Report. I cannot, for the life of me, see why, when we are made privy to all the proceedings of private meetings of the Party opposite, we cannot be made privy to Howard and English. We have had Newsom, we have had Robbins, we have had Plowden, and I again ask that we should have Howard and English.
After all, it is this Government which has said time and time again that they want to tell Parliament and the public more of the facts on which to base judgment on Defence matters. It has always been the proud boast of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—and I am very glad to see that he is safely back from Aden—that they are doing so. And yet they deny us access to this perfectly harmless Report on a subject of great general interest. I ask the noble Lords opposite to take their courage in both hands and to publish and—I hope—be damned. They would dispel a great deal of suspicion if they were to do so. But if they will not, I should like to ask the

677
noble Lord who will be replying two questions. Can he confirm that the Howard—English Report came down in favour of Greenwich as the home for the new Defence College; and was this judgment backed by that of the Chiefs of Staff? In default of this information—the information contained in the Report—it is, of course, not easy for the outsider, and I would not pretend that it was easy, to judge the relative merits of the Government's decision to opt for Shrivenham rather than for Greenwich. On the face of it the decision strikes me as rather a rum one.
Essentially what will be created here in the new Royal Defence College is a new university—albeit a small one. I should have thought that Greenwich would he an ideal setting for such a university, given its long associations and its marvellous associations with the Armed Forces, given its splendid setting and given its close access to London. There is a serious point here. An institution like this needs to recruit the best resident staff it possibly can. It has to be able to attract also the best outside lecturers it can. I should have thought that the London area would be much more attractive to staff. I should also have thought that it was much easier for lecturers to get down to somewhere like Greenwich than to go off into the country, into the middle of Wiltshire. Again, if the present policy is to be pursued, the idea that the Defence College should be closely associated with a centre for higher strategic studies—and I think this is a very good idea—I should reckon this idea to be a non-starter.
I am not running down Shrivenham. Far be it from me to run down my favourite county, my home county, Wiltshire. But it seems rather odd to plunk down a new university right in the middle of the Vale of the White Horse. At Greenwich all that Greater London has to offer is easily accessible to both staff and students, but at Shrivenham what do you have? You have Swindon. If this decision is pursued, the casualty rate on the Oxford and London roads among the young men at Shrivenham may be rather high.
Apart from this there are the facts—unless the noble Lord can deny them—not only that the Government's own com
678
mittee of inquiry recommended in favour of Greenwich, but that the Borough Council of Greenwich themselves are deeply disappointed at the decision to opt for Shrivenham, and deeply anxious that it should be changed. When they are strong these local feelings and associations count for a very great deal.
The Government have advanced two reasons for their preference for Shrivenham. In the first place, Mr. Reynolds has told us that there will be a slight advantage—note, my Lords, the adjective "slight"—in terms of cost in locating the Defence College along with the Defence Academy at Shrivenham. If this cost advantage is indeed slight, then I would claim that it does not begin to counterbalance the disadvantages. But is this advantage, in fact, a genuine one? Can the noble Lord confirm that it is based on careful costings? What is his answer to the claim of his former colleague in another place, Mr. Mayhew, who knows a great deal about the Navy and a good deal about Greenwich, that there will be a very serious waste of public funds if this decision is adhered to? Can he deny specifically that £1 million or so of additional expenditure is likely to be incurred by the need to build from scratch the extra accommodation required at Shrivenham?
The noble Lord may prefer to stand on the second leg of the Government's argument, that accommodation and facilities at Shrivenham can be expanded but that expansion cannot take place at Greenwich. Is this argument really justified? The Government apparently anticipate that there will in due course be some 700 students at Shrivenham. Was this estimate made before or after the last swing of Mr. Healey's economy axe? By how much will the next swing cut it down?
I suggest that these accommodation arguments need close examination. It is, of course, a matter into which the Minister whom I would judge from his position in the Ministry to be chiefly responsible, Mr. Reynolds, has gone closely in the past. It is true that Greenwich at present houses only something like 350 students of one sort or another, But in the memorandum which Mr. Reynolds submitted to the Estimates Committee on Services Colleges three years ago, to support his contention that

679
Greenwich should become a new civilian university, Mr. Reynolds, who now says that Greenwich cannot hold 700 students, used the following words. I quote from his memorandum:
"… such a university"—
that is to say Greenwich—
"could expand to absorb a student population of about 1,000 (500 residential) within three years in the existing buildings and eventually to 5,000 with the erection of additional buildings on Crown and other land within two miles of the College".
That is the same man who now claims that Greenwich could not hold 700 students.
I am not only relying on the Minister himself to support my contention here; I am also relying on the people who know Greenwich as well, perhaps, as anyone does. They are the members of the General Purposes Committee of the Borough Council. As I have said, the Borough Council are deeply disappointed at the Government's decision. They have pointed out that their plans for the redevelopment of Greenwich and for a new by-pass road round it could
"open tip interesting possibilities for the development of land which could perhaps be considered for a Service precinct' as part of the local development plan".
They have gone on to say that, despite the sale of War Office land in the Greenwich-Woolwich area—and I quote their words—
"there remain immense possibilities for the further and more intensive development and use of the former Royal Military Academy, the Royal Herbert Hospital and other adjacent areas of military land where, if it be felt desirable, opportunities exist to establish both the new Royal Defence College and the proposed Royal Defence Academy in close proximity".
So you see, my Lords, that both the present Minister, when he was not a Minister, and the Borough Council feel the Minister's accommodation argument, now that he is a Minister, to be nonsense. I shall be glad to hear the noble Lord develop this accommodation point further. I hope the Government will think again about this decision, as I believe they are passing over a marvellous opportunity of establishing this new Defence College, the idea of which I support, and possibly the Academy as well in the best possible site, and that they are choosing instead the second best.
680
But if the noble Lord cannot convince me that the arguments for Shrivenham are sound, and if he cannot tell us that he is prepared to reconsider this decision, I hope he can at least assure us that the Government have no intention—no intention whatsoever—of severing the cord which has bound Greenwich to the Armed Forces for so long. Because, my Lords, we are dealing here with a very special place. There is the whole long history of Greenwich. It impregnates our national history, from the time when Humphry, Duke of Gloucester, built Bella Court there in the 15th Century. Henry VIII was born there, and so on. The Service link, of course, goes back three centuries, to 1694, when Greenwich was converted into a naval hospital on the analogy of the Invalides and Chelsea, as a thanksgiving for the victory at La Hogue.
But it is not only the history of the buildings, it is the buildings themselves which concern us. The group, including the Queen's House, is the work of many of our greatest architects—Inigo Jones, Wren, Hawksmoor, Vanbrugh, Campbell, Ripley—it is a very long list. We also read in Pevsner's Guide to London that
"the whole group of hospital buildings has rightly been called the most precious of buildings we possess."
There he is quoting Sir Charles Reilly. I think that most of us who know these buildings well will not dissent from Pevsner's expert judgment on that matter.
My Lords, there seem to me, speaking as a layman in these matters, to be two possibilities, if the Government stubbornly adhere to their decision to opt for Shrivenham, by which Greenwich could be found a good and useful function without severing the Service link. One possibility, of course, would be to base there a Staff College for all three Services. I should have found that very attractive, but I suspect that that, as it were, is water over the dam at a result of the Government's decision to locate all the three Service Colleges in the Camberley area.
Another possibility would be to use Greenwich as a centre for post-graduate studies for all three Services. I am inclined to think that such a centre may well be needed in the future. I am also inclined to think that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, to whom the

681
Navy owes so much in matters of higher education, not only knows a great deal more about that aspect of the matter than I do but also may be saying something to your Lordships which bears on it in a moment.
However, be that as it may, if the Government have decided to adhere to their decision about the Defence College—and I hope they have not—I trust they may he at least able to reassure us that the links which have bound the Services for three centuries to this historic town and to this great range of buildings will not be broken. I hope that on that, at least, the noble Lord, when he replies, can give us an unequivocal assurance.
6.34 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, it is indeed a great privilege for me to address your Lordships' House, though sad, perhaps, that the opportunity has come to me somewhat earlier than I would have hoped. I have, of course, listened to your Lordships' debates over many years, and perhaps it would not be inappropriate to repeat now what my own noble father said to me some many years ago. He told me: "When you have the occasion to address the House of Lords, you will find a group of wise, benevolent and, of course, noble gentlemen." I should add that this was in the days before ladies were happily admitted to your Lordships' Chamber. He went on to say: "As debates progress, you will of course realise that their Lordships are still benevolent and noble, but you may start to have doubts about their wisdom. It is at that stage that you want to be careful, because you may find that they are wiser than you are".
That, my Lords, was a slight digression. I must now return to our subject, Greenwich. And I must start by declaring an interest, because I have received some of the best and most valuable education, in a long list of places at which I have received such education in the Naval Service, at the Royal Naval College at Greenwich. The education at Greenwich is most easily summed up (and these remarks, I think, supplement what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has just said) by the inspiration which that place gives you. It is the most remarkable group of buildings in which to contemplate your future and the work that you have to do, whatever it may be.
682
It may be said that this could apply to any group of people, not just Service officers—and I hasten to say at this point that, like my noble friend, I hold no particular brief, in the long-term, for Greenwich to be retained by the Navy; what I have to say applies equally to the officers of any of the three Services—but it would not, I hope, be impertinent to remind your Lordships that the great difference between a group of people who are in the Fighting Services and any other group of people who are educated is that they have to be prepared to risk their lives. It is because of this that such people require inspiration, and they require inspiration in just the sense that Greenwich gives it to them. They require, of course, a great deal of other inspiration; and the background that one gets from Greenwich is itself not only not enough but is probably a long time removed from the time when this extra strengthening is required, as one commits onself or one's forces to action.
These things, perhaps, are not said these days, but I think this is something which needs saying. There is a great tendency nowadays to say that everything must be cost-effective: "The material aspect of everything must be got dead right, let us forget about the sentiment". In some respects, this is a good thing. There is a lot that is flabby in our country, and there are some things, but not many, which are flabby in the Services. But we must get this in balance, and the practical points which need to be considered must be balanced against what one might call the spiritual points.
It is also a fact that we live in a very material world. With that, I am sure none of your Lordships would disagree. In everyday life, as one is battered by the material temptations—one might even say the material inconveniences of travelling in Tube trains and the like—it is important to have somewhere to which to retreat, as it were, to re-charge one's spiritual batteries. It is this sort of thing that Greenwich provides; and it is perhaps more important for the Services, which require this spiritual background so greatly, to have this facility given them. Indeed, it is what happens in the case of most Naval officers now. I would say also that it happens to most Army officers. I have not had the privilege of visiting equivalent R.A.F. establishments, but I

683
would doubt it for them because they have the great misfortune of having had their buildings built too late.
Here I come to a difficult point, because I understand that the Rules are that I must not be controversial; so I shall have to accept the fact that if the Government say they are going to Shrivenham, then they are. But I would suggest to your Lordships that in this rather nasty, material age of ours we shall get a rather nasty, material building built at Shrivenham for our purposes—conglomeration of concrete, steel and glass, arrayed in some practical fashion which appeals to some people, I suppose, but which is certainly not what one might call inspirational. The sort of building I have in mind—although perhaps this is slightly unfair—is the new town hall in Toronto, which is, I suppose, the ugliest building it has ever been my misfortune to see. There will be, I am sure your Lordships will agree, this material aspect of the new buildings at Shrivenham.
Therefore, if we must go there, I would humbly suggest that it is even more important that Greenwich should be used for further education of the Fighting Services. Because not only will Greenwich be needed to counter the ordinary nastiness of everyday life, and to provide this background in which people can study their profession, think out where they are going and from which they can go out to fight their enemy with the feeling that they are defending something worthwhile—not only will Greenwich be needed for that, it will be needed also to counteract the effects of the nasty buildings at Shrivenham.
6.40 p.m.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, it is my great pleasure to have the privilege of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on his beautifully-presented and very moving maiden speech. I had my eyes on the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, before he spoke and, if I may say so, he looked a great deal more composed than I myself felt in like circumstances a fortnight ago. May I hope that we shall hear much from the noble Lord in future debates.
I should like to make two points which do not bear, initially, on the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. They
684
really amount to questions of which I have given prior notice. But before doing so I wish to express my personal satisfaction with the decision of Her Majesty's Government to establish the Royal Defence Academy as a federation of the Royal Naval Engineering College at Manadon, the Royal Military College of Science at Shrivenham, and the Engineering Department of the Royal Air Force Establishment at Cranwell, together with the Royal Defence College to which the noble Earl has referred. I have been privileged on several occasions during recent years to be associated with the educational work and problems of the Navy and Army colleges, and I should like to say immediately how much I have appreciated and enjoyed these opportunities. I should also like to pay tribute to the excellent facilities which have been provided in these colleges, and particularly to the loyalty, enthusiasm and devotion of the teaching staffs in circumstances in which the future development of their colleges was a matter of uncertainty, and where recruitment of good, promising student officers was very difficult.
But I must now say that I have not been altogether happy about the separation of the Service colleges one from another and about the differences between their organisational and educational arrangements. This separation and the educational differences presumably have their origins in the historical development and traditions, and in the distinctive features and functions of the three Services. But in my opinion it becomes increasingly difficult to justify this separation and these differences on either educational or financial grounds. I therefore welcome the important step that has now been taken towards closer co-operation and co-ordination provided for under the concept of the Royal Defence Academy and the Royal Defence College.
I hope, however, that the arrangements that have been decided upon are not to be regarded as more than the first step towards the longer-term objective of creating an aggregation of the facilities at Manadon, Shrivenham and Cranwell on a single site or campus. I should like to look forward to the creation of a composite inter-Service environment of sufficient physical size, student population and diversity of courses to justify the concept of an inter-Service university. It is for

685
this reason, I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that I could not come down in favour of Greenwich as the most desirable centre for the new Royal Defence College, because I cannot believe that the Greenwich environment could prove adequate in the longer-term to provide the necessary facilities of an inter-Service university. I shall have some words to say about Greenwich a little later.
May I ask Her Majesty's Government, when considering any further development of the facilities of the constituent colleges, to have in mind the desirability of this long-term objective? I do not by any means under-estimate the difficulties; but I am convinced that there will be considerable educational and economic benefits, and that to bring the students of the three Services together on a single campus to continue their undergraduate education together would contribute greatly to later inter-Service collaboration, and would produce in the officers concerned a greater measure of adaptability to the changes within the defence organisation which I think will be an inevitable consequence of further technological developments.
My Lords, this brings me to the second question. It is now widely recognised—in principle, if not in practice—that the completion of an undergraduate course and the attainment of a first degree in engineering and technology by no means represents the end of the educational process in these subjects. What is needed at present—and will, I believe, be needed increasingly—is a continuation of this educational process deeply into the career. This will involve participation, at appropriate stages, in post-graduate courses (of short or long duration) in specialist fields, and particularly in the newly-developing ones. I see no reason to doubt that these needs—which are becoming increasingly complex in respect of industry—will not apply equally to the Services. The growth of post-graduate courses has been a prominent feature of university and college of technology development in this country in recent years. I feel sure that this will also become a feature of the future development of the Service colleges, both individually and collectively.
There was recently published the Report of a Committee of the Council for Scientific Policy, under the chairmanship of Sir Gordon Sutherland, which dealt with the liaison at post-graduate stage
686
between the universities and the research and development establishments of Government. I understand from the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, that this Report is to be brought within the scope of the debate he will be initiating in the near future on the administrative arrangements between the Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Technology on a national science and technology policy. If I may anticipate that debate, I should like to say that the Report is concerned with several aspects of university development, but particularly with the degree to which members of the research and development establishments of Government can participate in university activities, in two respects particularly: first, participation as teachers in appropriate post-graduate courses and, secondly, as joint participants with university staff members and students in the conduct of joint research and development projects.
My contacts with both the Navy and the Army suggest to me that there is great scope for similar development within the Services. I have found it disappointing that there is not, or appears not to be, very close collaboration between Service colleges and the research and development establishments of their respective Services. Again based on my university experience, I have no difficulty in appreciating the problems involved in this kind of collaboration, but I should have thought that the Services were in a particularly good position to develop this aspect of collaboration since the staff and students are, as it were, all within the control of Government, and therefore the problems which are raised as between the universities and Government establishments would be relaxed considerably in this respect.
I think that the development of this kind of collaboration in respect of postgraduate teaching and joint research projects would benefit the staff members of the establishments, in that I have always found teaching activities to be a valuable supplement to the carrying out of research, and I think it would be for the good of some of the staff members of establishments to he required to give courses of lectures to advanced students within their special fields. I think it would benefit also the staff members of the teaching colleges if they could become involved in appropriate problems being undertaken by the research and development establishments. I should

687
therefore like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will do everything possible to stimulate the development of a closer partnership between the Service colleges and the research and development establishments in these two respects.
If I may, my Lords, I will comment briefly on what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said about Greenwich. I was privileged to be Chairman of the Education Advisory Committee for Greenwich over a number of years, terminating, I think, about two years ago, and I should therefore like to express my deep affection and regard for the College, my sense of privilege in having been associated with it, and my wish that there should be no doubt as to the aim to create a significant educational purpose for Greenwich.
This does not mean that I go with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in the concept of what this educational purpose should be. I should like to see Greenwich developed as a post-graduate inter-Service institution; in precisely what respects would need a good deal of thought, because of course the other colleges will also need to participate in post-graduate activities in due course. Nevertheless, I have little doubt that there is a special function which Greenwich could perform in this respect, and I think it is particularly fortunately placed being in close proximity to London University which would permit the development of a partnership with the appropriate postgraduate schools of London University in this particular development. It is contrary to my wish to differ from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in this respect, but at least we are of the same mind in wishing that the future of Greenwich shall be assured.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I correct what is perhaps a misapprehension? I may have been misunderstood. I was asking the Government to reconsider the decision which has been taken on the location of the Defence College at Shrivenham, but I thought I had made it clear that, if the Government are unable to reconsider that decision, I for one would strongly support the idea, as a second best, of Greenwich becoming a post-graduate centre for the three Services. I should certainly support that idea very strongly.
6.55 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, with your permission I should like to support my noble friend Lord Jellicoe in his request to the Government that they should reconsider this decision. Before I go on to make my very brief remarks on that, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Mottistone on his maiden speech. I thought it excellent, and I hope that we may hear from him often again. I have the sort of feelings about Greenwich which he described so vividly; though I must admit that, due to my age and the fact that I was at sea during World War I, when I should normally have gone to Greenwich, I never did the sub-lieutenant course there which was, of course, the highlight of any Naval career—one of the reasons being that it was very convenient to the bright lights of London which I think were probably even brighter in those days than they are now.
I am also venturing to intervene in this debate because several years ago, when speaking in a defence debate, I urged the then Government, which was composed of my noble friends, to take steps to bring the officers of the three Services together at as early a stage as possible in their careers. Therefore I am strongly in favour of this Royal Defence College which, as I understand it, will take the officers from the three Services at a very early age.
The other reason why I venture to intervene in this debate is that a noble relative of mine, whop achieved the great position of First Lord of the Admiralty, took a great interest in Greenwich College. It was due to his work and interest that many of the now famous features at Greenwich, in particular the Painted Hall, are with us as we know them to-day. Although I could not take my sub-lieutenant course in 1915 because I was elsewhere, your Lordships will be amused to hear that I had my first education at Greenwich in 1939 when I took a retired officers' course. Finally, my Lords, I had one more contact with Greenwich during the war—though of course I have been there often since—when I had the honour to be invited as a guest to the passing-out dinner by one of the first W.R.N. officers to pass through the abbreviated Staff course.

689
For these and for other obvious reasons—I am a Naval man—Greenwich has a great appeal to me, and I think that it would be nothing short of a tragedy if it were allowed to pass out of use by the Services. I hope that, preferably, it will be used on a tri-Service basis. If the Government advance reasons why the Royal Defence College should not go there, I urge them to use it for postgraduate courses for serving officers.
6.58 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, before replying to this evening's debate, which I have found extremely interesting, may I take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on his maiden speech? I thought it a model of clarity and composure, and although the noble Lord reined himself in towards the end of what he had to say, I am certain that, now that he has broken the ice, we can look forward to some hard-hitting contributions from him, particularly on the subject on which he is so uniquely qualified to speak. I believe that the defence debate is next Tuesday.
My Lords, having had the pleasure of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I must now, I am afraid, give a somewhat unsatisfactory Answer to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who is pressing for a reconsideration of Her Majesty's Government's decision to move the confederation of Defence Colleges to Shrivenham. Part of the difficulty of my duty is taken away by the fact that every noble Lord who has spoken supports the policy of joint education on a tri-Service basis. Though I should like to answer the noble Earl, who asked me two straight questions, in specific terms, I think that with his experience he must realise that all the reasons for the decisions of a Department such as the Ministry of Defence cannot be made public. It is true that my noble friends want to give the House as much information as they can. They want to give more of the facts; but all of the facts—no. I say with regret that I cannot confirm precisely what led up to the Government's decision on the location of the combined Colleges, or what Professor Howard and Mr. English actually said; but I do know that at the end of the day both agreed to the decision that was reached.
690
That decision was taken only after a most careful study of all the factors involved, both in the short term and looking further ahead into the future. While it was felt that Greenwich would provide an adequate home for the Royal Defence College of to-day, it would be quite inadequate as the long-term location if our ultimate aims are to be achieved.
Here I am fortified by the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley. The noble Earl asked me whether accurate costings were made, and whether they were the main factor influencing the Government in their decision. Cost was only one of the factors, probably the secondary factor, in this decision. The main factor was the possibility of bringing together on one site a large number of the existing organisations and, at the end of the day, creating the equivalent of a Defence University. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, made is entirely valid. We want to see at Shrivenham something which is a genuine university, where not only instruction but also research and development go on. The point which the noble Lord made, that the Ministry of Defence should link teaching establishments with the many and varied research establishments, is one which I am certain will be studied with sympathy by those responsible. And I hope that they will study this debate to-day.
I share with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, one concern and here perhaps he is speaking to the man who is to a certain degree responsible. Buildings will have to be erected which are suitable for the purposes for which they are intended. These could be cheap and nasty, or they could have something of the inspirational value which exists at Greenwich. It would be my Ministry that would have to deal with this aspect. I shall bear carefully in mind what the noble Lord has said and bring it to the notice of my colleagues. It is important to my Ministry that the work we do is publicly recognised as being of high quality. Otherwise we cannot attract the good young professional men at the beginning of their careers to do this type of work. For the reason of prestige alone, Shrivenham is a great opportunity which should be seized.
I should like to join with all noble Lords in saying how much I hope that

691
the link between Greenwich and the Armed Services is not severed. I noticed that noble Lords did not speak specifically of the Royal Navy but of all the Services. I have had quite a long experience of the work of the great institution at Greenwich. When I was in another place I had the good fortune to be asked to lecture regularly at Staff courses at Greenwich, and I saw something of the institution from inside. It was a stimulating and valuable experience. To think of this building as being the headquarters of the South-Eastern Gas Board is something that many of us feel would be intolerable.
Proposals have been made for using it as a post-graduate centre for the Armed Services, for post-graduate courses similar to those undertaken by professional men in all the erudite professions. I think that this is certainly one service which they could provide for the community. Again, I hope that the views of noble Lords will be studied by the Department concerned. It is true that to recruit visiting lecturers
692
is easier at Greenwich than at Shrivenham, but it should not be forgotten that there is a University at Oxford, which is not far away, and others at Bristol and Southampton which are also within striking distance, particularly as communications between London and the West get better. Provided that the quality of the facilities to be created at Shrivenham, the quality of the buildings and—should I say?—the standard of remuneration are right, I do not see why this tri-Service university should not be able to attract men of the highest calibre, particularly if part-time professors could be recruited from the research establishments.
I regret that I cannot give the noble Earl a more satisfactory answer, because personally I am in sympathy with much that he has said. But the decisions which Her Majesty's Government have reached on this subject were not reached lightly, and I feel that at this stage we cannot possibly consider reversing them.
House adjourned at eight minutes past seven o'clock.